Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court nominee was a supremely bad choice
Mobile Register ^ | 10/4/2005 | Quin Hillyer

Posted on 10/04/2005 2:32:49 PM PDT by wjersey

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-132 next last
To: safisoft

I should introduce you to the "single term President, just like his Daddy" crowd.

The were as wrong then as you are now.


41 posted on 10/04/2005 3:05:17 PM PDT by Luis Gonzalez (Some people see the world as they would want it to be, effective people see the world as it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

Comment #42 Removed by Moderator

To: MNJohnnie
LOL, pathetic.
43 posted on 10/04/2005 3:05:51 PM PDT by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: MarcusTulliusCicero
And absolutely zero evidence that she even knows how to interpret the Constitution.

She knows how, there's evidence of that - for example her law degree for starters. But like you, I am uneasy because I don't know the "substance" of her interpretation. I can only infer it. So far, I haven't found any material that creates an inference that I object to.

It's too bad that criticism of the selection is taken as criticism of the person. From what I've read, she is very very nice, generous, charitable, etc. I don't like the pick, but it's not because I think I wouldn't like her.

44 posted on 10/04/2005 3:05:54 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Made in USA
Let's just pretend Gore was pres. Would you rather see Bill Clinton sitting on the bench? IT COULD BE WORSE. A LOT WORSE.

Is that the best defense you could come up with for her? At least she isn't Bill Clinton? That's pretty sad.

45 posted on 10/04/2005 3:08:29 PM PDT by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

Comment #46 Removed by Moderator

To: wjersey
Bush must know Miers very well and be confident that she is a Conservative. Only trouble is he thinks he's a Conservative...
47 posted on 10/04/2005 3:10:18 PM PDT by Canard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

New tidbit I just saw.

This gal packed heat several years ago.

She owned a .45 caliber pistol for self defense.

I'd call that a pro gun justice and yep, I like that.


48 posted on 10/04/2005 3:10:22 PM PDT by Owen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Clarence Thomas, who also came onto the court with lowered expectations.

As did President GW Bush

Just shows how wrong smart people can be

49 posted on 10/04/2005 3:11:40 PM PDT by woofie (Trying hard to become another Buckhead)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

Yes, she may be absolutely wonderful as a human being, and great to work with. That has nothing to do with how she would interpret the Constitution. There were many nominees with whom we wouldn't be reduced to reading tea leaves in order to discern how she views the Constitution. And, following the Ginsburg precedent, we're certainly not going to find out during the confirmation hearings. The Senate would be well within their rights to reject the nominee simply because her qualifications and philosophy can't be discerned. She deserves an up or down vote.....and if a Senator, Democrat or Republican can't reasonably conclude how she will function on the Supreme Court then they should vote no. Harriet Myers qualifications would be fine for a District Court Judge or perhaps even on a Court of Appeals. She does not possess the level of qualification that we should expect (and were promised) of a SCOTUS nominee.


50 posted on 10/04/2005 3:11:43 PM PDT by MarcusTulliusCicero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: wjersey
The article sums up this betrayal by Bush well.

When we campaigned for George Bush, most of us had the Supreme Court in mind even more than terrorism. Bush even said that his priority was to pick an originalist. Bush loyalists can't argue the points made here and elsewhere by others, including nationally known conservative commentators.

President Bush would rather crony up to a friend than serve the nation by nominating a respected, well known conservative candidate, of which there were about five on most conservatives' short list. This ludicrous pick is actually replacing Rehnquist! Roberts was picked initially to replace O'Connor.

In many ways, the pick of a SCOTUS justice is more important than picking a president. Presidents serve for 4 or 8 years. SCOTUS justices change the direction of our future over decades. Look how Ruth Bader Ginsberg has trashed our Constitution over three presidential terms and possibly will for three more two or three more terms.

If indeed a SCOTUS pick is more important than picking a president (which I firmly subscribe to), then this pick by Bush should make us vomit even more, considering that she will be one of 9 justices in SCOTUS for (in some cases) the rest of our lives, or will take many of us into their retirement years.

Bush loyalists can give it their best shot, but there is no way to sugarcoat this horrible and inexplicable decision by Bush.

51 posted on 10/04/2005 3:13:36 PM PDT by Dont_Tread_On_Me_888 (Bush's #1 priority Africa. #2 priority appease Fox and Mexico . . . USA priority #64.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wjersey

I give up. Who the heck is this bedwetter? I never heard of him/her.


52 posted on 10/04/2005 3:15:55 PM PDT by KingKongCobra (Trying to save the "Donner Party" from themselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #53 Removed by Moderator

To: Cboldt

I agree with you. I am not going to issue pronouncements on whether or not Miers is a good person or not, or even if she is a conservative. What I do take issue with is that we have no evidence of her ability to do this job, and secondly, we know that there is a long list of wonderful candidates who should have been considered before her for the position. If President Bush felt she deserved to be a judge, all well and good - let her have a position in some circuit court before elevating her to the highest court in the land. It irks me that there are so many brilliant people who have been ruthlessly ignored in favour of her, and the reasoning for this purposeful indifference seems shaky.

That should concern us all. Being blind to the flaws in this selection process helps nothing, just as much as being totally critical of the President helps nothing. We must approach the matter with reason, tact and with a healthy dash of skepticism.

Regards, Ivan


54 posted on 10/04/2005 3:16:55 PM PDT by MadIvan (You underestimate the power of the Dark Side - http://www.sithorder.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan

Good post, as usual. Salute.


55 posted on 10/04/2005 3:18:41 PM PDT by k2blader (Hic sunt dracones..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: safisoft

President Bush is...well President. He gets to pick-if you all want to pick a Supreme Court Justice, get a campaign together, run in 2008 (win) and try to elect a few senators with guts...so you can pick outspoken conservatives. I don't blame President Bush. If I had to rely on the Senate for a battle with Dems, I would er pick the most conservative stealth candidate I could find. It seems to me, this is what happened.


56 posted on 10/04/2005 3:18:49 PM PDT by nyconse (a)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

Yeah, that's Harry Reid's job.


57 posted on 10/04/2005 3:19:05 PM PDT by nickcarraway (I'm Only Alive, Because a Judge Hasn't Ruled I Should Die...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Owen
New tidbit I just saw.

This gal packed heat several years ago.

She owned a .45 caliber pistol for self defense.

I'd call that a pro gun justice and yep, I like that.

If I were a lib justice I might keep that in mind in considering whether to "attack" her with a "scathing dissent"! LOL

58 posted on 10/04/2005 3:19:21 PM PDT by SirJohnBarleycorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: wjersey

I am sick of this whining and second guessing. It is not very becoming, and reminds me of the other party. This is just outrageous behavior.


59 posted on 10/04/2005 3:20:32 PM PDT by ladyinred (It is all my fault okay?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
Nothing but ad hominems against Meirs. No evidence that she would not be at least as good as Clarence Thomas, who also came onto the court with lowered expectations.

Spare us. Thomas at least
a) went to a top five law school
b) had more than a year of experience on the bench in one of the most intellectually vigorous appellate courts in the land
c) had run a quasi-judicial agency for several years and
d) had been general counsel of a Fortune 100 company.

His resume looks like Oliver Wendell Holmes' next to Miers.
60 posted on 10/04/2005 3:21:28 PM PDT by Paladin2b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-132 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson