Posted on 10/07/2005 2:38:48 PM PDT by JohnHuang2
Are you serious??? If you are a Constitutional expert you KNOW what's in it and what's not without having to reference it, so you can knock down any stupid arguments based on what's not in the document, because you know from memory it's NOT in the Constitution. If you think it's a bad idea to have a person on the court who has studied the Constitution for 35 years, not sitting on a bench ruling from up high, sometimes based on what the person thinks and not what's IN the Constitution, then THAT is how you get a souter or o'conner or kennedy. Miers has proven that she's a conservative and has been for many years, even voting for Reagan and Bush in '84 and '88 while she was still a conservative Democrat. This argument against her has really become silly and not worth arguing. I'm to the point I will just wait a few months till after she's ruled with Scalit and Thomas and Roberts on issues, and then come back with quite a few "see I told you so's".
It isn't very hard to tell that it isn't right for the government to take land from private property owners and give it to another...
But, If you ask 5 of the supreme constitutional experts of our land.... they seem to think it is just fine.
I trust a ham sandwich more than a "constitutional expert"
'Nuf said.
That very case proves WHY someone like Miers is needed on the court. Look who did that. ginsburg, souter, breyer, stevens, and o'conner for pete's sake. The four of those five have NEVER upheld what they know the Constitution really says. And no one has ever accused them of being evangalical Christians. And how many of them have been registered Republicans for many years, and worked in a conservative Republican administration in the White House? There is just no facts that support the opinion that she will be a liberal or even a moderate on the court. That's further disputed by all the people who have known her for so many years who have states what her belief system is like. What she believes is totally incompatable with a liberal mindset. And the fact of the matter is, when Reagan put up o'conner, he didn't know her before that. And Reagan didn't know kennedy before that. And when H. Bush put up souter, he didn't know him before that. Well W. Bush has known Miers for over a decade, and she's been with him all five years of his Presidency so far. His promise to put conservative constructionist judges has been by far the most strictly vigorously kept promise of his administration, and he has not given any reason to doubt his continued committment to that promise. Name me one Judge Bush has put up who has proven to be anything but conservative in their judicial findings. There isn't one. Miers won't be the exception.
I'm all for her because the fact she isn't a judge... I know that she is a lawyer, but she is from the outside..... that is why I support her. I'm always a fan of the outsider coming in and displacing kings.
Sweet music to my ears, Sir John!
*****
GWB: HBS MBA
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1070924/posts
The American Thinker February 3, 2004 | Thomas Lifson
*****
One final note on George W. Bush’s management style and his Harvard Business School background does not derive from the classroom, per se. One feature of life there is that a subculture of poker players exists. Poker is a natural fit with the inclinations, talents, and skills of many future entrepreneurs. A close reading of the odds, combined with the ability to out-psych the opposition, leads to capital accumulation in many fields, aside from the poker table.
By reputation, the President was a very avid and skillful poker player when he was an MBA student. One of the secrets of a successful poker player is to encourage your opponent to bet a lot of chips on a losing hand. This is a pattern of behavior one sees repeatedly in George W. Bush’s political career. He is not one to loudly proclaim his strengths at the beginning of a campaign. Instead, he bides his time, does not respond forcefully, at least at first, to critiques from his enemies, no matter how loud and annoying they get. If anything, this apparent passivity only goads them into making their case more emphatically.
you may like this ............ ping
That means that she gave us Miguel Estrada, Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owens and John Roberts and every other hard line conservative Appellate Court nominee that Bush sent to the Senate. Has Bush sent us any Souters? Has Bush sent us any Anthony Kennedys? No. In fact most of Bush's appointments have been to the right of Rhenquist. But nobody seems to trust the person who counseled Bush to make all these nominations. Somehow everyone thinks that a person who would advise the president to appoint Janice Rogers Brown would be stupid enough to vote like Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Give it up people. Miers is the best candidate for the job. She may not be the best lawyer in the world, but she earned the nomination by earning the trust of the President. That's good enough credentials for me.
That's our President ~ Bump!
BUMP!
Even Ellen Ratner sees this. Of all people.
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.