Posted on 10/04/2005 3:35:22 PM PDT by maximusaurelius
3) unless Miers demonstrates in her hearing that she has "hitherto undisclosed interests and talents pertinent to the court's role," the Senate has a duty to reject the nomination to prevent this or any other president "from reducing the Supreme Court to a private plaything useful for fulfilling whims on behalf of friends"; 4) the Miers nomination vindicates the principle of tokenism under the rubric of diversity; writes Will, "for this we need a conservative president?"
(Excerpt) Read more at citizenjournal.com ...
That's fine. But it's not bait. I say what I think.
"And did you catch Ann Coulter on Hannity tonight?"
No, but I'm sure there are quite a few that would like to catch her.
I never cached the stuff, and it was some of her writings in California. I'll have to look the stuff up.
There were only a few things, but enough to give me a case of the willy's. I don't even recall if it was property or civil law, but I felt her to be a possible problem on some issues that would come to the court.
I was surprised when she made it through. I figured she would lose in the full Senate.
I'm only serious {;o)
I agree. Luttig or McConnell would have been vastly superior. But we're almost certainly stuck with her now.
And possibly for 20 years or longer.
It startled you, gave you the "willys," but you can't remember the specifics?
That's odd.
Care to join me for some refreshing Dubya Faith Serum?
Looks like 29% approve of Myers with the rest either in the don't approve, don't know enough about her, prefer Hillary or don't care category. I wouldn't count this as strong faith in the Bush pick.
I'm shocked the pitcher is still full, considering the posts here tonight agreeing with Bush that Harriet is the best possible candidate in the whole U.S.A.
Not really, while I cetainly did not embrace the lefts view of her, I found that the risk she may use her position as a pulpit to change or roll back things that she would find wrong in her own personal view, without much other justification but her own interpretations was a possibility.
Most of her backround was in corporate law, but there were some other quotes that all combined gave me a bad impression.
As I said, I don't want someone on the court, right or left that uses the position to do anything other than interpret the constitution as it was intended, with a regard for precedent and tradition and I'll never change that perspective.
I felt she had some other ideas....That is my best explanation.
She may get another chance later, and I will reconsider her record after she has done some work in her present position.
You see, Huck, Harriet was the person who found the candidates for the SCOTUS and screened them for Bush. She's the one who had to leave the office and look for them.
Then, one day, she looked in the mirror and said something like mirror, mirror, on the wall. And we all know the rest.
William Rehnquiest was 80 when he died, still working on the Court. John Paul Stevens the Lib is 85. He swore in Roberts. Your statement on her age in 20 years says nothing about the points that are being made, on either side. Not that I can see.
The President was very clear. You are simply misrepresenting what he said in the Presser. He made absolutely clear he was very aware of the Souter debacle, but he did not want to disrespect Justice Souter, so he said, ask my dad. Totally appropriate. George W Bush is not accountable for what his dad did. The reporter was just trying to cause trouble and be mean. You seem to approve.
But he nailed it down when he said he knows Harriet Miers, knows her completely and is certain she will not change.
Who is so dense that they could not clearly see he was contrasting his approach with the failure of his dad's approach? No more Souters, if I have anything to say about it, was his unmistakeable message. Oh, pardon me, there are some who I guess are dense enough.
Or they just hate Bush so much, they can't help themselves. Pity.
You are merely a badmouther. Slinging insults. You KNOW little.
You realize you're talking about roughly half the conservative movement here? Just thought you might like to know that this approach is highly unlikely to win any of them over to your side.
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.