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).

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

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.

Where have we heard that before?

Hmm...

[Map Kernow]

You seemed to forget to mention she was Head Partner for a 400 member firm?? Pretty impressive actually.

To someone who's never known a "Head Partner." They tend to be kinda "elitist."

Why don't you tout the fact that she won the "Sandra Day O'Connor" award? Hell, drag out her Spelling Bee win in the third grade---just throw enough stuff as you can at the wall---you take what sticks, and I'll take what falls---someone's bound to believe she's the "most qualified candidate" for the Supreme Court, right?

[Soul Seeker]

For those interested in polls, try the comparison of these two FreeRepublic polls on for size and THEN tell me how anyone can DARE suggest this isn't an open division of this nominee.


Do you approve of President Bush's nomination of John Roberts for the Supreme Court?

Composite Opinion
Yes 86.6% 3,234
Pass 7.3% 274
No 6.1% 228
100.0% 3,736

Member Opinion
Yes 87.8% 2,357
Pass 8.1% 217
No 4.1% 109
100.0% 2,683

Non-Member Opinion
Yes 83.3% 877
No 11.3% 119
Pass 5.4% 57
100.0% 1,053


Do you approve of Harriet Miers for Supreme Court?

Need more info 34.9% 1,685
Yes 33.4% 1,613
No 26.9% 1,300
I'm voting Hillary! 2.7% 131
Pass 2.1% 99
100.0% 4,828

Member Opinion
Need more info 40.6% 912
Yes 30.2% 679
No 25.4% 572
Pass 2.4% 53
I'm voting Hillary! 1.4% 32
100.0% 2,248

Non-Member Opinion
Yes 36.2% 934
Need more info 30.0% 773
No 28.2% 728
I'm voting Hillary! 3.8% 99
Pass 1.8% 46
100.0% 2,580


Does everyone understand now? This is not some small cabal of malcontents or trolls. The Party is split and this is NOT good no matter how anyone wishes to spin it.

[B Knotts]

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.

But of course.

It couldn't possibly be the case that Judge Bork, and the large number of other conservative critics, might be right.

[SevenMinusOne]

never having been a Judge.

Thank God! - We have way too many judges and lawyers (which Miss Mires sadly is) running too many things -

The brilliance of our Founding Fathers is that all can understand the Constitution ...it is only those of elitism that suggest only a certain class is capable of this -

[FreeReign]

She IS a crony. She's his personal lawyer and personal friend. That's the basis for his nomination---no other.

Mier is White House Council. To describe her as the president's personal lawyer is misleading. It's what one sees on the some of the propaganda sites.

BTW, did you hear the president or read the transcript when he nominated Mier. He described what he though were Mier's qualifications. The description took about 10 paragraphs in his speech. I suggest you look at it.

To describe her only qualifications for being the president's nominee as being his personal lawyer and personal friend is misleading and not objective.

I despise that...

[sinkspur]

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?

This is the most condescending post I've read today. What in hell does being a parent have to do with interpreting the constitution? And Clarence Thomas sat "idly by" for his first three years, never asking any questions and rarely writing an opinion.

And many of the decisions the Supreme Court makes are not "the most complicated issues of our time." They are self-evident, even to legal dopes, like me.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

That sound you hear-from the Miers camp-is crickets chirping.

[Rokke]

"I explained it in the post to which you just replied. Try going back and reading it again."

No. You didn't. Because there is nothing inaccurate about my statement. I stated fact. And that fact is easily observable on forum page of this very site. The fact remains, a vast majority of Freepers either approve of Miers or are waiting for more information. It is also a fact that more approve of her than disapprove of her. That the most common answer is that people are waiting to learn more about her before forming an opinion indicates that at least 34% of Freepers have the intellectual integrity to admit they don't have enough information on the subject to make an opinion. That speaks well for this site.

[Vicomte13]

Nah.

I'm sulking over open borders on two continents, a busted budget, and a dead girl down in Florida during Eastern Week.

