Miers said to be on `extreme end' of pro-life movement

SJ Merc News/Dallas Morn News ^ | October 3 05 | SJ Merc News/Dallas Morn News

[Terpfen]

I would reply, open your eyes.

My eyes are open. I'm looking at Miers, and I'm not seeing anything to either like or hate right now. You look at her and see red. Would I have preferred others? Heck yes! I've been pulling for Estrada the whole time. Just because I didn't get my pet pick doesn't mean I'm going to fly into a rage at Bush. Maybe--just maybe--Miers is a good pick. Given the rest of his nominees, I'm willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt, especially after Roberts.

[Non-Sequitur]

You look at her and see red.

No, I look at her and see unqualified. I see someone who I cannot be sure will understand and uphold the Constitution. I see a corporate lawyer, and an administrator, and someone with one year as White House Counsel. The Supreme Court is too high a position, too important a position to be trusted to someone not fit to sit there. It is an office worth appointing the best and brightest we have. It is an office worth fighting for. Bush won't do that. Instead he appoints a mediocrity, someone he hopes and prays that will be confirmed. To go from someone like Chief Justice Roberts to Associate Justice Meirs is to go from the sublime to the ridiculous.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Those will be the talking points by every Bush hater in the country.

Let 'em stew in their rage. They're not the base of the Republican party.

[BigSkyFreeper]

The information has been available for 11 years. You haven't re-researched it now that it became relevant again. Yet you jump from thread to thread calling others here ignorant of the facts.

We're all clueless, yet you want to jump out the first story window.

[BigSkyFreeper]

No, I look at her and see unqualified

Based on what?

[BigSkyFreeper]

I see someone who I cannot be sure will understand and uphold the Constitution.

Anyone who has taken US History in high school has learned the Constitution.

[onyx]

Anyone who has taken obtained a passing grade in US History in high school has learned the Constitution.

[Non-Sequitur]

Anyone who has taken US History in high school has learned the Constitution.

If you think that a high school civics course is enough to qualify someone for the Supreme Court then I suggest you have very little respect for that document.

[Non-Sequitur]

Based on what?

No background, experience, or education in Constitutional law.

[old and tired]

No background, experience, or education in Constitutional law.

Look at what background, experience and education have gotten us. Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer. Do you honestly believe those two can read and interpret the US constitution better than say, your dog?

[Non-Sequitur]

Look at what background, experience and education have gotten us. Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer.

It has also gotten us Thomas, Scalia, Rehnquist, Stewart, Harlan, Cardozo, Vinson and on and on and on. Bush promised us justices in the mold of Thomas and Scalia. Well, Thomas and Scalia showed that they knew what they were doing prior to being appointed. You can't say that about this appointment. This is Souter, light.

[old and tired]

As Rush Limbaugh has pointed out, I believe the president missed an opportunity to educate the American people about judges. We're not in the last century anymore. No longer do Republicans have to rely on a liberal MSM to get their message out. I would have loved a knock down, drag out fight for a real, proven conservative judge.

However, the Constitution was written by men without experience as judges, and I don't think a person needs a Harvard degree or 5 years as a judge to determine if something is American or not. I will say that I think experience reading and comprehending long, boring, stupid laws is probably important. But experience judging? Nah.

[aBootes]

Saying that she is personally pro-life says absolutely nothing about her views on Roe v. Wade, as a matter of constitutional law. So many Freepers fail to understand this important distinction.

Ahhh! The difference between personal morality and decisions of constitutionality.

Uncle Joe hits a homer on this one.

[Non-Sequitur]

However, the Constitution was written by men without experience as judges, and I don't think a person needs a Harvard degree or 5 years as a judge to determine if something is American or not. I will say that I think experience reading and comprehending long, boring, stupid laws is probably important. But experience judging? Nah.

We need judges capable of interpreting the Constitution as our founders intended. One who will get us pointed back to limited central government. One who will tackle serious issues such as is there a Constitutional protection of privacy? That's the central reasoning behind Roe v Wade, does overturning that mean that there is no privacy protection impressed or implied in the Constitution? Is there privacy protection for some things and not for others? Are states allowed to make decisions on something like what constitutes public benefit for eminent domain issues or will the big, intrusive central government decide that? Was the Supreme Court right to step in to the Bush v Gore matter? And if so then when does state control over election issues end and federal control begin?

Bush wants to do away with Roe v Wade. Fine, Miers will do that. But what then? She isn't going away, she'll be there ruling on court issues for years to come. And I'm sorry, I see nothing in her background that indicates that she can be expected to be the 'strict constitutionalist' that Bush claims she is. And I'm not willing to take that chance.

[old and tired]

One who will tackle serious issues such as is there a Constitutional protection of privacy? That's the central reasoning behind Roe v Wade, does overturning that mean that there is no privacy protection impressed or implied in the Constitution? Is there privacy protection for some things and not for others? Are states allowed to make decisions on something like what constitutes public benefit for eminent domain issues or will the big, intrusive central government decide that? Was the Supreme Court right to step in to the Bush v Gore matter? And if so then when does state control over election issues end and federal control begin?

I recognize the issues and I am disappointed the President didn't pick a known commodity.

I'm guessing you're not an attorney with Constitutional Law experience. And yet, you've managed to frame the questions so well and thoughtfully.

[kittymyrib]

This is a planted article to make conservatives feel better. Next, we will be reading that she's to the right of Scalia...really. I hate this manipulation by the White House press office.