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 ...
Janice Rogers Brown
And, if Lutting or McConnell is defeated, no big deal, right?
Bush can just run another victim out there to get crucified. Because it's all about getting in Joe Biden's face, isn't it?
Bush doesn't fight. You knew that when you voted for him in 2004. He is not into circuses.
We'll I am glad they don't pick Astronauts and nuclear scientist like they do Supreme Court Justice's. We'd be in a world of hurt.
Oh, by the way, see #12.
And if you say that she is an "originalist" or a "constructionist" you better accompany that with a definition because I doubt that you understand that there's a difference between the two.
"Really? The political speech limitations is the scary part of the bill. If the FEC chose to, they could go after conservative talk show hosts such as Rush and charge that they are actually just political advertisements and shut them down 60 days before an election."
I wish somebody would quote from the bill because I am having trouble finding anything like that. The main thing bad I am finding is how bureaucratic and red tape laden the reporting requirement for spending are.
She might have been out there in the real world, but at what level has she practiced law? Almost all lawyers are prostitutes, selling their legal services instead of their bodies. At the federal level, the intricacies of the law and the Constitution are debated much more often then facts of guilt or innocence. Commercial or criminal law is not the best basis of expertise for an associate justice.
Maybe because this is a conservative forum and Bush has acted like a socially conservative democrat for a long time.
Why don't you tell us her judicial philosophy?
And many lurkers who take appreciation in learning the difference between sense and nonsense logistically.
You don't see anything about the 60 day cutoff before the election?
And how Ann knows what is in the president's mind, is beyond me. Just as it is beyond me, why she went after Roberts as she did and continues to do, ignores the fact that it was Reagan who gave us O'Connor, and utterly ignores the fact that it was President Bush the elder, who gave up Thomas, whom she drools over, whilst trashing GHW Bush.
"He asked you for a description on her judicial philosophy, you told us how you think she would rule on a particular issue."
Her position on the 2nd Amendment is 100% originalist, something that Luttig and Brown have not seen fit to indicate.
If that's her view on that extremely contentious aspect of jurisprudence, then she's probably more "originalist" than you are, dumbs***.
Do you realize how foolish you are, and how disgraceful you've conducted yourself here? Do you realize that we have to win elections, and this undermines those efforts? Do you realize that the judiciary is out of control, that it confers benefits on illegal immigrants, rights on terrorists, uses foreign law to interpret the Constitution, promotes reverse discrimination, and is at war with our culture? And you say trust me, and attack everyone or anyone who dares to learn about Miers's philosophy? You are undermining your party and your country. At least the president believes in his heart that he's doing the right thing. You are nothing more than a fool spouting things you know nothing about. And you are underming what little support there is in the movement for this appointment. I have asked you repeatedly who you are and what you do, and you're so ashamed you won't answer. I understand. Don't blame you.
Weren't Breyer and Stevens convinced to join onto the 7-2 portion of Bush v. Gore? Sometimes even the court liberals can be reached.
Who the hell cares? Vote for Michael Peroutka, and cower under your bed as you wait to get your throat cut by terrorists.
Wasn't the nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor a compromise? Not a mistake, but a compromise. Could Reagan really have done better with a Democratic house and Senate? We're we really duped by O'Connor? Did she ever really pose as a conservative?
Nailed it. We don't have a dependable majority in the Senate.
You know there is a paper trail on her, but none of Mrs. Miers' detractors want to go find it. Op-ed pieces, legal briefs, Texas Bar publications, court transcripts, speeches, etc. Until someone can come up with something better than where she attended law school or the results of some group project, I will continue to trust the judgment of President Bush.
Thanks...re that foul Kennedy.
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.