"It is not important that she be confirmed because there is no evidence that she is among the leading lights of American jurisprudence, or that she possesses talents commensurate with the Supreme Court's tasks. The president's ``argument'' for her amounts to: Trust me."
I predict george will will be attacked on this thread like never before.
In the coming days, it will become known that she is extremely pro-life. I am getting this information from decent sources. She has been actively involved in church, including working as a Sunday School teacher and doing missions work. She is very conservative. I opposed this nomination strongly yesterday, but am willing to give it a chance. It could turn out to be one of the best in the past 30 years.
Bush had his list, Ruth Bader had her list, George had his list and guess who's list counted the most.
:)
Will is right. Period. The ad hominem attacks fall flat and just show weak intellect.
Very Supreme!
"I predict george will will be attacked on this thread like never before."
I'm disturbed by how many commentators I used to respect seem to be using no logical reasoning in this case. Larry Kudlow is on the radio right now and he was discussing Miers basically saying "well ((such and such)) has supported her and that's good enough for me"... "and this group supports her and they're good". Where are his critical thinking skills? Anybody who honestly thinks "Bush picked her and I trust him" is an argument, really scares me.
He has been attacked on here before: for being an elitist and full of himself. He continues true to his own form.
I'm not attacking him, but I'll repeat my .02 from a thread this morning ... does a revolt on the right which results in the defeat of this nomination, and IMHO that's where the revolt would come from as signaled by Mr. Will and others, not do irreparable damage to President Bush and pretty much put his administration into lame-duck status from here on out?
Based on the first response I would say it has already begun.
If it was a neccessity to choose a woman for "balance". With all the great, conservative women who were available it is too bad that the President resorted to cronyism for his selection. It used to be that friends of the president got cush ambassadorships, now I guess they get lifetime appointments to the highest court in the land, how sad.
He deserves to be, for making statements like this:
It is not important that she be confirmed because there is no evidence that she is among the leading lights of American jurisprudence,
That applies to Clarence Thomas, to William Rehnquist, and to many other justices from the past.
How come it is a requirement to be a "leading light of jurisprudence" to be on the Supreme Court?
Does Will's twitty bow tie spin if you give it a twirl?
Since George feels this way, I assume that he did not vote for Bush.
It takes "light" or "talents" to force pornography, sodomy, abortion, and international law on the country ?
And since when has THAT been a qualification? How about William Douglas, Hugo Black, Thurgood Marshall, none of whom were bright judicial lights before appointment. Or, Earl Warren, who was a political hack, wrongly assumed to be loyal? On the other hand, Judge Bork, a brilliant legal scholar and outstanding appellate judge, who left the Senate Judiciary Committee behind in the dust in a legal tour de force, was deemed unfit.
I'm undecided on this pick, but Will's head is in the clouds.
Yes. I have noticed lately how conservative commentators who for years have been lauded on fr are turned on instantly and smeared in a fashion worthy of the most extreme leftists if that commentator dares to say something critical of the current administration. Many of those bashing Will now were probably staunch McCain supporters back when Will was about the only one in media strongly supporting Bush. I think you learn a lot more about peoples true qualities when you disagree with them rather than agree.