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 ...
I think Hannity's people will come up with some research as soon as it appears on FR:)
I'm not attacking anyone, You are, I simply said that aint gonna be fighting anything. Mark you might be a notorious lawyer and a radio talk show host, but you wouldn't be in the fight if Luttig was nominated, you would just be here insulting everyone you could as the Rino's caved in the Senate
Well now, that certainly explains why she's always shooting her mouth off. LOL
"You won't find a a lot of freedoms in the constitution. The document lists the restrictions on the government - it is not an exhaustive list of personal freedoms."
You're right. And I think spending is a natural part of elections and is in some ways, a right but not an unlimited right. The government is allowed to set limits.
If you ban ads from advocacy groups within 60 days of an election and stipulate that they cannot mention the names of the candidates, you are limiting speech, not just money. The limitations are contained in the bill, which is full of bureaucratic jargon and legalese. Look under the Definition of Express advocacy and its definition and then link that to federal election law. I provided the other links to make it clearer.
The President stated, "I also have reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising, which restrains the speech of a wide variety of groups on issues of public import in the months closest to an election. I expect that the courts will resolve these legitimate legal questions as appropriate under the law."
He also stated, "I believe individual freedom to participate in elections should be expanded, not diminished; and when individual freedoms are restricted, questions arise under the First Amendment."
I can't make it any clear than that. The bill not only limits donations (for some), but it also prevents groups from airing advocacy ads on TV/Radio 60 days prior to the election, which is a restriction on free speech. The President acknowledged the First Amendment issues when he signed the bill and specifically mentioned the restraints on free speech in the months prior to the election.
Ok, you have to decide what your argument is -- so let's begin this way. Please choose one of the following: 1. Harriet Miers is the best qualified candidate in America for the Supreme Court; or. 2. She was chosen because she will attact the votes of liberal Republican senators. The president today made the first point, you are now arguing the second point. Now I don't even know what it is I am supposed to trust?
I have no doubt that the Senate will be asking and getting many many documents on Miers
And I have no doubt that many many special interest groups as well as the Senate Staff will be going through those documents with a fine tooth combine
Till then ... I am withholding judgment till I learn more about her
Let's let Harriett articulate that at her hearings.
No one knew, for sure, where John Roberts stood on "judicial philosophy" until he toyed with the Judiciary Committee.
If Miers embarrasses herself, or stumbles around and can't seem to get her bearings, I'll join you in calling for her to step aside.
But you're jumping the gun, it seems to me.
Texas is right. The black vote is tottering. If the country watched the dems scorch JR Brown, whether she makes it or not, 3-5% of the black vote goes Republican next time.
Yes and he Lusted in his heart too.<(•¿•)>
The Constitution is silent on judicial qualifications. It leaves the decision of who is qualified up to the President of the United States, with the advise and consent of the Senate. She is qualified from a Constitutional perspective. She is qualified from a historical perspective when compared to many of the 109 individuals who have served on the Supreme Court. The Senate will decide if she is qualified from their advise and consent perspective.
Is she a conservative who is likely to change the balance of the court and swing it rightward? Yes, I believe so. Time will tell if I'm correct.
Funny, I don't recall voting for George Will for president. If and when he runs, I'll check my options. I've already done that with I voted for W, and I'd do the same thing today.
Let's say that louder, nopardons. "DOES THE NAME SOUTER RING ANY BELLS?"
That's a little unnecessary. Because I am unsatisfied with the President and the Republicans acting as if they are in the minority, I will vote for the Constitution party? That's nonsense. We waited 40 years for the CHANCE of this opportunity, and the republicans aren't going for the slam-dunk?
Sorry, I have my limits, and this bizarre decision caused me to reach my limits. I'm a conservative first, republican second, and I won't give up thinking for myself just because someone has an "R" after their name...
Dude, I agree with you on Miers, but on CFR you couldn't be more wrong. The President was disturbed by CFR. He only signed it because he either had to sign it or veto the bill entirely since the Courts took away his line item veto powers.
People use CFR to bash the President. I see it as a greater argument for originalist/conservative judges.
Once more, with feeling:
Pres. Bush told his legal counsel to look for candidates who will make goood justices. One criteria only: they must be Constitutional Constructionists. She along with the Pres. introduced us to all these wonderful people like Brown, Owen, Estrada, and Luttig. He is so impressed with her job, he decides that she'll make a really good justice.
If you like all those people previously mentioned, how can you not like the person who selected them in the first place?
You attack me and others, we respond, and now you're a victim, is that it? Why don't you leave?
I'd rather win. I support President Bush and his choice of Harriet Miers!
So we didn't fight, and got Ginsburg. And we didn't fight hard enough for Bork, and got Kennedy. Reagan didn't pay attention and we got O'Connor. Wins like that we can do without.
I'm waiting for somebody to trot out Roman Hruska's (R-Nebr) defense of Carswell:
"Even if he was mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance? We can't have all Brandeises and Cardozos and Frankfurters and stuff like that there."I'd hoped it had been settled back in 1970 that the Supreme Court should indeed prefer 'stuff like that there'.
How do you figure? The democrats pratically lynched Clarence Thomas and they weren't hurt at all by the black vote.
The sad part is that even being pro-life in someone's personal life does not mean that they will rule such ways on the Bench.
So, putting too much faith in whether a person is pro-life or pro-abortion is silly.
What is important is whether the nominee views that the Federal government has a role in meddling with states on abortion, marriage, and other issues.
We need to worry about the judicial philosophy, not personal views and beliefs. Unfortunately, there is no Miers record to judge this important criteria.
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.