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).

[phelanw]

Hamilton was Not talking about a willingness to work long hours before deciding a particular case. He was talking about having honed and demonstrated the necessary SKILLS of constitutional interpretation BEFORE appointment. I point you to this sentence from Federalist 78:

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.

I want an appointee who can hit the ground running, who has demonstrated a deep understanding of the Constitution and 200+ years of caselaw on a variety of constitutional issues. I have been teaching the subject for 17 years and still have much to learn. If one is to cross swords with present day Brennans and Earl Warrens, one's sword should be sharp before the battle begins.

[NittanyLion]

Interesting. By the way, what exactly does this unsubstantiated personal attack on Bork have to do with the Miers nomination?

[Frank T]

"She's Bush's lawyer genius. She's been there and gone over tons of stuff with him and others in the WH. Including the campaign finance reform bill. He knows what she thinks and Bush approves."

And this reassures you? Bush didn't Veto a bill he knew was in violation of the 1st Amendment.

And if she admires GWB, as has been reported, we can assume she has just a cavalier attitude to originalism herself.

[Sometimes A River]

Uh, disagreement is not hatred.

Kinda sounds like the arguments the Dems use...if you're against more education spending, then you hate kids. If you're against subsidized pills, you hate Seniors.

Yawn.

[msnimje]

Counselor to the President requires about as much understanding of constitutional law as many Justices have had.

She has been counselor to the President for since February of THIS YEAR --- 8 months.

[cynicom]

Conservatives should have learned their lessons with elder Bush, with the read my lips thing.

Then he added the "New World Order" thing that did awaken a lot of the sheep.

[jwalsh07]

Nope, never said that, let me clarify. Borks endorsement of her nomination was a demonstrable mistake. Ergo, his non endorsement of Harriet Miers means jack.

[Frank T]

"I've trusted GW as Governor and President. I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one too. He knows her, I don't."

Well, Jen, at least you are good for a vote. Let's hope we can get a nominee who's actually a conservative in '08 for you to blindly trust then, also.

[Jim_Curtis]

Miers voted for Reagan and Bush 41? Jim_Curtis has just had his entire raison d'etre for posting evaporate into thin air.

Only if I would accept convenient unprovable assertions over factual evidence.

Miers didn't contribute any money to Republicans during that election season. If I have you figured correctly, you will not deal with that fact.

Your silly "perceptions over facts" attempts look disgusting to anyone capable of logical reasoning.

[zook]

Of course, and you know, I meant the Bush's nomination of her. My argument still applies. Bush believes Miers will be a conservative justice, like Scalia, et al. Quite frankly, the loudest attackers have the least loyalty to this President.

Quite frankly as well, I'm tired of hearing the point about "all the hard work we put it and this is what we get!" For all the hard work, you got a Republican Senate that won't back a Republican President. Good for Bush for nominating a stealth conservative, one that can avoid a filibuster!

[sinkspur]

Regardless of the grievous errors she made after being nominated, the fact remains she was qualified at the time of her confirmation.

So Ginsberg was qualified, with her Ivy League education and years on some obscure appeals court, even though she has worked to trash the constitution, but Miers is not, because she was a corporate attorney, even though she will honor the constitution much more than Ginsberg will?

This is elitism. "It doesn't matter how they vote, just as long as they've got a sheepskin from the right school."

[IVote2]

I have watched GW for years. He gives the liberals control of door and they hit themselves in the snoot with it. I think he will pull it off yet again. He hasn't caved into them, and he's not going to cave on this either.

Regards... Jen

[msnimje]

Borks endorsement of her nomination was a demonstrable mistake.

You a certainly entitled to that opinion but that is not how it works.

If he, or anybody else, came out against her because they did not like her political positions the same could be done to them for their political positions. This Bork knew and he was staying above the gutter where the politics often play out. The Judiciary is not about politics, it is about competence and understanding of Constitutional law.

The disgusting position we are in now with Judicial nominees is because it has become intertwined in politics.

[KosmicKitty]

Yet another personal attack conducted by a Miers supporter on someone who is questioning the nomination rather than an attempt at addressing the substance of what the person said.

You're jumping to the conclusion that I am a Miers supporter. Please indicate how you reached that conclusion. (And isn't that a tactic of the left-feeling a bit of projection?)

I was stating why I find Bork to be scummy. He may know law, but I no respect for the man knowing what he did.

[sinkspur]

Conservatives should have learned their lessons with elder Bush, with the read my lips thing.

That "sins of the father" thing went out with the death of the last Pharisee, cynicom.

[phelanw]

Yes, I agree fully. Hamilton states that the role of the Senate in confirmation specifically includes the obligation to refuse people nominated, not on the basis of sterling credentials, but because they are close to the president. Whether or not she falls in this category, in my opinion she does not meet the expectations articulated in Federalist 78.

[Miss Marple]

Do you realize that Specter has already stated that any judge who was part of that infamous compromise (Brown, Owens, etc.) he would OPPOSE as a Supreme Court nominee? Do you know that Warner doesn't want any controversial judges nominated? Do you know that Collins and others tole the President they didn't want "controversial" nominees?

Are you thinking that Snowe, Collins, and Chaffee would vote for a conservative judge? Are you thinking that Voinovich could stand up to the criticism of the press?

Everyone acts like this appointment was made in a vacuum. Harriet Miers is the nominee because of the cowardly and or liberal Republican senators. The breakdown in the Senate is 55-45 in favor of Republicans. All a nominee has to lose is 6 Republican votes, while the rats vote in a block, and the nominee is rejected.

I didn't even mention McCain, Hagel, DeWine, Lugar, or Graham. The whole reason for this appointment is the Senate make-up. People who can't see this are not very informed about politics. And that inludes Krauthammer and Noonan and a whole host of whining pundits who have failed to look at the Senate side of the equation.

[KosmicKitty]

teresting. By the way, what exactly does this unsubstantiated personal attack on Bork have to do with the Miers nomination?

Explains why wiskerpuss makes me want to vomit!

[SevenMinusOne]

I have been teaching the subject for 17 years and still have much to learn.

Ahh, and the elitism shows itself - (as if others with less then 17 years in this field can be no better then you).

And your post of Hamilton again does not say in any way, shape or form that being part of the legal profession prior is needed - Again, if this was the case those responsible for the Constitution would have made it a requirement.

They did not.

[jwalsh07]

The disgusting position we are in now with Judicial nominees is because it has become intertwined in politics.

I don't share your disdain for politics. I do share your disdain for the backboneless members of the US Senate on the republican side however. If you want to point fingers point them at the "root cause", the United States Senate where testicles are more rare than in the House of Eunuch.