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 ...
The woman (we think) owns a gun and is (we hope) against abortion. That alone qualifies her as a Constitutional scholar. Call up those Hurray For Everything Singers pronto!
Thomas was a DC Circuit Court judge before he was nominated.
I never did like George Will.
See my post #67. There's your answer.
Constitutional law is quite arcane and complex.
Only ignorant people look at it and say "It's easy."
Scalia is probably the brightest intellect on the SCOTUS. Go read some of his decisions, especially the "easy" calls. Keep in mind that it is not enough to come to a conclusion. A conservative justice like Scalia must also contend against the gloss placed on the Constitution by extremely skilled liberals who are determined to manipulate the text to do their bidding. It isn't enough to say they're wrong. It must be shown through skillful analysis of the facts against precedent (sometimes more than 200 years of precedent) WHY they're wrong. That takes a first-class intellect and more.
We do not get to interview her, we do not know her, we will never "know" her and therefore put a modicum of trust in the person we elected twice to the highest office in the land.
^^
Well put!
He was joking.
"Okay then it has come to this. If you disagree with the President you are no longer a conservative"
And then you are told to go back to DU. Because by trying to argue for the conservative, constitutional position, you are obviously here to disrupt the board.
Forget that if you look on the 'mission statement' for free republic, you see Jim Robinson refer to it as a 'conservative' site three times, and as a 'republican' site...well, I didn't actually see him call it a 'republican' site on the page.
Reasonable and informed people who like and support President Bush (and voted for him) have every right to disagree with him when they feel or believe he has made an error.
George Will did not call him Hitler or claim he eat babies, he simply used his intellect, experience and beliefs to state that Harriet Meirs is the wrong choice for this particular position. And from the looks of things, he is in the Mainstream on this issue.
Eh, George has lost me again. This quote smacks of elitism. I don't think that plain interpretation of the Constituition (a very succinct document) requires special talent, just a little humility and honesty. On the other hand, creative, "living", "prenumbrial" interpretaions and findings are indeed special talents one only finds among the judicial priests and magicians.
I don't really trust the President, I don't think he needs to be so coy. But I'm withholding judgement on this nominee until I detect a lack of humility and honesty or a wiff of that special talent. We probably won't know until we see her opinions. If Roe vs. Wade is not overturned by '08 I think things will go very wrong for our GOP and very probably America. We and the President can live out the rest of our lives knowing it was all our fault.
"Catfight!"
A very undistinguished Circuit Court Judge, it must be said.
Yes, 'we' do, apparently. Other words I have been called were "sh!t faced baboon" and a few others that were removed by the moderator.
I also thought 'we' were smart enough to recognize constructive criticism. 'We' apparently are not.
There are some that put "mock-e-uh-vellian strategery" above what is Right. We've gone from "A Thousand Points of Light" To "A Thousand Pointy Knives"...in our back.
But if the Senate sets the precedent by confirming her, you can be!!!! Isn't that exciting?
A lot of people seem to equate the President's support with a qualification; rather, it's just a reason for her to be confirmed, and not a very good one at that. The jury's out on qualification.
What is the statement that this nomination makes? It says that if you go through hell to get on the Appeals Court because you dared to openly display your conservative convictions you will be passed over by a corporate lawyer, that is a judicial cipher. Pathetic statement.
...and we can at least try once before we declare defeat, can't we?
You lose nothing by nominating a proven conservative to the supreme court. You still get to renominate. And if you fight and lose, it fires up your base for the 2006 election cycle, which can help you gain more seats.
If you just sort of 'go along to get along', you make your core power base ask themselves "why am I out volunteering my time and talents to this party again?"
That is where it all falls apart. It has happened time and time again.
BRAVO!
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.