And I've been blaming Bush all along for three of those things, and noticed on the fourth that, when it suits him, he'll back down just fine on an issue of principle.

But I've kept on taking this awful medicine, and voting for caucus Republicans in the general elections (like Shays in Connecticut) simply to keep the caucus in power, because THIS WAS IT: the whole fight - the Supreme Court.

And Bush has advanced a nominee that I am not certain will do the right thing, and that's nowhere near good enough. But instead of it being about the agenda, now it's all about HIM, and how tough HE is, and how HE must win.

Well, he sure is tough and stubborn.
He has stubbornly persisted in all of those bad, bad policies I've listed above.
And he'll win this one too.
And so will you.
Congratulations.

But I'm standing at the doorway, watching the Republican Party leave me.

You are the face of the Republican Party to me.
The Party that can't close a border either at home or abroad, can't run a budget, and from what I can tell, doesn't give a damn. Your boy is going to get his way.
And I'm going to get a pacifier.

Whether losing folks like me matters or not won't be seen for another year or two.
Rest assured that with open borders and gonzo budget deficits, you will certainly be able to attract plenty of folks to replace the likes of me, Senor.

[bray]

Actually Laura is very qulified ans so is Miers. She is a fine pick who is Pro-Life Fundamentalist Christian. BTW How many calls did you make for W??

Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters

[Rokke]

"No one needs to "predict" a fractured conservative base when it already exists."

Um hmmm. And people were saying that before he was re-elected for his second term in office. Somehow unsupported opinions like yours never really seem to hold up against reality.

[nerdgirl]

Not that it matters at all in this debate, but SMU is a private school and certainly not cheap. According to this 2001 survey I found, the annual cost of attendance was $24,812 - only $8k a year less than Yale (presumably this study is for undergrad, but shows that SMU is not exactly someplace you go if you have no money or scholarship of some sort.

[Torie]

Well when Roberts was nominated, I didn't need to wait for any more information. His record was clear, that he was totally qualified. Miers is doubt city, but of course, she deserves a fair hearing, and a chance to show she is up to the job.

[SevenMinusOne]

Besides, GWB will REALLY be a lame duck in 2007, with little political leverage left at all.

Nothing more then political hyperbole - Leaders aren't lame ducks....ever - GWB won't be one in 2007 -

I have no time for the "sky is falling" types - I trust GWB judgment on Mires - Until she proves that to be wrong I won't fret about "what might be" (just not my style).

The whirlwind is in the thorn tree. It's hard for thee to kick against the pricks. (remember that).

Till Armageddon, no Shalam, no Shalom.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

The description took about 10 paragraphs in his speech.

Don't think we didn't notice.

It was twice as long as the length of his introduction of John Roberts-for the Supreme Court-and equal in length to both of his introductions for John Roberts, for the appellate bench and Supreme Court respectively.

[sinkspur]

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?

Laura Ingraham is not qualified to have a nationally syndicated talk show, with her "I mean"s and "you know"s, and constant talk about herself and her own travails.

But she has one.

What does Laura Ingraham's lack of qualifications (since she, like Ann Coulter, hasn't actually practiced law for many years) have to do with a woman who was a corporate lawyer for 25 years and has been chosen by the President for the Supreme Court?

[Map Kernow]

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.

Based on whose criteria?

Didn't you read my post? The standards everyone else has to live by in America: be qualified for the job, try to match your credentials against others, start at the entry level and work your way up---judging's no different than any other job.

Yep, those are the standards everyone in America normally lives by, except those in Bush's "elite" White House Staff. Funny how now it's supposed to be "elitist" to expect them to live by the rules everybody else does.

[bray]

No, it just isn't fair that you minimize her Law Career. Now she's an elitist from Dallas? There are no qualifications for SC. She's pro-life which is why I voted for W.

Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters

[Torie]

Not that it matters, but some second rate institutions buy smarts. My nephew went for free to Fordham via that route. I was close to telling my brother I would pay for his son's education at a top flight college, but in the end, thought the offer unwise. I was quite annoyed.