Posted on 10/03/2005 7:07:30 PM PDT by freedomdefender
BUMP what you said.
The knee-jerk idiocy pouring off the keyboards of some posters here is no doubt the result of frustration that Janice Rodgers Brown was not nominated, but it does grow tiresome.
Nobody wanted to see Brown nominated more than I did, but it didn't happen. Oh well. From what I have been reading here all day, I think Miers will turn out to be the ultimate stealth nominee, and I mean the good kind.
Regards,
LH
So right you are. I haven't read anything yet about her (any/all) statements as to Roe v. Wade. There are many among the Dems in the Senate, for illustration here, who claim to be "Catholics" and yet support, promote and endorse Roe v. Wade, while saying it's not their "personal" ideology but the ideology they endorse, support, etc.
Which makes no sense other than that they are not Catholics and do not support the Catholic faith, and are lying about their ethical positions otherwise, but I am hoping that this is not the position of Miers. If it IS, I'm going to join those condemning her but until that point, I haven't yet learned enough about her to formulate an opinion too severe in either polarity.
She IS someone well known as to complex issues by Bush and that says a lot about her, as to him nominating her based upon his knowledge of her...BUT, it doesn't provide too much information as to who the person is on these complex issues, other than, perhaps, we are to assume that her positions on these issues are those of Bush's. I mean, so far, that's about all that's available about her to know with any conclusiveness.
I'm still reading up on the person.
So right you are. I haven't read anything yet about her (any/all) statements as to Roe v. Wade. There are many among the Dems in the Senate, for illustration here, who claim to be "Catholics" and yet support, promote and endorse Roe v. Wade, while saying it's not their "personal" ideology but the ideology they endorse, support, etc.
Which makes no sense other than that they are not Catholics and do not support the Catholic faith, and are lying about their ethical positions otherwise, but I am hoping that this is not the position of Miers. If it IS, I'm going to join those condemning her but until that point, I haven't yet learned enough about her to formulate an opinion too severe in either polarity.
She IS someone well known as to complex issues by Bush and that says a lot about her, as to him nominating her based upon his knowledge of her...BUT, it doesn't provide too much information as to who the person is on these complex issues, other than, perhaps, we are to assume that her positions on these issues are those of Bush's. I mean, so far, that's about all that's available about her to know with any conclusiveness.
I'm still reading up on the person.
Chuck Schumer is a rat and I know him well enough to think anything he likes, I am skeptical of. He's a triple A troll to me for a whole host of reasons. I don't think Bush is dumb. I just think he whimped out a little with this pick.
How many people really know you - I mean really know you. The court changes people. You talk as if she were Bush's daughter or wife or sister - she's not. I can't think of a single person that I work with, some for 20 years, that really knows anything about me other then my objective work related persona.
the paper trail of a judge, the decisions they render, their writings - is what gives insight into that. how consistent a person is, their philosophy, etc. Its not that I don't "trust" Bush - its that I don't put total faith on him "knowing" her as the sole basis for her appoitnment to the court, since its basically a business relationship they have.
That's certainly a plus. So, how has she ruled on the subject in the past given the current precendents and such?
No kidding. The wailing and gnashing of teeth has been deafening.
"How dare he! She's never been a judge before! She's got no record! We don't know anything about her!"
Yeah... just like William Rehnquist.
The sky isn't falling for sure. There's actually little that can be done about this. People get desperate when they're faced with a situation they have no control over.
Since she has never been a judge I would think that she has not thought too much about killing the unborn as a matter of Constitutional Law.
No rulings from her. She is not and has not been a judge. Neither were 38 other justices before becoming justices, including Rehnquist.
Well, how about an abortion clinic sitting on a levee.
Seems to me GWB had never been president before he became president. Horrors!
Why would James Dobson and Jay Sekulo (ACLJ) give their support to her?
That's great news! So am I.
The almost ringing endorsement of Chuck concerns me more.
Fine. Where is she on the 2nd amendment?
I honestly think they don't know her either. I'll bet in three days Harry Reid and Shumer will regret their statements. In fact, tonight on Fox News, it was reported that Harry Reid's staffers were angered at his appreciation of Mier during his press conference. I think the left has been caught off guard also. Tonight Chris Mathews looked like Bush had done it to the liberals again. He even posed that question. Has Bush done it to us again?
At this point, it doesn't matter if she ends up being more conservative than Scalia. The damage has already been done. She has the appearance of being a moderate possible lesbian crony. Those will be the talking points by every Bush hater in the country.
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.