I'm not at all happy with the nomination. I'd rather try to jam a sure candidate through. At least the fight would make clear the condition of our Congress. 
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 ...
Good analysis. Thanks.
Mr. Bush will "stay the course".
The National Review posted a clarification which said that she had said she liked different justices for different things, and that Warren Berger was her favorite for his administrative skills. No source was attributed to that story, either, so I must asume it came from the White House or Mier backers.
Actually, my inclination is to ignore both of these stories, since neither one has a named source. There are lots of sturm und drang stories floating around the web. I am trying to remain calm, which I may only accomplish by finishing the bottle of wine I have started to drink.
When any politician has nothing to offer except "trust me", that is when I head for the exit.
Take a quick look at the poll on the rightside of the forum page on this site. A VAST majority of Freepers either agree with Miers selection, or are waiting for more information. I think predicting a "fractured" conservative base is wishful thinking on the parts of the Donner Wing of the Conservative Party.
Yep, he will. Right through the midterms...are they important lol.
I'm not at all happy with the nomination. I'd rather try to jam a sure candidate through. At least the fight would make clear the condition of our Congress.
So long. Finally.
So we don't really know if she named anyone else. Pity. That would have been rather revealing, and perhaps reassuring. Burger was a flop by the way IMO, as an administrator, as a judge, as a leader of the court. I had a law professor who was his clerk, and told me that he changed his vote in order to able to assign the case, which strikes me as unethical, and did to him. Miers in my view blew that question.
Like I said, I am sick to my stomach about this.
I still admire George Bush. He is truly a great President. Up until this nomination I had him second only to Reagan as the greatest President of the last 100 years (or more). Why did he have to blow this most crucial decision so badly?
Did you like that one?
Quote: Bork opened his presentation with a bombshell. "There is no constitutional right to bear arms," he said.
http://www.acjournal.org/holdings/vol6/iss4/footnotes/bork.htm
(See link for the fuller context - he said there is not such a right in the constitution, but that there should be. My point still stands: he has difficulty reading simple passages.
She was selected twice in a row as one of this nation's top 100 most influential lawyers by the premier law journal of this nation. Does that not distinguish her in some way from the hundreds of thousands of working lawyers who weren't selected?
When one stresses, as some have done here, that only the "top schools" allow for the development of a "judicial philosophy", yes, it's elitism to criticize Miers over it.
It all comes down to trusting Bush. It has not a damn thing to do with qualifications or "elitism." Not a damn thing.
You seem to think that 25 years in corporate law count for nothing; that one can only be "qualified" if one has been engaged in "constitutional law" or had judicial experience, or left a massive paper trail.
I don't think any of these things are qualifiers for the Supreme Court, or for any court, for that matter.
Nope
In all honesty, it did display some clever wit.
I swore I would only lurk on this thread to try and learn more--I admit to being confused; but my spousal loyalty has been tweaked...not all lawyers are scum. My husband is a lawyer; he is also a conservative, a wonderful father, has very high ethics and is honest to a fault. He has as much contempt for dishonest and greedy lawyers (and dishonest and greedy doctors, plumbers, politicians, etc.) as you do. Think of the wonderful prosecutors who go after child molesters and other heinous criminals--for every Johnny Cochran and Mark Geragos, we have an unsung prosecutor who is trying to put the high priced lawyers' lowlife clients as far away from civilized society as possible.
End of rant. This was probably not the time or place, but thank you anyway for the opportunity to put in a word for the lawyers who are decent men.
"So. You have a choice. Give Miers a chance, or take your ball and go home."
Given that choice, I will take my ball and go outside, and put it right through the oval office window. And then I'll pick up another one.
Because backing down would be a sign of weakness. So I'm not going to do it either. And neither are millions of others on the Right. Therefore, it is civil war and self-destruction for us all.
Bush has caved completely before. He did it over Schiavo.
He has shown he can do it if he has to.
And this time, he has to.
I am amazed.
Well, I guess I can't have a discussion with you. What a shame.
What is it that separates her from Luttig, Brown, Owen and others?
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.