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 ...
As somebody else said already on this thread, just how much IQ is necessary to stem the encroachment of Liberal-Socialism and judges that legislate from the bench?
If she turns out to be a conservative swing vote where O'Connor was a liberal swing vote, we all win.
I don't know what Ann wants, and neither do you. I was supportive of Roberts. She was not. Over and over again, disinformation from you.
So sit it out.
I'll still have a Republican rep in Congress, even if he's not in the majority.
If you want Democrats back in power, by all means, sit out the next election.
Mo1, your logon should have been Mo15 IMO! ; )
Well said my FRiend!
referring to 1 or more clearly identified candidates in a paid advertisement that is broadcast by a radio broadcast station or a television broadcast station within 60 calendar days preceding the date of an election of the candidate and that appears in the State in which the election is occurring, except that with respect to a candidate for the office of Vice President or President, the time period is within 60 calendar days preceding the date of a general election; orThat is clearly about limit spending, not speech. Maybe there is more and I am missing it.
It was a bad appointment, one I hope we don't repeat now.
So do you think the Senate will Bork her?
Will they stomp her, ground her up, humiliate her and the President? Maybe even mock her education and resume? Or even better, how about her horrible eyeliner, and maybe even imply that she and the President have a thing going on?
Wow, that would be a site!
The conservative press, and the base here and in the Red States would love it, and it is a sure way to win seats in 06, and the WH in 08.
Yes. And so do I. And no precedent has greater weight than the Constitution itself. The Court should only respect precedents that refine or clarify the meaning of the Constituion. It should reject as invalid any "precedents" that change the clear meaning of the words.
It's worse they must seriously believe it when Bush said she was the most qualified person for the job. I'm sorry but my BS detector went of the scale when he said that.
ditto
Miers said to be on `extreme end' of pro-life movement
BY DAVE LEVINTHAL
The Dallas Morning News
extreme end of the pro life movement,, Sink what else can be said?,, pro gun, extreme pro life, sounds like a born again right winger just got nominated and half the conservatives think Bush lied to them?,, I don't get it either
I never experienced such a backlash in my life. They have to dump her. She's going down.
One would think to read them and then base their opinion
Instead of writing this condescending article
The stakes for the Supreme Court are so much higher, that no Senator who decided that their own political calculation dictated a vote against, would nevertheless vote for solely because of the Gang of 14 agreement.
You don't think Bush and Frist considered that?
It amazes me that, for all the time you've spent on this website, that you think that George Will is universally admired here. And to suggest that any criticism of him now, is evidence of ______ (whatever simplistic point you are trying to make) is sophistry.
I'd vote a pro-life Harriet Miers for a Congressional seat, a cabinet position, to the U.N., even the Senate or a Governorship, but please not the Supreme Court--at least not at this point in history.
Because the "intellectual conservatives" are elite snobs. BTW, whatever George Will is politically, I don't see him as a conservative. He is, however, most definitely a snob.
I never experienced such a backlash in my life. They have to dump her. She's going down.
Breyer and Souter (writing separately) agreed with the per curiam holding that the Florida Court's recount scheme violated the Equal Protection Clause, but they dissented with respect to the remedy, believing that a constitutional recount could be fashioned.
But perhaps O'Connor wasn't such a bad appointment. Considering the house and Senate being owned by the Democrats. How could Reagan have done any better, or any worse for that matter? Do you really think Reagan could have gotten a conservative through that gauntlet?
"My thought on that is: given her "city council" service - how would she have ruled on the Kelo vs. New London eminent domain case that was so egregious that it energized conservatives this year? I have no idea. But if I had to guess, and we do have to guess because she has no "paper trail", I would guess that most city council like eminent domain power and she would have voted the way the majority did vote. The wrong way."
Interesting. You make me think of a point that's being somewhat overlooked, or at least I havn't seen it discussed. There's been a great deal of talk about her political and religious background -- she's pro-life, she's born again, she was on the city council, lottery commission, etc.
None of this tells me anything about her JUDICIAL philosophy, which is the one we're supposed to care about. I want a Justice who approves constitutional legislation and strikes down unconstitutional legislation. I thought CJ Roberts had a record that indicated he was a judge along those lines. I really have no idea whether she would be, but some of the arguments in her favor that I'm seeing, like those discussed above, don't really move me.
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.