Posted on 10/07/2005 3:50:01 PM PDT by Sam Hill
Neither that nor more importantly DO all understand the constitution. I have been amazed at how many of my religious right "conservatives" here on FR have no idea what the Constitution actually says. It took the greatest minds of the French enlightenment (they happened to be Americans and we call them our Founding Fathers) to go through the brilliant and lengthy arguments to produce it in the first place. No it takes a truly first rate mind to understand our constitution in its intricacies, balances, and nuances (and for a document to be so short and sweet and still work is because it is sufused with nuances).
Well I am not a lawyer. I am a physicist. In my field the ultimate prize is the Nobel. It's a guild thingee, too. You get there through intellectual excellence and integrity. A lot of the people who got it came out of "elitist" schools. That is because what comes out is a a big function of what goes in. Some don't. But still, somewhere along the way they have demonstrated excellence, intellectual excellence and integrity. Focusing on this, this nominee does not measure up, no where, no how, and head of sales for a big company (senior partner) is not an intellectual prize, it is a schmoozing prize. The head of the firm doesn't do the intellectual work, and probably never did. He has lunch with the power brokers around town and brings in business. He/she is a rainmaker. But I will let you tell that story - it is your field not mine.
Perfect. And absolutely irrefutable.
LOL, I wish I could make that my tagline!
This isn't even a nuance. Habeus Corpus is a right won at Runnymeade (there goes that foreign precedent thing) and was the first right overturned by Hitler when the Nazis assumed power in Germany.
Your ignorance is staggering. Most suits in law are based partially or entirely on English common law.
You mistake cause and effect. She is not on any discerning person's short list because she has not demonstrated that she is an intellectual powerhouse. Until she demonstrates some time somewhere that she has argued here way out of a complex case, not starting from, but sustaining thereby, a conservative principle, she is not a conservative intellectual powerhouse. Conservatives have nothing to fear from well reasoned positions starting from sound fact - I like to believe anyway. It is the liberal departure from fact and sound logic that has lead us astray.
Ironic that this comment is coming from someone so obtuse they've completely missed the fact that my whole point is to show the Conservative party is not fractured. No matter how you state the numbers, you just underline my point. Thank you.
You do not demonstrate mastery of a subject by studying it, but by applying it. When she successfully shows how she can reason her way through a constitutional argument I will applaud this nomination. Absent any positive demonstration that she has done so till now I will remain a solid and vocal skeptic and dissenter. The way you silence dissent is through sound reason, not the volume of your statements. I hope my skepticism is demolished when she appears before the judiciary commttee. Somehow, however, I have this nagging doubt.
I wish I had written that.
"Forget the facts. I am right, right, right! There, I said it thrice!" I suppose your definition of "conservative party" will prove to be so slippery as to defy any argument.
It is my fault. i misdirected to you the quest for documentation. I am not sure why I sent it to you. Sorry.
Probably. That is why it is such a relief that you've joined this thread. We've been waiting for someone to offer a precise definition of the "conservative party". I wait with eager anticipation to read your response.
What does it mean when just about every conservative voice in the USA is concidered the enemy?
Let me rephrase this - I'll try to speak more plainly and phrase this in political terms, so even the simplest among us can comprehend it.
Among decided voters, 56% support the nomination while 44% do not. That's 35/(35+27), or, 27/(35+27). Fractured - no matter how you try to spin it. An additional 35% are "swing voters", and we don't know how those votes will fall. Does this make a little more sense to you now that it's been interpreted for you?
Incidentally, who is this "Conservative party" you referenced? Much as I'd like to find one, I haven't been able to do so.
"No sale."
Your post is too long and too weak for me to respond to in great detail, and since your first two points are the weakest I'll hit them both at once.
You call Bush a coward? Running from a fight? The problem with his Republican "allies" in the Senate was not that they wouldn't vote for a more conservative nominee, but that they wouldn't stand up to a Democrat filibuster. You're the one who needs to "do the math" on that.
After some searching, I see that I wrote to you about the "then Chief Justice Burger " quote. I see that your source has the information as you repeated it. But since Rehnquist and Scalia were already on the Court when Bork was nominated in 1987, at least the characterization "then Chief Justice Burger" was wrong.
What's the forecast for tonight?
"Like Dingy Harry Reid? Oh wait... he supported Miers."
Note that he hasn't voted for her yet. I can think of several reasons why he would make the statement he did. Perhaps he's keeping his powder dry. Perhaps he, too, wants to avoid a Senate battle in order to save face. Perhaps he recommended her (as I believe he did) never dreaming that Bush would call his bluff.
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.