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 ...
OK, why don't I make it "excellence in constitutional wisdom"---how's that?
Excellence is far more often measured by credentials and experience, not by a record of conservative acts.
What are you talking about? How are we supposed to measure qualifications then? The President's say-so? That's it??
What Bork is supporting is credentialism, not strict construction, not even conservativism.
You don't know the least thing about Bork's argument. The only "credentials" Miers has is being a Bush crony. That's not "excellent"---not "prudent"----not "conservative" in the least. Bush's nomination of Miers was an embarrassment---the stupid phoney "politics of envy" justifications for the nomination her supporters are cooking up are an absolute disgrace.
Mebee Bork, and several others, are doing to democrats kinda like what Muhammed Ali once did to George Foreman.
Would you be so cavalier about a surgeon about to operate on you?
A supreme court justice is one vote among nine. I think we are giving way to much importance to one pick. Also, presidential decisions are rarely reversed. Once a government program is created, one can count on its permanence.
all we need to know.
None of that gang matters, never have, never will. What matters are the senators, and what will matter in influencing them is whether or not Miers does or does not come across as an airhead for the job. At least that is what should matter.
I've found much more vitrol aimed at those who are at least willing to wait for the hearings.
Now, feel free to accuse me of adultery as well if you'd like.
Why, are you an adulterer?
Hey, man, that's your choice.
If Harriet Miers had the exact same education she has now but spent 10 years teaching Constitutional law at Topeka College she would be more qualified to sit on the Supreme court.
"A supreme court justice is one vote among nine. I think we are giving way to much importance to one pick."
Now that is clarity. Since Bush has caused all of this inner party dissension and the pick is not important, Bush should do the right thing and withdrawl the nomination...not that important.
That was part of a list of Chief Justices she was describing...Berger for his administrative skills, others for other reasons. I am quite tired of this out-of-context leak by Leahy's staff being given any importance at all.
So only Scalias can serve on the Supreme Court?
I frankly don't read the decisions. I only care about results.
I suspect 90% of the country is in the same boat with me. If you want scholarship, go to a law school. I want a judge who will interpret the constitution correctly, and that can be a "yes" or "no" as far as I'm concerned.
Well, I am stunned. For five years Mr. Bush could do no wrong in the eyes of his supporters, but this nomination has indeed let slip the dogs of war. I don't think one supreme court justice is all that key, but apparently mine is a minority opinion.
Please let me know when you have a clue about what elitism is.
http://www.nbc13.com/politics/5071791/detail.html
WASHINGTON -- Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions is raising doubts about the experience of Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers and says he and other conservatives might oppose her if she fails to convince them otherwise.
I eagerly await the Miers hearings. If she does not measure up to my standards of acumen, I will be pleased as punch to oppose her. That will influence exactly zero senate votes. And so it goes.
Don't like to argue with a fellow New Yorker, but
1) OK , what's the other part of the story re: Miers and Burger
2)I'm glad she likes the second amendment, now what about the rest of the Constitution
3) The French legal system requires that a judge work from his own impression of the law; the English common law system (which we also use, thank God) requires that a judge have a thorough knowledge of the history of the law, and work within that framework.
Bush did tell me to ignore cynicom.
Why didn't you oppose Roberts on that ground then? Why weren't you fuming about this preppie looking Harvard College/Harvard Law School/Harvard Law Review guy? Why didn't you sniff that his suits looked a little too expensive? Why didn't you complain that his judicial experience wasn't what was really needed on the Supreme Court for a Republican nominee? Why didn't you snort that Bush should've chosen a good ol' boy from Baylor that wildcatted rigs to put himself through law school?
Can anyone provide a link on Bork dismissing the 2nd amendment? I have never seen a source on it.
Yeah, cause Bork was such a stunning success, right?
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.