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 ...
That is unanswereable. The term "conservative" is too broadly defined. But within the Republican party, I would say members of this forum tend to be far more conservative in a broad range of categories than the average Republican.
"What percentage of the republican party is satisfied with Bushs selection of Miers as a candidate."
Based on the poll from this site (a site populated by a high percentage of more conservative Republicans who are very aware of current events) I would say most Republicans either approve of Bush's choice or admittedly don't know enough about her to make a decision one way or the other. I think most intellectually honest people are waiting for the Senate hearings to learn about a nominee about whom the only real agreement is that most people don't know much about.
"What percentage of the party follows the so called punditry class."
Not many. I think most people have grown weary of the chattering class. People have personal favorites that they might tune into, but when the 24 hour newschannels spend all day allowing pundits to chatter, people tend to drown them out. The exception to that is Rush Limbaugh, who I think retains a very large audience of followers who truly do listen to his point of view.
And yet the most ardent Miers supporters have been forced-because of the glaring deficiencies in her resume-to make the preposterous argument that not only was McConnell going to be a controversial pick, but that sending his name up to the Senate for consideration would have resulted in Bork redux.
So in other words, what nearly everyone-including liberal legal scholars, Democratic Party activists, and all but the most delusional, fringe left-wing bloggers-readily concedes, i.e. that someone like McConnell or Jones would ultimately confirmed, is so absurd as to be unworthy of discussion.
I learned one good lesson, never irritate even a hardcore enemy voter. Always be their friend even if they do not want friendship. If there was the slightest chance of winning a mans vote, I never resorted to name calling or such as we have here.
My crowning accomplishment was to run a democrat and a republican together for county commissioners seats, we won both in landslides.
No, Mr. Bush has demonstrated perfect pitch in discerning the mood of the country and the necessity to avoid a controversial confirmation process.
Sure we do - But the Sununu we were speaking of is the Father of the current Senator (nor is the current Senator any GWB).
I don't think any of these things are qualifiers for the Supreme Court, or for any court, for that matter.
25 years in corporate law might make her a good corporate lawyer, but generally it doesn't qualify you to leap-frog everyone else and sit on the highest court in the land. When a lawyer of however many years experience gets a judgeship, he/she generally gets a trial level position. If he/she gains a good rep, and isn't reversed too much, he/she can graduate to the appellate court, and so forth. That's the way it is in real life out in the "non-elitist" corners of the US---the places you claim to represent with your "anti-elitist" affectations. Real people want to see real qualifications---and the higher the position, the more the qualifications, including experience, and "credentials," and "paper" they want to see. That doesn't make those people "elitist"---it makes them smart, reasonable, responsible, and honorable.
Well, if you are going to sulk over Miers getting on the court, I'll send you a new pacifier every month or so.
So you don't think Hillary Clinton is one of this nation's top 100 most influential lawyers? I thought the argument was that Miers didn't stand out from any other lawyer. You can say a lot of things about Hillary (most of them bad and rightly so) but you have to admit she is a powerful and influential lawyer who stands apart from her peers.
Wow. Sounds great.
Can I borrow your crystal ball when you're done with it.
On a serious note, why didn't GWB nominate JRB now when the GOP has control of the US Senate and House.
Who knows what the numbers will be in 2007.
Besides, GWB will REALLY be a lame duck in 2007, with little political leverage left at all.
And by rejecting those well-known conservative judge candidates now in 2005, he has in effect rubber stamped the claim by libs and Dems that those conservative nominees are too far out of the mainstream, or else why didn't he nominate them today in 2005 when he was at the pinnacle of power.
Nah. Sorry to say, GWB miscalculated badly with Harriet Miers, a woman whom I like and respect simply because she's a Sunday School teacher.
The fact remains that many of the decisions that the Sup. Court will be called on to make in the next 10 years are on deeply complicated issues.
Will Harriet be able to guide and/or persuade her fellow Associates with her intellect and experiences, especially never having been a parent?
Will she be prolific? Will she write opinions that rationalize her views and explain the issues, or will she simply sit idly by while Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia do all the heavy lifting?
Who knows. As far as anyone knows, she's never written so much as an Op-Ed or an opinion of the court, never having been a Judge.
Of course that doesn't disqualify her, but I must presume it will be a major shock to go from never having been Judge to someone who must analyze the most complicated issues of our time, and how they relate and interact with the US Constitution.
Excellent fact-filled, cant-free post. Just what this discussion needs. Thanks.
Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters
Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters
Okay..fair enough...thanks for the input
OK, then just answer the question as best you can.
But I don't think she belongs on the Supreme Court any more than Harriet Miers does.
Based on whose criteria?
I told you before that if you can walk on water, I am impressed. If not, dont waste your time.
By contrast, Laura Ingraham worked for a Top 10 D.C. law firm, and she'll be the first to admit that she's not qualified to sit on the Supreme Court.
What does that say about Ms. Miers, and her qualifications?
Hmm...?
Only two things really matter in a Justice of the Supreme Court. One is the quality of the mind, the other is the jurisprudence (the basic approach to the law). If those two qualities are present, everything else can be learned on the job.
Example: Justice William O. Douglas, who served longer on the Court than any other, but who went potty at the end and had to be persuaded to retire. Douglas was a specialist in securities law when he was appointed. He knew almost nothing about any other area of the law, when he went on the Court.
Keep in mind that Justices have more help in deciding legal issues than anyone else in the known universe. They have about four very smart clerks, each. And they have about 100 fairly bright lawyers filing briefs on every single detail of each case. Plus they get to hear argument from several more lawyers who are fairly bright cookies.
The Justices have to be smart enough to get on top of that mass of material, to figure out what's the straight skinny, and what's just woofing. Every Justice in every case is, in effect, the senior partner of a large law firm, some on staff but others volunteers, some trying to assist the Justice, some trying to fake out the Justice.
Earning a position at the top of two different large law firms is preparation for exactly that.
I note for the record that Judge Bork was formerly a law professor at Yale. I think there may be just a touch of academic snobbery in his remarks about Miers.
Congressman Billybob
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.