Posted on 10/13/2005 9:53:08 PM PDT by rodomila
Edited on 10/14/2005 4:40:04 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
No more tiresome than those who refuse to give a reason (Constitutionally) why she is unfit for the Nomination. And please don't quote the opinions of the talking heads, just list the reasons why she should bow out because the laws of our land say she should
Oh yes we do. We have a full description of this 3rd rate legal hack, good ol' Texas gal, political insider, Bush brown-noser. She has been busy busy busy. What you hope to get us believe is that on top of 18 hrs a day working to be a mediocrity she had a crypto-career as a conservative and constitutional scholar. Well, it is a good story. Stick to it.
No one is constitutionally unfit for this job, except say, a convicted felon, an illegal immigrant, or a previously impeached SC justice. That leaves 300 Million people to pick from. The constitution does not forbid, for instance, Hillary, or Jesse or even me. I would like to believe that the Senate feels it within it power to assure itself that someone possesses the intellectual horsepower not to make the place a laughing stock.
You would be a bad pick because you have a publicized agenda.
Dubya's cronies & stooges can go pound sand, imho.
The Miers nomination is a product of W's intellectually lazy fratboy mentality. I thought Cheney or Rove was supposed to be watching him!
Up until I read about this in the local paper, I had never in my life heard of Carlson since I don't watch TV, and I am insulted that the college has the power to decide for the community who they will tell us is a spokesman for conservatism.
I do know that the college committee has been overheard saying they only need one conservative about every 10 years -- and for this ten-year period they picked for us some non-entity who I do not believe even is a conservative as I know the term.
That's gonna leave a mark, dude. LOL
MJY1288 wrote:
"No more tiresome than those who refuse to give a reason (Constitutionally) why she is unfit for the Nomination. And please don't quote the opinions of the talking heads, just list the reasons why she should bow out because the laws of our land say she should"
With all due respect, the debate is not about whether Miers should withdraw for “Constitutional” reasons or “because the laws of our land say she should”. Of course she has every right to be nominated (and possibly serve) for SCOTUS. This debate is about Mier’s judicial philosophy and her capability to be a reliable judicial conservative if she were to be confirmed.
If you want another Justice in the mold of Scalia and Thomas and if you have read any of the mainstream and conservative articles and blogs regarding Mier’s background and qualifications, you, as a conservative, should have sufficient reason to be very concerned about Harriet Miers. If, after reviewing all the arguments and facts, you still think she can defend her history and convince Senators and the conservative base during the hearings that she is a judicial conservative, then I would argue that you have set the bar too low. Dangerously low.
Ann must have been lurking... A link to this thread is on her site...
Boy...when you put it that way...it makes me realize how hard Dubya kicked us in the balls.
Doh!
"I went to more highly regarded schools than her..."
Did they speak English at those highly regarded schools?
:-)
Nor are you aware that AlGore was proLife back in 1988. He only altered his stance when he joined the Bubba's ticket of disgrace.
I will confess: I do not know Ms. Miers very well, but that is the problem. From what I have been able to discern, she is David Souter in drag. There is plenty in her past to suggest that this is the case and nothing to suggest that she will be an originalist in the mold of a Scalia or Thomas. Since the hearings typically devolve into a bully pulpit for the Democrats, I can't imagine I will really learn much from them. I don't want to find out the hard way that she is a judicial activist.
The "Hang Harriet" gloss is a bit much. Those of us who are opposed to Ms. Miers are not giving her the type of treatment that originalist and conservative judges get from the likes of Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer. Instead, we are giving rational arguments that when it comes to evidence of the proper judicial philosophy, this nominee is severely wanting.
I have nothing against Ms. Miers personally, I just don't think she belongs on the Court (not when we have a Republican president and a Republican/RINO Senate).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.