And then there's a bad stealth:
I'll let you decide for yourself which category Harriet Miers falls under.
Posted on 10/06/2005 7:15:47 PM PDT by jdhljc169
Then to hell with her and any other totally-obscure nominee.
Are you in the habit of hiring people to work for you, in a job they cannot be fired from, if you know absolutely nothing about how they will perform on the job?
You'd be an idiot to hire someone on those terms, wouldn't you?
Not necessarily. What if she's a snakefondling nutcase (yes, I've met one or two like that) who thinks the bars ought to be closed on Sundays, if not permanently?
I think Earl Warren was a little b4 my time. But the "yes, thank you" would have at least kept us in suspense!
Think we should select SCJ like the vatican selects Popes? Lock 'em up with W away from their beloved cameras and mics and make 'em do the white smoke, black smoke thingie.??
And don't put words into mine. I was responding to your claim that if something wasn't put in, like qualifications for office, it didn't matter. If that's what you think, then be prepared to accept its full import.
Not really. Christians come in all shapes.
President Bush is using a tactical method known as stealth. With it, your nominee presents as small of a target as possible. This eliminates the pre-hearing press conferences where they roll out their canned responses designed to smear your nominee. We all know the drill. It neutralizes the tactics cooked up in advance ready to use against your nominee. You can compare it to a football game where the players come out from the huddle with a touchdown play. No one knows what you are going to do until the ball is hiked. In this case, no one expected Harriet Miers. She surprised everyone. The play is underway and the only thing the opposition can count on is for the offense to fumble the ball.
We must stay disciplined and work as a team now. The ball has been hiked and the play is on. Love it, live it, do or die. Let's get that ball in the end zone!
That's funny because I just went through some 5-point calvinism discussion over in another thread about free will. Oddly, it wasn't as contentious as the Miers debate.
Depends on who you ask. Like David Koresh. Or Jim Jones.
Not to mention Miers was awarded the Sandra Day O'Connor Award For Excellence.
He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure.
-Federalist No. 76
If that's the goal then Bush sure blew it on Harriet Miers.
Excellent post.
some people go to church on Easter and Christmas then call themselves Christians. If they don't live the faith, they are what is referred to in the Bible as chaff. The wheat...the ones who live day-to-day according to Christs teachings they best they can are true Christians....followers (imitators in church and out of church) of Christ. Not that we don't sin....we do. But there is genuine sorrow afterward and an attempt, with God's help, to do better next time.
True Christians will look to follow God's leading and not mislead to achieve positions of influence. And hopefully the power would not corrupt if it is achieved...but in many cases even good and wise people (like David and Solomon) became corrupt....but finally did repent.
Bottom line is christians wear thier heart on thier sleeve and should have no motivation to lie...but they are not perfect either.
And then there's a bad stealth:
I'll let you decide for yourself which category Harriet Miers falls under.
"Oddly, it wasn't as contentious as the Miers debate"
Then there must not have been many Armineans showing up...
Absolutely does not depend on who you ask.....depends on what scripture says a Christian is. Found in Galations 5:16-26. This easily and clearly defines what a Christian is....and is not.
Let's think about your question. You open up the application file for someone you know nothing about and find a letter of recommendation from the President of the United States who speaks with glowing praise of a ten year association with the applicant. You decide to call some of the applicants co-workers. They speak of glowing praise of the applicant. You also find out that your applicant is a woman of many firsts: In 1972, she became the first woman hired at Dallas's Locke Purnell Rain Harrell. In March 1996, her colleagues elected her the first female President of Locke, Purnell, Rain & Harrell, at that time a firm of about 200 lawyers. She was the first woman to lead a Texas firm of that size. In 1985, she was selected as the first woman to become President of the Dallas Bar Association. In 1992, she became the first woman elected President of the State Bar of Texas. She has received countless awards recognizing her distinguished career, including 1997 Woman of the Year, the 1996 Louise Raggio Award, the 1993 Sarah T. Hughes Award, and the 1992 Dallas Bar Association's Justinian Award for Community Service. In 2005 she received the Sandra Day O'Connor award. Do I need to go on, because there is much much more good things about this woman.
You would be stuck on stupid if you did not hire the applicant on the spot!
She us really good stealth. It is Souter that we should encourage to get off the bench. He is definitely second string material.
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.