Posted on 10/07/2005 3:50:01 PM PDT by 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).
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Most bad Presidential decision are reversable. A bad Supreme Court Justice hangs around and damages the country for decades.
But might not his nomination be overruled? I grant it might, yet this could only be to make place for another nomination by himself. The person ultimately appointed must be the object of his preference, though perhaps not in the first degree. It is also not very probable that his nomination would often be overruled. The Senate could not be tempted, by the preference they might feel to another, to reject the one proposed; because they could not assure themselves, that the person they might wish would be brought forward by a second or by an subsequent nomination.
They could not even be certain, that a future nomination would present a candidate in any degree more acceptable to them; and as their dissent might cast a kind of stigma upon the individual rejected, and might have the appearance of a reflection upon the judgment of the chief magistrate, it is not likely that their sanction would often be refused, where there were not special and strong reasons for the refusal.
To what purpose then require the cooperation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. In addition to this, it would be an efficacious source of stability in the administration.
I think he's got his shorts in a twist because a commoner is nominated for one of nine seats that are supposed to be reserved for scholarly royalty.
And that's how it can come to pass that Bork could be in favor of Ginsburg but come out against Miers. Even though Ginsburg goes against all conservative principles, she's part of the mandarin class.
So much for the first couple of days of innuendo and mudslinging.
Ironically, I would have likely just accepted the disappointment and nurtured an uncertainty in quiet if these same people were not assassinating the character of everyone in dissent.
Granted, I think some in dissent have gone too far. And when I meet with them, I note it strongly. But that doesn't excuse away a significant portion of the base is divided, respectfully, and the solution isn't to intimidate them into silence or attempt to humble their careers. Many of these people are responsible for the growth of the Republican Party and conservatism that swept G.W.B. into office so he could make this nomination.
It is wrong to treat them as has been done.
Also if Miers is rejected (hint..hint) Bush can nominate the dims worst nightmare.
I was in fact being sarcastic, as I would not expect a man of Mr. Bork's stature to play such political gamesmanship.
My comment was meant to be taken from the POV of the Dems:
"Bork likes her?..............My Gawd, what is Bush about to do to us?"
sarcasm is difficult feeling to convey in type, but I honestly thought most would catch my drift.
i don't know, i think you sound positively...judicious. : )
Ah crap, I thought I waas the resident maverick. You Bart or Bret?
That may be. I'd would like to see the context for that comment, but it doesn't matter, as long as Bork hews to original intent.
Under original intent, Bork would be bound to support the 2nd amendment as a matter of law until such time as another amendment overrides it.
That's while the only question I'm concerned about is Mier's understanding of and belief in the doctrine of original intent.
What she thinks of abortion should only matter when she enters the voting booth in her precinct. What she thinks of original intent should be what matters on the Bench. The question of Roe V Wade is one of original intent, not one of abortion.
Whether she would vote today to ratify the 2nd amendment is not the question, but will she interpret the 2nd amendment via original intent, or vote to allow 'reasonable limitations'.
I agree but I'm waiting to see the conservatives in D.C. to show us how it is done.....
They've moved onto the next phase. They were all over Miers' praise of Warren Burger in the Wash Post ... while refusing to consider the source.
A superb summation from one of the most "elite" of our nation's judges and legal scholars. I don't want to read the comments on this thread---not, at least, the scurrilous comments about Judge Bork and the late, great, beloved President Reagan that I know without even scanning it that the 'zoids have already plastered all over the thread.
That's right: it's easier in a sense to virtually shout at someone than to do it face to face. But this place is not simply a bulletin board, it's a community. I'd guess that most of us who've been here for a while have a sense of respect for each other, even when we disagree. It really pains me when one of us decides to leave. There was one this week that really bothered me, and I won't mention the name, but given the present state of our culture, we need all the intelligent voices we can get hashing out and refining the issues that we face as a nation.
I don't find it incredible at all. I've been saying for months that the only thing holding together the 'big tent' is the prospect of Supreme Court nominations, and that GWB better select wisely if he doesn't want to let slip the dogs of war in the GOP. Well here we are now.
You said: 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.
***
You are right. The vast majority of lawyers work in areas of the law that do not implicate the constitution and supreme court decisions on a day-to-day basis. I do lender representation and zoning law, and while zoning law has a fair number of constitutional considerations, I am not called upon to deal with them with any great frequency. I have never had to deal, for example, with commerce clause issues. I have only once or twice in 18 years had any cause to examine the state constitution.
That said, I got up to speed on con law in lawyer school in one semester, and I believe I could conduct the research and do the analysis required to interpret constitutional issues in good fashion, although I confess that I would learn as my experience progressed on the court.
I respect Robert Bork, however. He is an amazing intellect. The Tempting of America is absolutely brilliant. His remarks give me pause on Miers' nomination. I remain concerned, however, about the public nature of the apparent anger I have seen in response to the nomination, which suggests something other than true concern about Miers' qualifications. I still think that many opponents of Miers simply want the bloodbath and defeat of the democrats on the nomination issue. It is tempting to want that, but Pres. Bush has never been that way. His goal is to win, meaning to get conservatives on the court. That is a reasonable goal, one that can be achieved with Miers, given the current composition (or lack of it) of the Senate.
Sam Hill has Borked us....there is no transcript available and on MSNBC Tucker Carlson don't come on till 11:00 Eastern time and they
I fear that FREEPERS have been borked by Sam Hill aka troll from DU....bet he is laughing big time at watching us...
And please! - Sununu is no GWB! (at all). That comparison is pathetic -
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.