Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

ROBERT BORK CALLS MIERS NOMINATION "A DISASTER"
Tucker Carlson ^ | October 5, 2005 | Press Release

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 ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bork; miers; noproof; robertbork; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 721-740741-760761-780 ... 941-943 next last
To: jwalsh07

I'm not remotely qualified.


741 posted on 10/07/2005 10:38:13 PM PDT by born in the Bronx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 724 | View Replies]

To: Torie

Q: To what extent should judges sitting in the highest court of their respective countries look outside the law of their own countries?

Lord Scott: In my opinion, they would be neglecting a valuable tool to judicial decision-making if they didn't do that. The decisions of foreign courts and foreign jurisprudence are never binding, but if they are dealing with similar problems, then the way in which they deal with those problems, and the thoughts they have about those problems are valuable. It would be foolish to turn away from the valuable guides and examples which you can get from perousing the foreign jurisprudence. It's absurd not to do that.*

AS: Spoken as a good common law judge! [laughter] Were I common law judge, I would do the same. That is to say, if I was making up the law, I would go and see how other countries thought it was good to make it up. But if one is not a common-law judge, and one is always [as in the U.S.] dealing with a text, either the text of a Federal statute or the text of the constitution, what can a foreign decision possibly tell me about the meaning of a text adopted by an American legislature, or by the American people when they ratified the Constitution? What can it possibly say about that? the answer is nothing at all. I agree that, if you believe in the living constitution - which is sort of a constitution in which Judges are given common law powers to revise it - then, of course, consult foreign law. Why not? Consult a Ouiji Board. [laughter]


742 posted on 10/07/2005 10:38:29 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 729 | View Replies]

To: born in the Bronx

Me either.


743 posted on 10/07/2005 10:38:55 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 741 | View Replies]

To: Kryptonite

Thank you so much for directing me to that link. That is BY FAR the most coherent, well supported piece I've seen yet regarding the Miers nomination. And to think, it came from a little ol' Freeper and not some icon of the conservative chattering class. Bravo.


744 posted on 10/07/2005 10:42:37 PM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 733 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
This is elitism. "It doesn't matter how they vote, just as long as they've got a sheepskin from the right school."

I am terribly sorry it is so hard to get this point across to you but I will try again. It is not elitist to believe someone should have a firm grasp of Constitutional Law in order to sit on the Supreme Court. That is what they do there, they interpret the Constitution and apply it the laws.

I do not know if she has such a grasp but there is nothing in Miss Miers resume showing she does nor has any Constitutional expert or historian stepped forth to vouch for her acuity in this arena.

745 posted on 10/07/2005 10:43:00 PM PDT by msnimje (If you suspect this post might need a sarcasm tag..... it does!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 431 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

Common law judges in a common law system with a constitution and statutes, fill in the gaps in meaning of the same pending further elaboration in the same. Early on, in England, there was not Consitution, and few statutes, so judges largely wrote the law. So much of that judge law has made its way into American statutes, and/or remains the American common law, particulary when it comes to contracts and real property. Law students still read some English cases in those fields, to this day. There is one famous English case, about the plaintiff renting a balcony to watch a royal parade, and the parade did not ensue. Should the plaintiff get his money back? Another American case is about when a seller sold a violin to the father of Zimbalist, the American actor who lived next door to my parents, who was a violinist, which violin the seller in good faith thought was a Stradevarist (sp) violin, the most sought after violin on the planet, but it turned out to be not. Should the buyer be able to rescind? There is case after case like this, which lawyers learn, and fashioned the law.


746 posted on 10/07/2005 10:49:37 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 742 | View Replies]

To: msnimje
It is not elitist to believe someone should have a firm grasp of Constitutional Law in order to sit on the Supreme Court. That is what they do there, they interpret the Constitution and apply it the laws.

I'm sorry, but it is elitist to insist that only constitutional lawyers can be appointed to the Supreme Court. Clarence Thomas was not a "constitutional expert" by any stretch of the imagination before his nomination.

We will just have to agree to disagree. I am tired of going around this tree with you.

747 posted on 10/07/2005 10:53:39 PM PDT by sinkspur (American Staffordshire Terriers should be bred out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 745 | View Replies]

To: putupjob

just because she hasn't practiced it dosen't mean she isn't versed in it.. I only have a BA in Political Science and History, yet I have a much better than average (well average person prob not average lawyer) understanding of Consitutional Law.. Public law was required study at WKU.. She may not be as competent in conlaw as Bork, but I'd rather take chances with someone less knowledgable than Bork, than even consider another Souter or Ginsburg...


