Posted on 10/03/2005 4:06:25 AM PDT by johnmecainrino
Harriet Miers
"I can't believe the tone of this thread. Before during and after the announcement, nothing but reactionist anarchy here. Unreal. Extremist, you could almost say. Well, some commentary around the time of the announcement (Schumer) mentioned the extreme wings of both parties, and then I get home and read this thread - its the only thing he has ever said that has made sense to me (I don't belive his sincerity, by the way)"
This is not the issue. The issue is, the president, OUR president, instead of picking a real, open conservative constitutional scholar, decided instead to pick a very nice lady absolutely lacking in Constitutional background that he happened to know.
Heck, I would be a better pick for I have at least read the Constitution repeatedly, read the Federalist papers, read the anti federalist papers and Madisons notes on the Convention and a good bit of early constitutional court decisions. I doubt the good lady can say the same.
I do not want a conservative politician. I want a Constitutional originalist.
I am not sure the good lady even knows what that means.
We live in a time where Conservative giants walk the legal fields yet we get a third stringer.
Why?
"with his Miers appointment, Bush has told his base, "screw you." If you live in the 48th CD in South Orange County, Calif., you have the opportunity to return the favor by voting for Jim Gilchrist in tomorrow's primary election. One plank in his platform calls for making America "free from a Supreme Court stacked with partisan hacks who owe their allegiance to the politicians who gave them their jobs instead of the rule of Constitutional law."
Letterman Top 3 list on strategery behind SC nomination:
#3 Bush wanted to keep up with the majority opinions from the liberal perspective.
#2 Bush wishes to get his nomination through the Senate and not expend political capital, and glide into his 2nd term..."oops, I can't run again"....hey I meant that.
#1 I'll nominate a conservive with my 3rd SC pick in my 3rd term.
#-1 I have a secret plan to outfox the Dems, with a stealthy candidate who is really a conservative. Malkin,
Crystal, Limbaugh, Levin, Ingraham...there just all part of the plan. (See my secret plan on giving amnesty to the illegal immigration.)
"Well if recent news about her supporting the WORLD COURT and Adoption rights for gays is what makes you comfortable
you got your gal."
Where is this covered???
Bump for Terri Schindler-Schiavo, martyred by "the Courts". Forced exits are relevant. Nobody should be handed a death warrant based upon hearsay evidence. But, she was.
I have aged since the beginning of this thread.
I sure hope this isn't true. I am almost positive President Bush is STRONGLY against this so I find it hard to believe he would pick someone who believes in it.
Didn't Ingraham clerk of Justice Thomas? I remember back in the day, she wished that Jeb Bush had run for President instead of Dubya. LI personally told me that but I've never said a word about it until now. It was three years ago...
Thats right! I'll never vote for Bush again! Grrrrr! Expletive! sarc/off.
I voted for Poppy too. No way was I going to vote for the huckster. Before klintoon I was pretty much an Independent. Voted for Nixon, voted for Carter (Ouch, don't hit me, I thought he was a Christian). Voted for Reagan. But when the toon slithered onto the scene, I registered as a Republican.
You are missing the reason Miers gave for "being against" the resolution. The reason wasn't because of it's contents. The reason was that she wanted the entire ABA membership to have a vote, instead of just the ABA leadership.
You are missing the historical context. The ABA leadership officially adopted a Pro-Abortion position. Much of the general membership was outraged. The tactic used by the alienated Pro-Life membership in response to the Pro-Abortion leadership was to demand a full vote of all members. This was the "Pro-Life" position in this controversy. You need to understand this.
1,617 posted on 10/03/2005 11:19:57 AM EDT by LikeLight
I hope you included me because I disagree with faithincowboys on this point, otherwise I'm not sure why.
It beats the alternative, doesn't it?:^)
Cordially,
It beats the alternative, doesn't it?:^)
Cordially,
She and I are about the same age and I am considered to be very intelligent. I voted for Republicans before I was one because I looked at their views not their Party affiliation. You keep insisting that the Reagan revolution made every one change instantly, it took years and is still going on. My main reason for not switching parties was because my Mother hated Republicans and I feared she would have a stroke if I changed Parties. I did and she did. I was right she had a stroke within 12 months, and never recovered. There are a lot of Conservative Dems out there that are in the same boat,and they hide their party affiliation or just stay Dem and vote Pubbie.
Someone is selectively quoting bits of ABA Committee Reports to make it appear as though Miers advocated the leftist positions taken by the Committees. It would be similar to blaming Denny Hastert for wacky positions taken by the Congressional Black Caucus. Totally irrelevant to Miers.
Why didn't President Bush pick a female Veteran, experienced in military law.
Who is going to protect our troops
in Iraq and Gitmo
when the ACLU takes their cases to the Supreme Court regarding "insurgent abuse" and their "civil rights?"
I have nothing against Harriet Miers
but what experience does she have in military law?
We know Supreme Court Justice John Roberts doesn't,
can't at least the 2nd pick have experience in
military law?
There are plenty of women,
who have served in the military,
and have actual hands on experience
in military law.
I likewise think you are making an unwarranted inference, and I explained my rationale for that above. Nothing in your statement illuminates her personal position. She is duty bound to represent the Texas Bar as a whole.
Notice I am not concluding what her position is, either way. I am vigorously asserting thatteh evidence you have provided does not illuminate her personal position. At all. And I think it is dishonest to continue to represnt your point of view as a repeat, without also including my response.
That makes perfect sense to me. I didn't get the chance to make those decision before Bush Sr. I turned 18 in November, 1985 and my first prez vote was cast in 1988. I remember that day well. All my friends couldn't understand why anyone would vote for Bush/Quayle. I likewise couldn't imagine voting for that doofus from Massachusetts. What was it again, Dukakis/Bentsen? ugh!!
It was an eye-opening experience, to say the least. Other than Perot I haven't made too many mistakes. I don't think! The idea of the federal gov't being run like a corporation appealed to me. It still does, really. Accountability is long gone, as we all know. But, I digress.
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.