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 ...
It is you who rely on the term, not me. Therefore, it is your responsibility to define it and defend the position not mine. Me-I think it is pretty much meaningless.
"I think it's pretty obvious that I do. But, I'll play, please let me know when you know what a conservative is."
By your measure, conservatism means seeking to destroy the President you helped elect when his judgment differs from your own.
And, just to be clear, elitism refers to one's perception of oneself and how one thinks, behaves, and interacts with others. It has far less to do with how much money one's family has.
Bork is one man whose opinion I respect in this realm - far more than any of the others.
I will take his concerns into consideration, but I would not let him, or any of those others, decide for me how I ought to think.
I knew what I thought from the day that the nomination was announced.
And THAT is your problem.
Not only on this subject, but on many others I've seen you post about.
"She IS a crony. She's his personal lawyer and personal friend. That's the basis for his nomination---no other."
The above is evidence that you are either deaf, blind, or ignorant.
"Yeah, I get it already. "Trust Bush." "Believe Bush." "Obey Bush." Well, you guys can keep trying that and see if it works."
Bush has been a hard working president; a great one, given the enemies and disloyalty he's had to face. What "works" for me is that for the first time in over a decade we have a president who understands that we are at war. Unlike you, I'll continue to trust his judgment and won't lash out to cut him down.
Yes. It quite clearly indicates how someone like you can leap to the conclusion that Miers is not a conservative. Grab onto a few pieces of the puzzle and ignore the bigger picture. In the case of the Freeper poll, you completely ignore the fact that 40% of Freepers haven't even made up their mind yet. Despite that, you confidently declare the "conservative party" fractured. Lets push your logic to the limit. Lets say 5% of Freepers are for and 5% against with 90% undecided. According to your logic, that means the party is "fractured". I mean, that is a 50/50 split. We're doomed.
"Incidentally, who is this "Conservative party" you referenced?"
Well, see that is the problem with joining a thread very late and not reading enough of it to make a useful contribution. It is kind of like jumping into the end of a discussion and blurting out a point that was already made hours ago. I suggest you read the whole thread. Your question has already been addressed.
No, I pretty clearly identified those as "swing voters" in my analogy above. Perhaps you should go back and reread my comments.
Despite that, you confidently declare the "conservative party" fractured. Lets push your logic to the limit. Lets say 5% of Freepers are for and 5% against with 90% undecided. According to your logic, that means the party is "fractured". I mean, that is a 50/50 split. We're doomed.
Sorry, but this extreme example doesn't work. It isn't 5%-5%; it's 35%-27%. The two are not the same, no matter how much you wish they were.
Well, see that is the problem with joining a thread very late and not reading enough of it to make a useful contribution. It is kind of like jumping into the end of a discussion and blurting out a point that was already made hours ago. I suggest you read the whole thread. Your question has already been addressed.
I have read from the top of the thread. But perhaps I missed your definition of "conservative party" - please provide the comment in which it was made.
Then we agree. Here is my post from much earlier in this thread to the following question...
"In your opinion...what percentage of the republican party is what we on FR (according to Rush and Jim Rob def) would call conservative."
My answer...
"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."
As a point of order, I am NOT the one declaring "the conservative party is fractured". I am merely pointing out that at this point it is impossible to support that conclusion no matter how you define conservative.
You are correct. But if your logic was sound it would. When close to half of FreeRepublic has not decided where they stand on the issue, you cannot say there is a fracture. Talk to me when the largest percent of the vote doesn't fall under the category of "undecided".
"I have read from the top of the thread. But perhaps I missed your definition of "conservative party" - please provide the comment in which it was made."
Yeah, when I went back to retrieve my response for AndyJackson, I noticed you've been here all along. I overestimated your powers of comprehension and retention. See my response to AndyJackson for the answer to your question.
Nonsense.
