Case in point:
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 ...
No it doesn't.
President Bush's tin ear is showing.
Only if licensed ;^).
That is a shopworn argument that has been posted here a million times.It is an entirely vacant and meaningless argument. One that is proffered when republicans have nothing else to offer.
Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters
OK. Prove your cleverness didn't begin and end with one post. Explain why you think being twice selected as one of this nation's top 100 most influential lawyers doesn't distinguish that lawyer from the hundreds of thousands not selected.
Case in point:
http://www.users.fast.net/~behanna/bork.html
The following is all from the link:
In a footnote on page 166, Judge Bork writes that ``the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that there is no individual right to own a firearm. The Second Amendment was designed to allow states to defend themselves against a possibly tyrannical national government. Now that the federal government has stealth bombers and nuclear weapons, it is hard to imagine what people would need to keep in the garage to serve that purpose.''
Judge Bork is in fact wrong in both logic and facts. As to logic, even if the Supreme Court had ruled as he claims, that doesn't settle the issue of constitutionality. The Supreme Court can be wrong, and indeed Judge Bork is a hero to conservatives precisely because he often criticizes the Supreme Court's rulings. By implying that Supreme Court rulings are authoritative if not infallible, he contradicts most of what he has argued throughout his juristic career.
But second, as to facts, he is also wrong that the court ``has consistently ruled that there is no individual right to own a firearm.'' The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court, a standard reference work on the court and its rulings that really is authoritative, states that one of the main nineteenth century cases, Presser v. Illiois (1886), ``declared that the Second Amendment only protected individuals from federal not state infringement.''
As for twentieth century cases, the main one is a 1939 ruling in United States v. Miller, in which the court held unanimously that ``the Second Amendment protected the citizen's right to own weapons that were ordinary militia weapons.'' That excluded sawed-off shotguns, but left us a pretty heavy arsenal in their place. As to the ``collective right'' that the amendment supposedly expresses, the view that only the people collectively, not as individuals, have a right to keep and bear arms, the Oxford reference book concludes that ``history gives very little support for that view.''
Look again. The Yes (35%) and No (27%) votes are close, with the rest requiring more info. I could just as easily say the vast majority either disagree or are waiting for more info.
Of course, I wouldn't do that, because I'm not a disingenuous hack.
Okay...you seem like a good person to ask.
In your opinion...what percentage of the republican party is what we on FR (according to Rush and Jim Rob def) would call conservative.
What percentage of the republican party is satisfied with Bushs selection of Miers as a candidate.
What percentage of the party follows the so called punditry class.
No trick questions...I keep hoping somebody might give me an estimate....I dont know.
Well, you have to do what you have to do. Bush is not going to cave over Miers, and there are as many of us are there are of you who will be encouraging him to let her have her hearing.
http://womensissues.about.com/library/bio/blbio_clinton_hillary.htm
RE: Founders--there were no law schools back then--if you wanted to go into law, you "read law" with an attorney-- a kind of apprenticeship. Thirty-five of them were either lawyers or had studied law. The three authors of the Federalist Papers--Hamilton, Jay and Madison--were all lawyers who had also been to college. Hamilton and Jay went to King's College (now Columbia) and Madison went to Princeton.
John Adams was at Harvard, Thomas Jefferson was at William and Mary and founded the University of Virginia. Nearly all the founders were men of great education. They rejected an aristocracy of blood, but had enormous regard for educational excellence.
Your point is well made, but these concepts can be learned rather quickly if you are a truly smart lawyer. I just took the Bar exam, and I can tell you that 3 solid weeks of nothing but Conlaw can get her through the process. Scalia and Thomas can get her up to speed from there once she had been confirmed.
The Holy Spirit will cause her to become ill when in the presence of the liberal 4, so I don't think they will sway her.
Miers is confirmable.
If you husband's experience in any way comports with mine, lawyers tend to be more honest than their clients as a generality. Ask him.
Thomas Sowell quote...
For starters, the fact that while her peers consider her one of the top 100 lawyers in the country, conservative commentators like Ann Coulter and Bill Kristol seem to believe the only acceptable nominees for the Supreme Court are those lawyers who show up on their list. What public statements have Luttig, Brown and Owen made regarding the 2nd Amendment and whether or not they would overturn Roe V Wade?
I have no idea if she said this, if she really liked Berger, or if the whole thing is made up of whole cloth.
I will now go get another glass of wine.
By the way, my position on this nomination is this. Disappointed that we didn't get someone like Brown or Owens, understanding the political minefield the President has to negotiate, and hopeful that Miers will be surprisingly eloquent and informed.
If she does not acquit herself well, or shows herself to be incompetent or liberal, I will re-think my position.
Actually, no. "To bork" is to block or destroy through UNFAIR criticism.
His Mom calls slick "son".
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.