748 posted on 10/07/2005 11:18:26 PM PDT by Schwaeky (The Republic, will be reorganized into the first American EMPIRE, for a safe and secure society!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: putupjob
"Miers is NOT a constitutional scholar."

The perception that Miss Miers is not a constitutional scholar has no basis in fact. Miss Meirs may know all she needs to know about the Constitution by studying constitutional law with her friend, Nathan Hecht, now a Texas Supreme Court Justice.

When you call us "lock step Bushies"I worry that we won't pull together to give this nominee our support when the fight against her is on.

749 posted on 10/07/2005 11:26:26 PM PDT by jonrick46
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

I am in "lock-step" with you. It seems as if the opposition to Miss Miers comes down to the real reason there is objection to her nomination: She is not an intellectual powerhouse because she was not on the intellectual's short list.


750 posted on 10/08/2005 12:07:20 AM PDT by jonrick46
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: msnimje

There is nothing in your link about Levin at all. Also, nothing about Bork having a role in the Kennedy nomination. Was that an oversight or intentional?


751 posted on 10/08/2005 1:00:07 AM PDT by ontos-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 727 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Hey, I'm a Northeasterner. You're painting with too wide a brush there cowboy.

Ah, but you're not "snooty"! :)

752 posted on 10/08/2005 1:01:07 AM PDT by BigSkyFreeper ("Don't Get Stuck On Stupid!" - Lieutenant General Russell "Ragin' Cajun" Honore)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 404 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend
Levin suggested she's nothing more than a paper stapler.

Levin gave us Anthony Kennedy.

753 posted on 10/08/2005 1:02:29 AM PDT by BigSkyFreeper ("Don't Get Stuck On Stupid!" - Lieutenant General Russell "Ragin' Cajun" Honore)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Bushbacker
Wrong...if every Freeper, every conservative pundit and every think-tanker voted for Kerry, Bush would still have won.

The 2000 presidential election?

No, he wouldn't have.

754 posted on 10/08/2005 1:05:08 AM PDT by Do not dub me shapka broham ("I'm okay with being unimpressive. It helps me sleep better.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 739 | View Replies]

To: Phsstpok
Both Mark Levin and Robert Bork recommended O'Connor and Kennedy to Ronald Reagan as reliable, conservative, "constitutional scholars."

What is your source for this?

755 posted on 10/08/2005 1:06:14 AM PDT by ontos-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: BigSkyFreeper
Scratch that last statement.

Gave the comment I was replying to a cursory glance and mistakenly overlooked the "Kerry" part.

Four A.M. EST here, and my brain is starting to liquefy after five or six consecutive hours of this.

Good night all.

(Audible groan.)

756 posted on 10/08/2005 1:07:26 AM PDT by Do not dub me shapka broham ("I'm okay with being unimpressive. It helps me sleep better.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 754 | View Replies]

To: ARCADIA
We were his base.

I don't think you were ever a part of Dubya's base. Your posting history would betray you on that one.


If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!

757 posted on 10/08/2005 1:10:25 AM PDT by rdb3 (What's the use when the god of confusion keeps on telling the same lie?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
He [Levin] and Michael Savage are an embarrassment to the conservative movement.

I don't know about Levin, but Savage truly is an embarrassment.


If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!

758 posted on 10/08/2005 1:13:55 AM PDT by rdb3 (What's the use when the god of confusion keeps on telling the same lie?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: paulat
You're confusing the arts with the hard sciences.

I really haven't decided on Miers yet. But I like the idea of the radical paradigm shift, of the youngest shepherd boy, despised as it were, being the annointed one (I refer of course to David). And someone else has pointed out some disappointments from other brilliant Constitutional scholars currently sitting on the Court.

Our country needs a radical Hegelian swing back - a precipitous course correction, if you will. Will Miers move us to that end? Or will she become yet another dupe for the Establishment? Depends on what she's made of.

759 posted on 10/08/2005 1:33:35 AM PDT by Lexinom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Phsstpok

I am too, but only leaning - not there yet. One barometer for right and wrong in a debate: which side does the most trash-talking, use the most profanity, apply the most vitriol, exude the most condescension?


760 posted on 10/08/2005 1:45:13 AM PDT by Lexinom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 721-740741-760761-780 ... 941-943 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson