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).

[Rodney King]

Well, you call it what you want, Map. It smells like snootiness and a tier-one-law-school-exclusiveness that sucks to this Texan.

How come we support Priscialla Owen, who went to Baylor?

[Rodney King]

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.

Assuming of course, that anyone asks her difficult questions and she answers them.

[sinkspur]

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.

Says you.

Some of us respectfully disagree.

[cynicom]

Cyn Good to see a up state New Yorker here.

[B Knotts]

I'm getting the feeling some of these characters are posting from the White House basement.

[Torie]

Who is on the rest of her list, and why?

[cynicom]

You want to know for sure??? Wait til midnight when their shift is over.

[FreeReign]

The founding fathers never mentioned that only elitists need apply -- various prominant critics of Miers have.

Absolute, scurrilous nonsense. Demanding qualifications is not the same as elitism. Quit the phoney "dumbed down" posturing, Bush hacks. The GOP base isn't going to let you talk to them as if they were a bunch of uneducated envious dolts---those type of people are Democrats for the most part anyway.

Critics of Miers, some prominent have listed as a disqualification that she went to SMU. That's elitism.

None of our found fathers went to an elite law school.

BTW, not knowing a lot about Miers I've yet to endorse her.

Your remark about being me being a "hack" makes you a idiot.

You're defense of elitism makes you a dunce.

[B Knotts]

And I would note that they are using the exact same tactics as the Clinton crowd. Personal attacks against anyone who dares criticize the president.

[Torie]

Ya, the questions of Roberts were not too swift in general. The Judiciary Committee is not overloaded with rocket scientists.

[B Knotts]

Isn't there a replacement crew that will relieve them? :-)

[sinkspur]

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?

Because Bush chose Roberts, and Bush's picks have been impeccable.

That is one the primary reasons I'm supporting Miers. To think that he would be cavalier about a Supreme Court nominee when he has been scrupulous about his lower court picks is a non starter, for me.

[zook]

1. The fact that you use the word "crony" to describe a person with whom Bush has worked for a long time says a lot. It's a derogatory term, one used to create an impression without benefit of facts or evidence.

2. You and Bork apparently believe that someone like Ginsburg is more "excellent" than Miers because of her experience in constitutional law. I'd much rather rely on the President's subjective knowledge of Miers conservative principles or philosophy than on a standard solely related to experience or knowledge.

[cynicom]

Nope, after midnight is saturday and Bush will not pay for overtime.

[sinkspur]

How come we support Priscialla Owen, who went to Baylor?

Bush nominated her for her current position. He knew her, he vouched for her, personally.

That's the same stance he's taking with Miers.

[phelanw]

Nope, it's a gloss on Article 2. An explication. But thanks for the suggestion.

[cynicom]

Ah yes, when facts do not support you, attack the person. When they do, it is a sure indication they are are unsure of their arguments.

[Lancey Howard]

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

No sale.

First, your argument only bolsters the notion that Bush turned yellow and ran from a fight.
Second, I don't buy the conventional wisdom that six (6) RINOs would have voted against a qualified conservative nominee. Do the math: I count Chafee as the most likely traitor and Snowe "too close to call". Collins, maybe. Warner, less maybe. Specter, possibly, although unlikely given the riot act that was read to him when he was allowed to take the Chairmanship. (And remember, Specter was NOT in the "Gang")

That's five (5). And that's five only IF ALL FIVE go against a President of their own party and vote against a qualified nominee simply because the DEMOCRATS say that that nominee is "too conservative". Cheney is the 51st vote in the unlikely scenario that it becomes necessary.

So Luttig (or somebody similar) gets confirmed. (This stuff is easy when you do the math.)

By the way, NO WAY does McCain vote against a good conservative nominee - - the guy wants to be President and he isn't a complete idiot. Also, Graham and DeWine will vote FOR a qualified conservative nominee, guaranteed. (Hopefully by now most people understand the genius of the "Gang of Fourteen" deal, and appreciate Graham and DeWine's sacrifice in agreeing to become ringers in that amazing neutering of the Democrats' filibuster threat.)

This was a horrible nomination. The hearings will once again be a meaningless and uninformative TV show starring a bunch of blowhard Senators, and in the end we conservatives will be left with nothing else to do but cross our fingers and hope that Miers turns out to be no worse than O'Connor. Wow. That's just great.....

That is NOT what I voted for.

Bush was handed a probably-never-again opportunity to save the nation from the onslaught of the Euro-style secular socialism that the Democrats have been foisting on us through the courts for decades. This was the biggest, most important decision of his Presidency, and Bush blew it.
Needlessly.

The magnitude of this blunder cannot be overstated. I am sick to my stomach about this.

[VictoryGal]

> Quite frankly, the loudest attackers have the least loyalty to this President.

Like Dingy Harry Reid? Oh wait... he supported Miers.