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]
I am a 52 year old unknown stockbroker and am a ssure I would have been a better pick than Harriet Miers.
First of all I would be CERTAIN to vote with Scalia and Thomas 99.9% of the time. I have the same judicial experience as her (zero), the same law review experience (zero) and have written just as many published articles on constitutional themes as she (zero).
I went to more highly regarded schools than her, have a twenty year record of speaking out publicly on Pro-Life matters including being an officer in Pro-Life organizations and publisher of Pro-Life newsletters. You KNOW I would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade and Kelo. I'm a life member of the NRA, and a non-lawyer member of the Federalist Society.
I can show can prove through cancelled checks that in the last twenty years I have supported scores of Pro-Life conservative candidates, and numerous organizations supporting property rights, right to work, religious freedom, ACLJ, Focus on the Family, military support organizations, Immigration reform groups etc.
In short I have been taking a conservative stand and supporting conservative conservative causes for over 25 years in ways that are easily documented.
I am not unique. Most Freepers can make the same claims and thus would also be superior nominees to this cypher of a woman, Harriet Miers, who has gone through life without ever taking a documentable stand on anything of importance.
I was NOT a registered Democrat thoughout the entire Reagan Presidency like she was. In 1988 she was writing checks to pro-choicer Al Gore for his Presidential run. She was telling gay groups she supported gay rights in her Dallas city council race.
In 2005 we are told she's a super conservative for Bush and supposedly pro-life. Then W tells us that she won't change for the NEXT 20 years. Huh? How can he assure us of that? Sounds like Souter II to me. (actually he sounded more conservative and had better credentials when nominated).
Bush tells us we must support her because she is an evangelical Christian. That is undeniably a plus but it is no guarantee. Jimmy Carter is too but you wouldn't want him on the SCOTUS. I have been outraged by this nomination since the minute I heard it.
Conservative legal icon Robert Bork calls the pick "a disaster on every level".
I am a guy who was involved in both Bush campaigns in Florida and my wife and I were in the thick of the recount battles of 2000. We have defended W for seven years even through the out of control spending and the outrageous presciption drug fiasco but this nomination was a stabb in the back.
I am astounded that so many Freepers who ought to know better are defending this disgraceful insulting pick. Bush had a chance to make history but he squandered it on a crony whose only qualification for this critical appointment is that she's been kissing his butt for ten years.
We elected him President, not King. This is an affront to all the lawyers who have dedicated themselves to constitutional law. Defeating this nomination and replacing her with someone who has earned the spot in ways other than sucking up to the boss (Luttig, Estrada, Brown, Alito, Edith Jones, Clement, McConnell) would be the best thing that could happen for Conservatism in America. Having shown enough clout to derail a SCOTUS nomination the Republican party might stop taking us for granted and realize who gave them their cushy jobs.
I urge all of you to get out as many emails and letters to Senators as possible. If we keep up the pressure WE CAN DERAIL THIS NOMINEE. We must do it to ensure to the future of conservatism in the US.
"Equal civil rights for homosexuals" is vague. Those who use that language often intend it to be code for terming state-sanctioned marriage as discriminatory. Where does she stand on that, and why would any competent President take a chance on someone who didn't stand in support of marriage?
I stand corrected. Thanks.
Funny you should say this; I just read an article (quoting the National Catholic Register, Oct. 13, 2005) that states one of Harriet Miers' long time friends swears Miers was raised in the Catholic faith, but that she left the Church around 1979 to become a 'born again evangelist'. They checked with the archdiocese in Dallas to look up her baptism and First Holy Communion documents. They found nothing.
That said, the bad news just keeps coming in about Miers. She apostasized from her original faith, and to me that has meaning. She had feminist leanings by helping to found a feminist lecture circuit whose first speaker was Gloria Steinham, and according to the Catholic World News, (October 3, 2005), "Meirs donated to Democrats Albert Gore and Lloyd Bentsen in the 1980s, according to records released by the Federal Election Commission."
Maybe she will turn out to be a great Supreme Court Justice, I certainly hope so if she is confirmed. But I can't help but wonder why President Bush overlooked so many great conservative Federal Justices out there with enormous Constitutional knowledge.
