I gave the article all the thought it deserved... which isn't much, since it was basically: "Support Miers, because she believes in God, she's untarnished by scandal, her law school wasn't that bad, and she's a woman." If that were enough to win my support for a nominee, well, I'd be a Democrat.
Whether one has faith in God or not, God didn't pick Miers, Bush did. And Bush isn't God, he's a politician. You shouldn't "have faith" in him to the extent that you unhesitatingly decide that a choice is good simply because it was his.
I don't think it's a "rationalization", but it definitely is "rational".
See above. The arguments made by this article: she believes in God, she doesn't have any scandals that we know of, and she's female should not suffice to convince a "rational" person that "the Court will be in the best hands possible".
"Let's give her a chance. Bombs away." Excellent choice in phrase, to say the least.
Yeah. In this case, "give her a chance" is synonymous with "jump off a cliff". There's no going back; if "giving her a chance" turns out to be the wrong move, we're stuck with the consequences for decades.
The elites are insisting bench time is a requirement!
Thanks for the straw man. I've stated my reasons for opposition, and her lack of experience on the bench is not one of them.
We'll put you down as yet another pretend writer who the president didn't consult before he nominated somebody.
Nope, he didn't consult with me. But he did make me a promise. And I am not convinced he has kept it. And yes, I do tend to be a little bitter when people break their promises to me.
One of the things that President Bush has said about why he chose her, was that he believes, no doubt, that she will be faithful to be a strict Constitutionalist.
Yes, which once again brings us back to the main argument used by the Miers supporters: "Trust Bush!"
Bush nominated someone who #1 passes the pro-life litmus test many on FR seem to hold dear
Not me. I'd dearly love to see Roe tossed in the garbage where it belongs, but I'm much less interested in having a Justice who will vote to overturn it than I am in why she would vote to overturn it. If she would overturn Roe just because she opposes abortion, that's bad. Roe should be overturned because it's extraconstitutional, not because abortion is bad. My litmus test isn't "pro-life", but "pro-Constitution", and the two are not necessarily equivalent.
and #2 can be confirmed for reasons mentioned here and on other threads.
Lots of people could be confirmed. With 55 GOP Senators, there are probably a lot more potential nominees that would be confirmed than would be rejected. Whether she can be confirmed or not has no bearing on whether Miers would make a good Justice or not... and if she wouldn't, easy confirmation is a negative.
Anytime a group of lawyers, "legal experts", liberals and politicians come out against something, don't you begin to wonder if perhaps that "something" may be a good thing? LOL
What a great argument. I think I'll use that to claim that since most lawyers, legal experts, liberals, and politicians are against random beatings, they must be a good thing. LOL.
trust the preisdent....be a good little bot how dare you question the man, you ingrate fringer you
Very well said.
Why cant we get another candidate like Roberts through...dont we have any others like him?
Yup, we have lots, and that's why I'm so ticked. Whether Miers is good or not is to some degree beside the point... there were potential nominees who are indisputably awesome, who we wouldn't have to wonder about. Again, my personal favorite is Alex Kozinski, who so richly deserves a seat on the Supreme Court it's not even funny. I wish Bush had left Roberts in O'Connor's seat; Kozinski would have made an incredible Chief.
coulda fooled me around here pard.
Well stated! I fully concur.
When you are elected President, you let us all know, will ya?
You wouldn't consider WAITING before you damn, would you?
No, it would mean that you were an American who respects the constitution. All this caterwauling about the choice (before the woman has even said a public word) means that you neither believe in the constitution nor trust the founding fathers. After all, they are the ones who gave the president the power to select the judges. You are now saying that doesn't matter to you, you have no faith in who the people elected, you seem to want a do over.
If you don't like the system, work the change it. Get a constitutional amendment that gives the power to select judges to a direct vote of the people. Or to make it even simpler, perhaps we could just take a poll.
You are entitled to you opinion and I do respect that. I want someone who respects, honors, and makes crucial judgements based on the Constitution of the United States of America. There is no reason, in my opinion, that Harriet Miers can't be that person. However, unlike you, I have not decided whether I support her nomination or not. What I have decided, is that those who are damning her before they even know her, are irrelevant to the discussion. Those who are biased one way or another, are doing a disservice to our President, our country, and most certainly to the Republican party.