ROBERT BORK CALLS MIERS NOMINATION "A DISASTER"

Tucker Carlson ^ | October 5, 2005 | Press Release

[Sam Hill]

ROBERT BORK CALLS THE HARRIET MIERS NOMINATION "A DISASTER" ON TONIGHT'S "THE SITUATION WITH TUCKER CARLSON"

SECAUCUS, NJ - October 7, 2005 - Tonight on MSNBC's "The Situation with Tucker Carlson," former judge and Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork tells Tucker Carlson the Harriet Miers' nomination is "a disaster on every level," that Miers has "no experience with constitutional law whatever" and that the nomination is a "slap in the face" to conservatives.

Following is a transcript of the conversation, which will telecast tonight at 11 p.m. (ET). A full transcript of the show will be available later tonight at www.tv.msnbc.com. "The Situation with Tucker Carlson" telecasts Monday through Friday at 11 p.m. (ET).

[chainsaw]

The constitution does not stipulate that a SCJustice be a lawyer or a judge. Why do attorneys think they must be?

[Graymatter]

>>Harriet Miers considers [rkba] a fundamental individual right.

Source? Where can I find a Harriet Miers quote about the Second Amendment?

[rlmorel]

Huh. Never heard that word before! Only knew "Flak" as you said, Sam Hill...learn something new each day!

[Dane]

However, that does not diminish his perfectly legitimate criticism of Miers one jot, or make his strong reservations any less valid.

This nomination is a loser, and even the most ardent advocates of it realize that at some subconscious level

And please tell me how a person who is pro-RTKBA(Ms. Meirs) is such a loser, while someone who is basically anti-RTKBA(Robert Bork) is such a winner, oh yeah and why doesn't Mark Levin bear any responsiblity for his vetting of Justice kennedy, who is basically the lawrence tribe(i.e Harvard liberal) mouthpiece on SCOTUS.

[FreeReign]

Both Mark Levin and Robert Bork recommended O'Connor and Kennedy to Ronald Reagan as reliable, conservative, "constitutional scholars." Bork has said he thinks the 2nd amendment is an anachronism, while Harriet Miers considers it a fundamental individual right.

The Bork-bots won't like your post.

[William Terrell]

The fact is there are plenty in differing fields of life that can read and understand what was meant by our Founding Fathers (that is part of the brilliance of what they put together!).

Actually, I think you're right. There are a lot of people here on FR that show a keen understanding of constitutional law, much more than I, and it's my periodic hobby. I note that they're not lawyers, either.

I've talked with a number of lawyers and noticed that the general working lawyer knows very little about the constitution, even the one for his state.

Now, there are a lot of other knowledge and skills that would be necessary to be a judge, but that lack is covered by another legal profession, law clerks and paralegals.

[Stellar Dendrite]

"Levin suggested she's nothing more than a paper stapler."


Hey Mark, did you ever say she was "nothing more than a paper stapler"?

[rlmorel]

I am certainly with that group...I did not think he would have ever signed it, but there it is. It is an area where I disagree in a polar manner with the President and his team. It was pure politics, plain and simple. No constitutional considerations there.

I do firmly believe it will be declared unconstitutional someday. How could it not?

[nerdgirl]

flaks was Tucker's word, not Bork's.

[phelanw]

You wrote: Then you don't have a clue as to the brilliance of our Founding Fathers - They did not create a document from which only a select few could understand it!

The idea that you think only "certain" people are qualified goes against every concept our Founding Fathers put forth.

Hamilton wrote in Federalist 78:

To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable that they should be bound down by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them; and it will readily be conceived from the variety of controversies which grow out of the folly and wickedness of mankind, that the records of those precedents must unavoidably swell to a very considerable bulk, and must demand long and laborious study to acquire a competent knowledge of them. Hence it is, that there can be but few men in the society who will have sufficient skill in the laws to qualify them for the stations of judges. And making the proper deductions for the ordinary depravity of human nature, the number must be still smaller of those who unite the requisite integrity with the requisite knowledge.

You are wrong about the founders’ view of what qualifications are necessary for nomination to the court. But you do raise the central point. I don’t think Miers has demonstrated she has the type of qualifications Hamilton speaks of, and that’s why I don’t support her nomination (although I’ll grant that otherwise she is a very fine person).

[Stellar Dendrite]

"Levin is a hateful NE snob, and I will tell him that the next time I run across him on this forum."

You just did, I pinged him to your comments.

[Dane]

We know that she's made reference, in a 1992 article for Texas Lawyer to "the right to bear arms" on a list of "precious liberties." "As far as I know," writes Second Amendment scholar Dave Kopel, "you have to go back to Louis Brandeis to find a Supreme Court nominee whose pre-nomination writing extolled the right of armed self-defense."

[BCrago66]

I think that actually the Judiciary Committee Dems will go easy on HM and try to boost her, and that she will end up getting majority Dem support when the nomination reaches the full Senate. The Dems may not be smart, but they are shrewd, and they know this lady is no Sclaia, no Thomas, no Roberts, and no threat to their political goals.

[Stellar Dendrite]

"knee pad mantra"
LOL!!

[Soul Seeker]

Of course they are.

G.W.B. applauded the Dixie Chicks freedom of speech for goodness sakes.

Everyone is aware he encourages free discussion, even if in conflict, amongst his Cabinet.

Yet we're to be silenced? It doesn't figure.

I voiced my disappointment and lack of confidance with this nominee. I have done my best to do so respectfully. I'm been attacked for it. G.W.B. isn't the source of my anger, the source of my anger right now is at those behaving as Democrats trying to destroy anyone's character who rises to offer a dissenting position.

[ConservativeDude]

dont forget he is an idiot and moron to boot

[mac_truck]

Tonight on MSNBC's "The Situation with Tucker Carlson...

Lol!

[cynicom]

I like your assessment.

[Graymatter]

>>She can read and understand the second amendment.

Do you have a basis for that assumption? Any source you can point to, with a quote or comment from Miers?

[bereanway]

I'd heard that Bork was wobbley on the RTKBA. Is that a fact? If it is, I wonder how on earth he came to such a position?