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.
Right on.
Unless she is withdrawn and a bonfide, verifiable with documentation, rock solid, constitutional conservative is nominated, never again will the GOP recieve my vote or my money.
The money I save will be used to fill up my gun case and stock the ammo bin.
If the left isn't screaming and throwing a tantrum about a GOP SCOTUS nominee, then something is seriously wrong.
Huh?! I never attacked you or your post. If anything, I saw a chance to attack Tucker Carlson, who I consider the ultimate RINO DWEEB, and I pounced. I've tried to stay nice to all sides on the Harriet Meirs debate, and my posts should bare that out.
Hey, I linked to your post from AnnCoulter.com. Pretty cool!
I have been following the Mier's thread on FR since her nomination. I have never observed a bigger group of sheeple that blindly believe in "trust me -- Miers will be conservative because ________. I have totally lost respect for many of the posters on this site for being so supportive of an extremely poor nomination by Bush.
I know the story about how there was so many highly qualified Conservatives he could have picked from Bill Kristol's list, but I want to know why she isn't qualified?, and why she is such a poor choice?
I see the same dozen or so people trashing this woman and for two weeks now nobody will answer what disqualifies her as a SCOTUS nominee.
When Bush nominated her, I never remember him saying "Trust Me", yet I see this term used by the "Hang Harriet" crowd day after day.
My position is that the President has the right to nominate who he wants, and the Senate can say yes or no. And considering all the top notch judges President Bush has nominated and fought for since 2001, he has earned my patience with this nominee. Keep in mind that Janice Rogers Brown, Luttig, Owen, Pryor and Estrada were all Bush nominees, 230 + Top notch conservative nominees since 2001 and yet so many are ready to jump ship because they know little about Harriet Miers....
And you say you've lost respect???
Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters
I have totally lost respect for the scorched earth tactics of pundits and posters here who wish to deny the PRESIDENT'S NOMINEE her hearing.
I have totally lost respect for the scorched earth tactics of pundits and posters here who wish to support the PRESIDENT'S crony, personal attorney who lacks any constitutional experience prior to her hearing. If her name was Harry Miers, she would be lucky to get an intern position in the White House with such experience.
And yes! I pray for our troops and our President everyday
Cheers!
Mike
Deal in reality. She's not Harry.
Starting Womens Studies programs.
Being an anti-Apartheid activist.
Raising property taxes to unprecedented levels.
Supporting policies that run afoul of both the 14th Amendment and the spirit and letter of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Endorsing spurious civil rights lawsuits filed by the DOJ.
And finally, writing prose that is so dreadful, so utterly incomprehensible and baffling, so opaque, that it would make James Fenimore Cooper's heart swell with pride.
So yes, we do have some clue as to what she's been doing all these years.
I've lost respect for posters who've gutted this woman from "day one".
Thanks. I really am surprised this nomination has any defenders here. It seems so preposterous to me. I wonder if the White House has a couple of dozen college students in the basement patrolling the web and planting phony posts to make people believe Miers has more support than she has.
lol see #95
:))
MJY1288 wrote:
"How well do you know the nominee? Do you know for sure that Miers will be another Souter or will she be another Scalia?"
This question is becoming very tiresome. A more appropriate question would be: “How can you NOT know the nominee so well?” With all of the facts that we have in front of us about this nominee, as well as the curious lack of supporting arguments from the administration, there is a very real possibility that Miers becomes, at best, another O’Connor. As stated in yesterday’s NRO editorial: “There is very little evidence that Harriet Miers is a judicial conservative, and there are some warnings that she is not”.
It is not reasonable to believe that the hearings will provide sufficient and compelling testimony that will explain or refute these facts. The best evidence of how a nominee will perform is their actual track record. And Mier’s track record is troubling if you are looking for a judicial conservative in the mold of Scalia or Thomas.
The warning flags have been raised. Do you really want to risk a lifetime appointment for another O’Conner or - gasp - Souter?
I read the post as a parody. Nobody could be that cliche ridden without working at it.
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.