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.