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 ...
If I send you your book, will you give me a refund?
I wonder if Will's chief gripe with Miers is one of judicial philosophy and understanding or more of her not appealing to his sense of elitism.
Well, I have engaged here far more than I should have, but I am so tired of these put downs of anyone who dares to ask questions and think for themselves in a thoughtful and civil way. Almost immediately it deteriorates into personal attacks. Just like the libs, you have to take a stand against them. I've been the subject of enough cheap shots by the usual little gang, so I dared to respond. But enough is enough. Have a great night.
No, some southern states even had black senators during that time I believe.
An example of what? Do you actually expect me to wade through all these threads in order to get to your weak kneed post. Try again.
Not unless enough other Justices, and/or public opinion, support it.
No, you've done a great job.
I get your point, hope you're right, and appreciate your civility. Have a good night.
Even worse, were conservatives that demand documented, tried and true, proven conservatives with a track records when critical positions such as this are at stake.
We should really be ashamed.
If you remember only one Republican candidate for President in 2000 even mentioned the Constitution. Alan Keyes.
LOL!
I asked three questions sweetheart. Go back and count. One..two...three.
I think you are on the wrong forum, in the wrong country, and perhaps even on the wrong planet?
---Are you reading this from her Court decisions? Is this something you've gathered from a careful analysis of Law Review articles she has authored? Or are you reading what's been said in press conferences and releases? Or worse, opinions of other Freepers? ----
"THE PRESIDENT: A Justice must be a person of fairness and unparalleled integrity. And a Justice must strictly apply the Constitution and laws of the United States, and not legislate from the bench."
You see, I believe that Bush is serious in his judicial appointments after he was nailed on the CFR law. I also believe that many people are running involuntary cover for him, because if there were a united front behind his appointments, the Democrats would NEVER let them through.
The votes that will throw those bastards out of the Senate.
I'm not worried. : )
I guess his ADHD was never diagnosed or treated? The makers of Ritalin must be in tears
Actually, you've done a great job tonight. Nice to meet you. Good night.
All were answered.
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.