Posted on 10/07/2005 3:50:01 PM PDT by Sam Hill
His lack of respect for the administration is clear and in my opinion, it negates his opinion.
He has tread needlessly into ground based on his own fixed beliefs as to who is and who is not qualified to interpret the Constitution. Why not you? or Why not Me? That is who the Constitution was written for.
"I'm going to wait for the hearings to see if she has a head on her shoulders or not"
Judging from what little I've seen her talk, you won't be impressed by her at the hearings. She will kind of remind us of GWB at the first debate last year. But, that doesn't mean she won't vote with us on every issue.
I am also certain of the comment about her making an excellent justice.
Now I am not going to respond to the lying piece of garbage who accused me of making this up but someone I am sure has also heard the same thing I did. I hope they will speak up if they did.
Can you document this?
Where? MSM sound bites?
She's been BORKED.
Sadly we have become like the left. They pray for the war in Iraq to falter and there are those like Kristol and his cohorts who pray for Harriet Meiers to falter.
Relax, Robert Bork. Everything’s okay!
Mr. Bush is wise on choosing Miers because he’s known her through thick and thin.
So, Robert Bork, relax on this one.
It’s okay.
BTW, no one posted a link to the actual transcript. So I still don't know what Bork said about the present moninee.
You obviously have no idea what the Court does on a daily basis. Why don't you read the ERISA section of the tax code and tell me your opinion of whether the drafters intended it to preempt state law regarding reimbursement provisions of employee benefit plans?
How silly. The woman gets nominated to the Supreme Court by the President of the United States, and she's expected to decline just because you don't like her qualifications.
The answer was for Bush to not make such a ridiculous nomination in the first place. The answer was for Miers to said, "Really funny, George. Now, be serious for minute here" and to have never entertained the nomination. She still could. I don't know what either of them were thinking. When I heard about the nomination I had to check the calendar to make sure it wasn't April 1st.
If you can't make your point without attacking others, your point must be mighty weak.
Ping
What they did to Bork, when he was "borked," would look like a picnic in the park, when compared to the hearings today and the contentious hostility shown toward those who have been nominated for office. (IMHO, Thomas had a much harder time due to the character assassination attempts.)
I remember the Bork hearings and they were infuriating (but most of the arguments had to do with dissecting Bork's views, based on what he had written.) If you want to check out the transcripts of the Bork hearings, here's a link:
http://www.loc.gov/rr/law/notconfirmed.html#bork
Hearings in the last few years, from Condi Rice, to John Roberts, resemble The Inquisition, not one shred of civility to be found in the Inquisitioners.
Did I say "moninee"? Yes I did. I meant nominee.
And isn't it ironic, part of the reason President Bush sent a stealth nomination is because the Senate asserts a 60 vote supermajority requirement of its own creation, to confirm judicial nominees.
So much for plain language. So much for defending the Constitution.
Levin suggested she's nothing more than a paper stapler.
I am paraphrasing as the radio is on in the background...
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.