Skip to comments.
From MOveOn.org ABout Miers
Posted on 10/03/2005 8:18:19 PM PDT by Miami Vice
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-63 next last
To: BigSkyFreeper
So I guess you are not interested in the how only the what?
You " I already got everything figure out" types are worse than the liberals.
To: nhoward14
Uh I think that is called fundraising
Duuuuhhhhh
To: Miami Vice
So I guess you are not interested in the how only the what? Of course not.
You " I already got everything figure out" types are worse than the liberals.
Whatever. I don't pretend to know everything about Ms. Miers, I will however say, that I am reserving judgement for a later time when more facts are known about her. Unlike a whole slew of FReepers who say they have no clue who she is, and immediately stamp her as the worse pick.
43
posted on
10/03/2005 10:50:42 PM PDT
by
BigSkyFreeper
("Don't Get Stuck On Stupid!" - Lieutenant General Russell "Ragin' Cajun" Honore)
To: All
Though Soros and his crowd are giving me good reason to like her, I'm just not there yet. I would've preferred someone like Brown, Luttig, or Owens.
44
posted on
10/03/2005 11:11:54 PM PDT
by
Nipplemancer
(Abolish the DEA !)
To: Miami Vice
If Harry Reid (MINO - Mormon In Name Only) likes her, we're in big trouble.
45
posted on
10/03/2005 11:15:27 PM PDT
by
Saundra Duffy
(Never forget Terri Schindler)
To: Saundra Duffy
Once Reid gets on the same page as the MoveOn goofballs, he'll be wholly against her.
46
posted on
10/03/2005 11:20:59 PM PDT
by
BigSkyFreeper
("Don't Get Stuck On Stupid!" - Lieutenant General Russell "Ragin' Cajun" Honore)
To: Criminal Number 18F
[ I don't think third-string lawyers should be on the Supreme Court. If her name was Harry Miers and she wasn't the only person that I know of that has described W as "the most brilliant person I ever met," she wouldn't get the appointment. ]
LoL... "the most brilliant person I ever met," that looks like Alfred E. Neuman..
47
posted on
10/03/2005 11:27:10 PM PDT
by
hosepipe
(This Propaganda has been edited to include not a small amount of Hyperbole..)
To: whenigettime
Sleep well. Despite all the naysayers on both sides I don't think Bush is going to let us down on this. Dubya's appointees may NEVER be conservative enough for some, but he wouldn't leave us with a David Souter.
In the end - despite what liberal Movers and "conservative" Shakers say - this lady is a net gain on on Sandra Day O'Connor.
This is going to be 2 steps forward for the Court. It makes Reid look like a jackass if he complains and makes Soros froth at the mouth. It's all good!
48
posted on
10/03/2005 11:45:47 PM PDT
by
incredulous joe
("Our heats are restless until they rest in Thee, O God" - St. Augustine)
To: incredulous joe
Sandra Day O'Connor.Day? I thought her middle name was "european law."
To: Miami Vice
When liberals say, "corporate power, privacy and civil rights," what they actually mean is, "redistribution of wealth, abortion and affirmative action." What will it take to penetrate their thick skulls and enlighten their tiny little minds to the difference between the legislative and judicial branches of American government? Apparently college education has failed them.
50
posted on
10/04/2005 4:05:01 AM PDT
by
KarinG1
To: andie74
Thank you, I'm glad you enjoyed it. I had fun writing it!
51
posted on
10/04/2005 5:27:36 AM PDT
by
A.Hun
("I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do" Heinlein)
To: frankjr
"Maybe I will "create" some research and send it in."
That would be funny.... but you probably want to be careful - and make sure it's not something you'd regret if they post it on the internet.
52
posted on
10/04/2005 6:26:38 AM PDT
by
gondramB
( The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates. – Tacitus)
To: Deb
How is she "third string"?Fair question. Here's a few reasons:
- Not a good law school (second-string, maybe-third, SMU)
- Not a Law Review member even there (the *thinking* students edit the Law Review)
- Went to a second-class firm in a second-class city
- Did not litigate any significant case as lead!!!!
This doesn't mean she's a bad person or a bad lawyer, it just means she's thoroughly mediocre.
As far as the Bar Association is, being a wheel in the TBA is like being a wheel in the teachers' union -- because that's all a Bar is, a lawyers' union, and the committees and what not attract the hacks and those who seek to make connexions and advance themselved by cronyism. Which is a pretty effective way to get ahead with this President. Unfortunately.
Even in the White House, she didn't lead on those cases she worked on (i.e. Bush v. Gore.)
This is what many of us supported Bush for, and he give us his worst. Appointment. Ever.
Worse than Julie Myers at ICE (cause you know this Administration is feeble on border enforcement, even if they don't put a twentysomething bimbo in charge of messing it up).
Worse than Brownie and the hackerama at FEMA (they handled four 'canes in Florida fine last year, they were just not ready for a situation with a 90-IQ mayor and a governor who collapsed into blubbering inutility when the people looked for leadership).
