Posted on 10/05/2005 4:03:47 PM PDT by perfect stranger
Managing partner of a 400-laywer firm.
First head of the Texas Bar association.
And White House legal counsel.
Accomplishments you and I will never achieve.
What is the relationship between rising to head a club, a local Bar Association and being qualified for the Supreme Court of the United States?
First of all, there are no "qualifications" to be on the Supreme Court in the Constitution. So you apparently don't even grasp the Constutional issues here (surprise).
Rehnquist would not have been qualfied, using your arguments.
Miers has been working closely with the president of the United States for five years. She has screened nominees to federal courts. Screened the materials the most important man in the world reads.
And you, weasel-girl, can only downplay that.
Meanwhile, I ripped your Scalia standard to shreds. You spun yourself into contradictions as a result. And the only pathetic argument you can offer is the following:
Her highest position is owed solely to her relationship with Bush.
Yeah, she's an important part of the president's circle. That's nothing to you.
Fooey yet again.
Please point to me where I made any comments about Roberts. Search and you will find none. Trust me /sarcasm ... this is a bad pick.
Ouch! LOL.
I forgot to add, which mneans you are not speaking from a naturally majority position when you look at it the way I point out. Until the poll questions are changed to Waiting For More Infor But Against, Waiting For More Info But For, as me and deadhead have proven the question also includes people leaning for her but want more info.
If Teddy agrees, it won't matter. The end of the world would be imminent.
Oh, for crying out loud.
You are contradicting yourself left and right.
Since WHEN IS SUPPORTING THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS PRE-ORDAINING DECISIONS, WHEN THE LANGUAGE OF THE AMENDMENT IN QUESTION CLEARLY STATES EXACTLY THAT?
Gawd, you are a weasel.
Step 1: Demand the head of any Senator who votes to confirm Miers. (unless she really surprises us somehow during the hearings)
What POSSIBLE reason do you have for thinking she would support Roe??
I'm always amazed how conservative so many newbies are.
You do, however, get to the gist of the argument in favor of Miers when you say "In the end, it all comes back to trusting the President."
Do you or do you not? I don't. I think he picked Miers because she is an old friend (FOB) and crony. He did not pick her because she is the most qualified candidate in the whole USA for the SCOTUS despite asking us to buy that line.
I agree. That's where the 60 years comes in. If the Constitution spells out the the President's judgement is prerequisite to selecting nominees, and we elected this President, then it stands to reason that, even if his nominee does not fit everyone's preconceived notion of an SC justice, the nominee deserves the benefit of the doubt at least.
As far as I'm concerned, this nomination is superb because it baffles so many people who are wise in their own eyes. I cannot imagine GWB to be ignorant of the ramifications here. We are mistaken if we think he is, like John Glenn, not aware of the gravity of the situation.
I think a majority vote by the SCOTUS would do the trick. It's really simple isn't it. Do you think Bush, Roberts, and Miers will see to it that they vote that way?
Whereas St. Bork has treated the 2nd Amendment with contempt.
as Bush has done, right after saying he'd sign an extension of the AWB.
She wrote that back in 1992. Long ago. In response to gun grabbers wanting to exploit a shooting to enact gun control.
And she wrote a gutsy response to them.
And all you can do is belittle that.
The burden is not on me to show that she wouldn't. It's enough that we'd be playing Russian Roulette by going with her, and that's unacceptable.
Stay focused:-) Engineering would be great, both of my brother's are in the field and love what they do. Why won't the VA let you go that route? If that is what you want to do, you should do it.
You're right. It's so obvious.
I wonder how all these issue ever make it to the Court?
Or all those other simple Constitution- and other- issues.
Just abolish the court. All the answers are obvious. They're in the Constitution in black and white. No court review necessary.
She obviously is the most qualified in his eyes. The nomination is his perogative, not yours.
I guess if you can't counter the truth, spread sh** instead like you did here.
Bork has belittled the 2nd Amendment. Miers spoke out forcefully in favor of it. Which one would YOU want judging a 2nd A case?
I didn't see it. She said she might resort to what?
The post was about more than Roberts. The point that applies to you is that you don't know enough about ANY of the potential candidates to know if this is a bad pick.
So this following statement only compounds the ignorance of your position:
Trust me /sarcasm ... this is a bad pick.
Everyone was saying there was no information, when here came Ken Starr, who has worked with her, telling us what a brilliant lawyer she is. I don't consider those talking points; it was his honest opinion.
Sorry I offended you; I really didn't mean to be antagonistic towards you at all.
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.