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 ...
How do we know that she isn't? That is the point - why not nominate someone with a track record that is reviewable rather than someone with no track record at all.
Miers may seem like a gun wielding Christian lady (those are hardly qualifications for the court) but how do we how she will rule with actual cases are in front of her? We can never be 100% certain, but with a judicial track record, we could make more informed decision.
Now that the "Adult" has gone to bed, we can have a civil debate now
I think KITTENS wear mittens and their claws are sharp objects. LOL
Take care.
I could care less if she is pro-life, an evangelical Christian, or personally conservative. Will she judge based on the constitution, and is she well-qualified for that task? I think George Will is right to be outraged.
What??!!??? ... No Group hug?
LOL
Yes, Clinton had his hands in the right pants. LOL
Oh man ... and I posted on 666
Ok .. ship the group hug
I am very glad that you decided to post here tonight. I learned quite a bit about you. And what you think about people like me. Very enlightening. Disappointing, but interesting.
----Do you actually expect me to wade through all these threads in order to get to your weak kneed post. Try again.---
YES, if you're going to criticize others, please do it in a respectable manner. Right now your posts come off as a conceited egoist who judges others off the cuff and doesn't provide a foundation for those criticisms.
You call me "weak kneed", yet I provide a foundation to my criticisms......something that is lacking in your posts.
It's called manners. Remember?
I, for one, think there is a great difference between those who are questioning the nomination of Miers, and those who have had a "meltdown". I think the reasonable folks are waiting to listen and learn more before they make any sort of decision on whether they approve or disapprove of Ms. Miers.
Best argument yet.
Given both of your comments, my questions are....
Anything Schumer, Leahy, Reid, and Kennedy oppose, I am generally for. Anything they are pretty much okay with, I am usually very much against.
Which makes me all the more concerned over Harry Reid's glowing approval of Harriet Miers..... even Chuckie Schumer, Patrick Leahy and Barbara Feinstein spoke approvingly of Miers. I contrast their initial treatment and approval of Miers with their vehement opposition and filibuster threats if women like Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown or Edith Jones had been nominated. I am baffled and greatly curious over "Why are these Dims so approving of Harriet Miers and yet were so ferocious & outspoken to any of the other conservative women (or men) that Bush could have nominated? What is it that they know that gives them such reassurance for Miers, who supposedly is pro-life, anti-abortion and against special treatment for gays? Especially when they threatened to filibuster any other potential nominees that held these same views, especially if they were pro-life? Is it because they know in reality that Miers will break left on these issues once she is confirmed on the SC?
No one is better than the average Joe, or "joe-mama". LOL Uh-oh, got bit by the humor bug again. ;)
Manners on this thread dictate that you copy and paste your post in italics.
And no, yet again, by your stupid, benighted post to me about the "purists", you had less than NO idea whatsoever what I was saying. You NEED to be lectured to! You came at me with a spurious and frankly, exceedingly stupid reply. Ditto this one, you smarmy, smug, arrogant putz.
Not only will I never listen to you radio show ever again, I'm telling everyone I know to NOT listen to you. And yes, they WILL listen to me, nitwit.
Send me a refund for your book; I don't want it in the house. Someone else wrote it for you? Reading your posts tonight, nobody would believe that you penned it.
I'm NOT the poster/s who said that we should just fall in line, because the president said "trust me". If anyone here is "slow", it's YOU! You don't even know nor are you able to comprehend who is writing what.
And if you are that tired, log off.
LMFAO!
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.