We still know nothing about Roberts, and could easily be disappointed in him as well--there is plenty of evidence he could turn out to be another Kennedy.
I thought he was saying he was NOT qualified, and that neither is Harriet Miers.
Absolutely.
Point of fact. I was in a "holding pattern" of sorts with Roberts, despite the punditry, up to the day of his hearings. I dunno, I guess it was because he had that air about him, and look on his face like as though he didn't want to be there, when President Bush announced him as the nominee in July.
Thanks for the new tagline!
She opposed the lifting of the Texas sodomy statute. It's unlikely, given that she thinks the state has the right to regulate what two people do in the privacy of a bedroom (which I oppose, BTW), that she would approve of gay marriage.
lol
Against her: The Corner, Tucker Carlson, Bill Kristol, Robert Bork, Mark Levin, George Will, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Michael Savage, and Charles Krauthhammer.
Quite frankly I would rather be in Miers' size 6 shoes.
You forgot a few:
For Miers &/or defending her: Harry Reid, Arlen Specter, & Barbara Mikulski.
Against or in serious doubt: Rush Limbaugh, David Limbaugh, Pat Buchanan, Alan Keyes, GWB speechwriter David Frum, Phyllis Schlafly, Ben Shapiro, Michelle Malkin, Terence Jeffrey, Tony Blankley, Peggy Noonan, Sam Brownback, Bob Novak, & Linda Chavez. Even Jonah Goldberg has reservations about the Miers pick.
Tucker Carlson was never mentioned by me. I think he's a phony twit. As for not being an HTML wiz, I confess. Big F****** Deal. And to all you loathesome creatures who imply that I'm some kind of Liberal plant (particurly the creep who mentioned the name rodomila with the despicable Clinton who I have spent the last 14 years fighting with every fiber of my being) - Go To Hell. Who are you to question my conservative bonafides. Were you putting up Golwater yard signs at the age of 12 like I was? I didn't think so.
He has also justified the choice of Miers, IIRC.
Boy, your over-the-top language convinced me. Not.
You know, I think I am liking this whole Miers thing.
First, I know Bush could have done better with this pick in many respects. And yet, because Bush hasn't let us down with this thing before, I am convinced that she is likely a conservative.
The president could have nominated another Scalia, sure, but would the rank-and-file conservatives have had enough toughness to really and truly and un-abashedly defend such a person as a "known entity"? I'd have to answer no, not before the Miers nomination.
What I am saying is, if this were Luttig we were defending right now, we'd likely be just that - defensive. But after this, if that same Luttig is the next nominee, it's all offense.
So, instead of "maybe getting a Luttig, and giving the libs some mo' in the process", we're instead "maybe getting a Miers, and darned well better get a Luttig" on the next go-round.
And, yeah, there is no guarantee we get another go-round with this President & Senate. But I still can't shake the feeling that we needed all this to get ourselves ready.
Am I the only one thinking this?
Rodomila, you have my vote.
All you others that blasted his lack of HTML knowledge and want to "wait until the hearings" need to rethink where this is heading. If this makes it to the confirmation hearings, unless something extraordinary comes out, it will be too late and too difficult for Republican senators to deal Bush such a significant blow. If you are waiting to see how she performs in the hearing room, perhaps you should raise the bar a little, given her known lack of qualifications and relevant experience.
This nominee should never make it to the hearings. The risk of a blown opportunity is too great. While it may be a defeat to the administration for Miers to walk away, SCOTUS takes priority over the administration. If confirmed, Miers, like Souter, will be around long after GWB is out of office.
If she was qualified, the administration would have convinced us by now, given the beating it has taken over the last two weeks.
By the way, although you appear very pound of the fact that you "know" HTML, it really doesn’t help your argument.
lets not forget about her meals on wheels experience haha
See right side column under October 14, 2005, 2:16 AM
Guess you aren't more qualified then a person who has spent their life being a Top Corporate lawyer. Since both Judge Pickering and Scalia do NOT agree with either you or Ann, you both lose. BTW, as a Conservative are you NOT just a little embarrassed to be adopting the Hysteric Left's "You peons are too stupid to be involved with this, you need one of us enlighten ones to do this for you" argument?
Dittos. *snicker*
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.