When close to half of FreeRepublic has not decided where they stand on the issue, you cannot say there is a fracture. Talk to me when the largest percent of the vote doesn't fall under the category of "undecided".
First, I'll note that it's disingenuous to suggest that 35% undecided is "close to half", but that seems to be SOP for you on this thread. However, at least we finally have a working definition of "fractured" - you assert it's when the a plurality of voters have decided one way or the other. Presumably, you'd state that the second-largest bloc would vote the opposite way.
That's a fair definition. Personally, I disagree. Even if all the undecideds break in one direction, you're still talking about 1/3 of this site in disagreement with the rest. A pretty large contingent given the relative uniformity of thought usually found here.
Yeah, when I went back to retrieve my response for AndyJackson, I noticed you've been here all along. I overestimated your powers of comprehension and retention. See my response to AndyJackson for the answer to your question.
Now I remember reading it. The fact that I forgot about it should tell you more about how memorable your comment was than whether I have the abilities of comprehension and retention. I notice that your "definition" in fact states that it can't be defined, yet you continue to use that term in later posts.
Personally, I prefer not to use ambiguous terms in support of my comments. It would hurt my credibility. But hey, to each his own...
They did? The vast majority of Gitmo detainees still don't have access to any kind of judicial process.
You're right. Logic should only work when you want it to.
"First, I'll note that it's disingenuous to suggest that 35% undecided is "close to half", "
I am only refering to the data from FreeRepublic Members. The non-member contribution tends to get "Freeped" by people from DU. 40.7% of Freepers remain undecided.
"However, at least we finally have a working definition of "fractured" - you assert it's when the a plurality of voters have decided one way or the other."
No. I assert it cannot be determined until a plurality of voters have decided one way or another.
"I prefer not to use ambiguous terms in support of my comments."
lol. Interesting then that you are the one declaring "the conservative party" is "fractured".
Wrong. As a consequence of losing Rasul v. Bush, the administration has raced to establish military tribunals to regularize the status of detainees at Gitmo, who were there soley under the "powers" of the executive with no judicial review whatsover. BTW duly constituted military tribunals are regarded as a judicial process for these purposes.
But as a physicist and self-appointed skeptic of what others tell you I would think that you would expect Ms. Meiers has/will show some intellectual brainpower before being confirmed, and would not take Mr. Bush's statements on the subject as any solider evidence that anyone else's.
I saw a little bit of her on CSPAN, I believe it was the acceptance. She came off as a fragile old lady, despite her tough reputation.
But, I don't care about how good of a public speaker she is, it's the vote that matters. Personally, I think this choice was a matter between the President and the Senate. After being heavily pressured, he picked one of the "recommendations" so he won't have to next time.
When you are interviewing somebody for a job you look at what appears to be the pros and cons of each candidate. Then, using instinct, you hire the one that accomplishes the most of your objectives. Bush chose Miers, I think we should all (Bork included) accept it.
Wow, thanks.
Oh, I see. So 41% is "close to half". Man, you just can't help yourelf, can you?
No. I assert it cannot be determined until a plurality of voters have decided one way or another.
And I assert that during the snapshot in time in which this poll's been taken, a deep divide among posters to this site is clearly in evidence. It's just a matter of how you interpret the numbers; obviously we don't agree.
lol. Interesting then that you are the one declaring "the conservative party" is "fractured".
Provide the quote you're attributing to me. I don't even know what "the conservative party" is - you're the one who keeps using that ambiguous, meaningless term. Perhaps you think I'm using the terms "GOP" and "conservative" interchangeably. Let me assure you I'd never make that mistake.
But they hardly qualify as judicial review, because this is all part of the executive branch. The Constitution says that the judicial powers are to be vested in the judicial branch (i.e., judges serving during good behavior), and that criminal prosecutions shall be by impartial juries - the whole nine yards. If those requirements can be disregarded for the sake of national security, why can't the same be done for the habeas corpus requirement, which has its own built-in escape clause for national security?
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.