Posted on 10/04/2005 7:33:33 PM PDT by jdm
Edited on 10/04/2005 7:41:50 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
WASHINGTON -- Senators beginning what ought to be a protracted and exacting scrutiny of Harriet Miers should be guided by three rules. First, it is not important that she be confirmed. Second, it might be very important that she not be. Third, the presumption -- perhaps rebuttable but certainly in need of rebutting -- should be that her nomination is not a defensible exercise of presidential discretion to which senatorial deference is due.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Said by whom?
See 12.
"He was joking"
Are you sure? It wasn't very different from other things said here quite seriously.
Just curious, what will it take for you to criticize the President? Does he have to go so far as to physically attack you or a family member, or is this a complete "unconditional love" sort of thing?
Check it out yourself. Thomas' Circuit Court career was as dull as bondo.
lesson learned: you have to remember to declare sarcasm in your original post, otherwise you'll be explaining it until the thread dies.
Me neither. Sounds like something from DU.
"Wait and see" is a bad strategy for lifetime appointments.
We can at least say that both Rehnquist and Thomas were both more qualified - and had been in positions, moreover, which forced them to begin exploring and developing coherent views on constitutional law - than Miers. Miers' experience is almost entirely in commercial law.
Even Thomas - who plainly was an affirmative action pick by Bush - had spent a year on the federal bench.
Will lays it on thick with this "leading light" rhetoric. But the fact remains that Miers is the least qualified nominee since Abe Fortas. And like Fortas, her chief qualification seems to be that she was a close friend of the president.
Maybe she'll somehow turn out to be a great justice. The problem is that we're being asked to take that almost entirely on faith. Many more qualified originalist jurists and scholars were passed over. Disappontment is not unreasonable.
Chances to appoint Supreme Court nominees don't happen every day. Espeially not for "swing" seats.
You too, see 12.
The Constitution and all its amendments amount to a whole heck of a lot more than these two positions.
I support Bush to piss you off. Looks like it's working.
Conservatives have their elites as well.
What is it, you're having a multiple sarcasm this evening?!
It's good for a laugh. But your probably correct.
Hard to believe such sarcasm can be considered legitimate. On second thought, maybe not.
BECAUSE SHE IS A WOMAN AND NONE OF THEM WILL SAY THAT. Sorry for screaming.
George Will wouldn't know a brilliant attorney or judge if they sat on his big fat head. But then we can't all be brilliant baseball writers, and act affected all the time, and look laughably smarmy in bow ties.
President Bush says Miers is an originalist, Miers says she's an originalist. Do you think one or both of them is lying?
What are the "qualifications" for the SC for originalists? Is it something beyond what the Constitution states?
If so, how come? I thought we are not supposed to extrapolate from the original meaning of the Constitution.
If John Marshall's non juridical background was sufficient for qualification, then that's good enough for Harriett Miers.
Spoken like a true elitist!
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.