Posted on 10/04/2005 3:49:42 PM PDT by Para-Ord.45
Support The DrudgeReport; Visit Our Advertisers
XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX TUE OCT 04, 2005 18:02:01 ET XXXXX
MIERS FOUND CHRIST, TURNED REPUBLICAN
By 1979, Harriet Miers, then in her mid-30s, had accomplished what some people take a lifetime to achieve. She was a partner at Locke Purnell Boren Laney & Neely, one of the most prestigious law firms in the South.
But she still felt something was missing in her life.
The NEW YORK TIMES is set to splash the "something" on Page Ones on Wednesday, newsroom sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.
It was after a series of long discussions with Nathan Hecht, a junior colleague and sweetheart, that led her to a decision that many of the people around her say changed Miers life.
"She decided that she wanted faith to be a bigger part of her life," Hecht said. "One evening she called me to her office and said she was ready to make a commitment," to accept Jesus Christ as her savior and be born again, Hecht said. Miers became an evangelical Christian and began identifying more with the Republican Party than with the Democrats who had long held sway over Texas politics. Developing...
----------------------------------------------------------- Filed By Matt Drudge Reports are moved when circumstances warrant http://www.drudgereport.com for updates
I can't believe so many people are falling for a NYTIMES piece!
"So?
This country wasn't set-up for the elites.
Barrier to entry was never a foundation.
That's something the rulers have created to keep us commoners out.
I'm stunned you support that."
Sorry, but what the heck does that have to do with the issue at hand?
You people need to understand this. It's not just my position, it's why others are complaining as well.
The real beef with miers is not that she doesn't have X experience or Y backround, it's that because she doesn't have that kind of background, we have no record of what she really believes in or how she'd interpret the constitution.
And because of how useless the confirmation process has become, there will be no way to really find out.
And finally, what's worst is that you combine part one and part two, and you put that person on the highest court in the country - for life!
She may be the most constitutionally minded judge ever. She might make ruth buzzy ginsberg look like a genius. The real problem just about everybody has with her is that we really don't know!
We shouldn't have to settle for a crapshoot - not when the republicans are in the best position they have ever been in to stock the supreme court with real conservatives!
Do you think the democrats would not try to put the most liberal judge they could on the supreme court if they had 56 votes in the senate (55+VP)???
And SMART religious people (we have more than a few stupid ones, just like the irreligious have stupid people) make the best constructionists. The reason is that a religious person has a sense that "law" is something solid, that "right and wrong" are based on transcendent metaphysical principles that are rooted in the revealed character of God himself. To many evangelicals, the Constitution is simply a pale reflection of the character of God as expressed in the principles of civil government. A person steeped in the idea that there are inviolable laws that are not contingent on societal whims are MUCH more likely to realize that 1) the constitution was birthed in a religious/moral worldview and sought to reflect those metaphysically rooted ethics, and 2) therefore, you don't screw around with them. "Original intent" means more than arbitrary allegience to an old scrap of paper.
I am not saying that a logical positivist cannot be moral or hold moral positions (Robert Bork is a great example of that). I am just saying that a religionist is an easier sell on the idea that you are faithful to the original meaning of the constitution, mostly because you are in fact loyal to something bigger than the constitution. (and yeah, I know that scares some people)
What we need is an originalist - no matter how many times he or she has been born.
" There's nothing in the Constitution that indicates she needs your seal of approval."
Advise and consent of the senate ring a bell?
Who puts those senators in office?
If enough people contact their senators, they would have a role in the 'seal of approval' of a nominee.
Amazing that so many here forget the simple fact that the government exists FOR us, not the other way around. We are not serfs who exist to serve it - it exists to do our bidding within the confines of the constitution. It is not "president nominates, country gasps in awe".
I think you mistake the reason of opposition to Miers.
The objections largely fall under:
- Not having the qualifications of some of her competitors
- prefering a candidate that is not stealth
No responsible critic has leveled the charge she is a Liberal. They instead state they do not know.
So, no, withdrawal of the objections will not be forthcoming because these objections are constant no matter how she behaves on the court.
She's going to be on the Supreme Court, not the Green Bay Packers.
I'm not all that excited about this pick, but her age is a non issue.
I'm taking a wait-and-see stance on this mainly for that reason. I don't agree with everything that the President does or does not do (big spender, never vetoes anything, seems blind to the border issue, etc) but I gotta give him this - once before, someone who was vetting candidates became the candidate himself, and that was VP Cheney - what a great choice he has turned out to be.
President Bush has been misunderestimated so many times, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one. And with regard to her donating to Gore 17 years ago (I think he was prolife at that point anyway), I voted for Clinton. Twice. And I bet I'm more conservative than most of FR now, thanks be to God Himself.
"CJ John Marshall neither, nor Brandeis, Frankfurter and 38 others."
Thanks for the backup.
I agree with you. Even if women live on average longer than men, having ten or fifteen more years on the bench for a conservative is very, very important.
From an actuarial standpoint, I wonder how long single, never been married women live on average. Anyone know?
This will drive the left wild! I can understand this, as a former democrat. Although always a Christian, I had to leave the party once I saw the direction it was going. I could no longer be a part of it. I think honestly that the only reason some Christians are democrats is that they are not fully aware of the real belief systems of the leaders now. They just have always been in the party and pay little attention to the policies and direction it has gone.
NIV?
The one written by committee made up of others faiths?
She's going to be on the Supreme Court, not the Green Bay Packers.
A football player lasts to about 40.
A supreme court judge pretty much lasts almost up until death.
"her age is a non issue."
Who in general could serve more years on the supreme court: A healthy 60 year old, or a healthy 47 year old?
No fuzzy math required.
Thank goodness, someone else gets it!
Are the democrats hyperventilating yet ..??
"The real beef with miers is not that she doesn't have X experience or Y backround, it's that because she doesn't have that kind of background, we have no record of what she really believes in or how she'd interpret the constitution."
If you'll wait a couple of days, I'm sure that information will emerge. Drudge is already indicating the left is coming after her.
I've heard it called the Nearly Inspired Version. ;)
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.