Posted on 10/03/2005 4:06:25 AM PDT by johnmecainrino
Harriet Miers
Well, you convinced me of the error of my thinking. Never before have we as a society formed opinions about people based upon their lifestyle. Liberal Dems have never brought up a persons marital status. Nope, it just never happened because FreeReign said so.
What?
Why do you attribute to me words that I've never said?
I never said that judging a person by their marital status is something that doesn't happen. What I did say was that it's incorrect to make a judgment based on such.
" She has no experience on the bench as an acting judge."
Neither did Rehnquist. Neither did Warren. Neither did Marshall. I was surprised to find out that she hadn't been a judge before, but then I found out that there was actually quite a bit of precedent for making such a choice (something like 37 previous SC justices who had never been judges?).
But I am cut to the quick that you called me a bushbot (it's SO clever and meaningful........and original too, and it hurts so bad.......especially that 15th time you said it. Ouch. Painful).
But don't you fret your little head off. I'll recover from it, and learn to go on, and try to be just like you.
Thanks for the really wonderful conversation, dearest Eaker. You're a doll.
Note to Hillary: Let SC nominations sail through. Piss-off reactionary conservatives. (Like this isn't already the strategy?)
When Chucky Schumer is content and Dianne Feinstein says “I've seen no negatives about Harriet Miers,” I start wondering.
I am tiring of the personal attacks, and semantics. What makes you believe that Miers' nomination fulfills the administrations campaign promise to appoint a conservative justice? Many conservatives on this thread have clearly articulated the reasons why we believe that this is not the best choice, and feel betrayed by the administration.
BTW, if the conservative base has to rely on doing the opposite of what the Democrats do (instead of using intellect and thinking for themselves)then they are probably going to be outsmarted time and time again.
...know what I mean?
It has gone on since forever. FOREVER.
We have never had closed borders, only immigration control that has failed because the normal gates of entry are ignored for pathways woven from thousands of feet and vehicles sneaking in...dangerous to national security in today's world, most especially.
Hitlery took of the immigration problem superficially, in an attempt to joust President Bush and future presidential hopefuls on the republican side into putting their feet into their mouths in an effort to keep her from getting out front on this issue. Which of course, she was never going to do and will not do.
Why?
Because it is one good way to lose control of her base.
And why will republicans continue to shy from it...because we have a massive hispanic population and it might result in losing the house and senate down the road.
Is that worth it? Is it?
Our President is working on the border situation, and he is doing so from a rational standpoint, with the full understanding that NOTHING is going to keep a man or woman from slipping into the USA if it means a job wherein they can feed their family. Period.
Were I in the congress or senate, I would be working overtime to encourage businesses and enterprises to build in Mexico, I would be offering incentives to Fox to keep the borders tight on his side, I would be for intiating some kind of lasers that would completely cover the borders and I would be doing the same with the Canadian borders.
Our President was the governor of Texas. He knows full well the pressure of illegal immigration. And he also knows that there is not to much that can be done to keep a person seeking to feed their family from taking immense risks to get to a place where that can happen.
Improving Mexico...and fast...and taking control of their natural oil...oh yes takinng it by way of repayment in return for economic build-up is exactly what I would be doing, were I king.
From Nat'l Review's 'Bench Memos':
http://bench.nationalreview.com/
Initial Thoughts on the Miers Nomination
[Edward Whelan 10/03 09:54 PM]
1. Like lots of folks, I was disappointed that President Bush did not nominate someone who has a public record that clearly demonstrates a sound understanding of the proper role of judging. From a conversation with an informed source, it’s my impression that the White House carefully reviewed a broad range of candidates—including virtually every possible woman—and concluded that Harriet Miers was the best candidate, or at least the best female candidate, who would get confirmed. I suspect that the White House was far less ready to face a substantial risk of non-confirmation than many of us would have liked.
2. All of point 1 is behind us now. Harriet Miers is the nominee, and the relevant question going forward is whether to support her nomination, oppose it, or stand on the sidelines.
3. I spoke today with four individuals who know Harriet Miers very well and have worked very closely (in at least one case, extremely closely) with her. I know three of these individuals very well and deeply trust their judgment on matters of judicial philosophy and character. Although I do not know the fourth individual, that individual’s public record gives me ample reason to trust his judgment on matters of judicial philosophy. All four individuals are genuinely enthusiastic about Miers’s nomination and strongly believe that she will be an excellent judicial conservative (i.e., a proponent of originalism and judicial restraint). Indeed, one of them, who made clear that he was an ardent admirer of Chief Justice Roberts, said that he was even more comfortable with Miers than with Roberts.
Another person with whom I spoke shed some light on the fact that some who served in the White House appear to have less positive impressions of Miers. According to his account, Miers, in her role as staff secretary, often had very limited interactions with other staffers—making sure the paper flowed, for example, but not engaging in policy debates—that didn’t display the full range of her abilities.
4. The very encouraging assessment of these three individuals is bolstered by other evidence, such as Miers’s lead role in the effort to have the ABA revisit its pro-abortion stance, her sponsorship of a fundraiser for a pro-life organization, and her active role in her evangelical church. (To be clear: I am not looking for justices who will impose conservative policy preferences. I am merely taking comfort in the fact that a person who has conservative policy preferences will be unlikely, as a justice, to be bamboozled into reading the Left’s agenda into the Constitution.)
Bottom line: Setting aside my initial disappointment at the fact that certain individuals with clearer records were passed over, I see a lot of cause for hope that Miers will be a very strong justice.
What do you mean? Schumer is happy with the selection.
You didn't address a single issue.
You have been put into your place in front of all here.
Into your place.
Your place.
That has got to suck.
The good dogs get to lay on the porch. The others sleep under it. Say goodnight to the other dogs under the porch or address the post.
In listening to a number of sources throughout the day after initial 'puzzlement,' I agree.
Thanks for the ping, Diddle E. Squat. Good article.
Mexico is responsible for improving Mexico. I am NOT willing to send any economic aid to that corrupt sh!thole. We already have NAFTA, many factories in Mexico, and they receive preferential trade status. We Americans do not have to throw good money after bad in Mexico. And I am always grateful that we do not have a monarchy, cause they might just make you king.
"Although GWB does not have a great record when it comes to other important matters, at least -- to this point -- he's been faithful in nominating good judges."
True enough. Let's hope that this is consistent with past court appointees.
I will address any issue at any time on this forum when an adult is involved. Why don't you go find a grown up to ask the same questions for you, and I'll address them specifically.....
Now, Good night, Master Eaker. Don't forget to put the railing up.
There are still many unanswered questions about him though.
If he is saying that he will not overturn established rulings by previous courts then he will not bring about needed changes where activist judges have established laws that are clearly unconstitutional, then he will be useless and in effect a supporter of those laws .
I guess it is with him as it is with this one, a wait a see.
The reason that the base is so upset is because they have been lied to many times in the last forty years.
It doesn't mean they are right this time, but they feel and know that they have worked long and hard to deliver everything the Republicans have said they needed in the last ten years, a majority in the House,the Senate and the office of President and they know what they were promised nominees who shared their values [pro-life,pro gun, pro family] and they know there where many, many candidates that were more likely to share their values than these.
They also know when politicians after elections start exchanging big words like strict constructionist to describe what was plain words on the campaign trail they had better start watching their back.
They are upset that the best that the Republicans and the President gave them for their years of patience and hard work was a "maybe nominee" and coming from a career politician they know that is about near as nothing as you can get.
So even though it may be early and they may be wrong they certainly have the right to be upset considering the track records of politicians from both parties over the last forty years or so.
I pray for our country's sake and our children's sake we are wrong in our fears.
He has also appointed very strong conservatives on the lower courts where they are needed. If the ninth circuit would have some more conservative voices added to it some of the garbage wouldn't get to the Supreme Court.
I do not get this...
She has no record. She has no stance. She never married, which is a personal choice, but may be used against her. There is NO judicial experience. I fear she has been nominated for only personal reasons known to Bush.
I voted for him..........why???
A very good thing, there are not 3 terms.
LOL! I would be horrible, wouldn't I. But I am not talking here about economic handouts...I am talking about economic necessity combined with taking payment concurrently!
Amen.
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.