Good God, this person was not the best woman (by any means) for the job, she wasn't even in the top 20.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
To: All
Just cleaning up the original post without the stuff in it.
Record of Harriet Miers?
1970Graduated from Southern Methodist University Law School
1970-1972Clerked for U.S. District Court Judge Joe Estes
1972-2001Joined Texas law firm, Locke, Purnell
1985Elected president of the Dallas Bar Association
1986-1989Member of the State Bar board of directors
1989-1991Elected and served one term on the Dallas City Council
1992Elected president of the Texas State Bar
1993-1994Worked as counsel for Bush's gubernatorial campaign
1995-2000Appointed chairwoman of Texas Lottery Commission by Gov. George Bush
1996Became president of Locke, Purnell, and the first woman to lead a major Texas law firm
1998Presided over the merger of Locke, Purnell with another big Texas firm, Liddell, Sapp, Zivley, Hill & LaBoon, and became co-managing partner of the resulting megafirm, Locke Liddell & Sapp
2000Represented Bush and Chaney in a lawsuit stemming from their dual residency in Texas while running in the Presidential primary - ???????? Bush was and is a TEXAS, Chaney was and is a citizen of Wyoming, not Montana as is often said.
2001Selected as staff secretary for President Bush
2003Promoted to Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy
2004Selected as White House Counsel
2005 - Appointed to supreme Court?
There are many important questions that need to be addressed, including:
What policies did she advocate for on the Dallas City Council?
What was her record at the head of the scandal-ridden Texas Lottery Commission? She cleaned it up!
What cases did she take on while working as a corporate lawyer in private practice, and what positions did she fight for?
What has she written or said in and outside of her law practice about her views on constitutional issues like privacy, the "commerce clause" or equal protection As White
House council Alberto Gonzales played a pivotal role in softening America's stance on torture. Flat out lie about Gonzales.
What positions has Harriet Miers advocated for in the same role?
Has she ever publicly distanced herself from George W. Bush? I certainly hope not
It's important that we move quickly in answering these questions.
We need to make sure the facts about her views are known.
This kind of decentralized research may never have been tried before at this scale. Yes it has, FR wrote a report on Clinton's illegal sale of technology to China which is in the Congressional Record. Go look it up.
But a Supreme Court nominee with a record only the president really knows is a new national challenge. If we act quickly, we can meet that challenge together. Yes we can, we can support the President in his selections for the courts.
Please pitch in by taking some time to research today, and post what you find.
Just had to answer a few of the questions and the record. I do not know if the record is true as posted here, but my answers are true and factual.
54
posted on
10/04/2005 11:18:00 AM PDT
by
Yellow Rose of Texas
(WAR: 1/3 yes, 1/3 no, 1/3 undecided; So began the American Revolution)
To: Criminal Number 18F; Deb
There have been SC Justices who have satisfied all of the criteria you cite in 53 but have nonetheless failed to fulfill their oath to support the Constitution.
A case in point would be Louis Brandeis.
He graduated first in his class from an elite law school (Harvard) and was lead counsel in many important cases in a highly respected Boston law firm. But as SC Justice, he gave birth to such novel and insupportable judicial notions as a "constitutional right to privacy" and application of the federal commerce clause powers so broad and vague as to imply a constitutional requirement for command economy rather than free enterprise.
He was the Harry Houdini of judicial opinion, contorting himself into elaborate rhetorical knots in support of his lifelong conviction that America was intended to be a socialist paradise rather than a constitutional republic.
He jumped through all the hoops you require in your post but his subsequent performance on the court did massive injury to the Constitution he swore to uphold.
There are non-lawyers here in this forum whose understanding and support for our Constitution put Brandeis in the shade. Meirs couldn't botch the job as bad as Brandeis did even if she tried to do so.
To: Bonaparte
Tsk, tsk. I think you mean global or international law? We really can't keep having these artificial boundaries separating the people of the Earth. Such language would seem to imply that we are being "judgemental"?
56
posted on
10/04/2005 3:39:25 PM PDT
by
incredulous joe
("Our heats are restless until they rest in Thee, O God" - St. Augustine)
To: incredulous joe
Yes, O'Connor is "concerned" about the "impression we create" by having our own laws in our own country. However, she's noticably silent about the "impression" foreign countries create by having
their own laws in
their own countries. I think she would have been better served by worrying about the impression she created with her own countrymen. Afterall, she took an oath to uphold the US Constitution, didn't she?
Anyway, she's gone and I say good riddance. Proves that even the Gipper can throw away a perfectly good opportunity to bring the judiciary back to its senses.
To: BigSkyFreeper
So I guess you are not interested in the how only the what?
Of course not.
Big mistake on your part never to be interested in the how.
To: Miami Vice
Big mistake on your part never to be interested in the how.I already know the "how".
59
posted on
10/05/2005 12:16:00 PM PDT
by
BigSkyFreeper
("Don't Get Stuck On Stupid!" - Lieutenant General Russell "Ragin' Cajun" Honore)
To: BigSkyFreeper
The primary point used against her will be that she is close to Bush and doesn't have enough dirty laundry to air.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-63 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson