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).

[inquest]

The non-member contribution tends to get "Freeped" by people from DU.

And what's really interesting is that, probably for the first time ever, non-member opinion is shown to more in favor of Bush's position on a particular question than member opinion is (36.4% vs 29.8% for the "Yes" option, as of post time).

[photodawg]

I think we are seeing a slight tinge of "elitism" with regard to many on the right that are opposing her. The "she doesn't measure up" line is complete BS -
______________________________________________________

While I am willing to accede to the Presidents wish to nominate Meirs and will support that, it is not "elitist" to expect the supreme court justices to be elite legal scholars on constitutional law with proven track records exhibiting their juris prudence. They should be the best of the best, which speaks to their impeccable qualifications as the best available persons for the job. Using that criteria, Meirs does not qualify.

[Lancey Howard]

Your post is too long and too weak for me to respond to in great detail

Translation: You're lazy.

[AFPhys]

Indeed. I will be looking at the testimony she presents before the Congress, as well as the result of her interviews with people I trust, before I come to my personal conclusion as to how I would vote. However - in the long run, it is not me, but those we elected who have the important say here, and I fully expect them to be serious in fulfilling their personal oath to respect our Constitution, and the President we elected.

[SevenMinusOne]

The Founding Fathers made it clear one does NOT need to be a judge nor a lawyer to sit on the SCOUTS - In fact it is healthy to not have people all of one certain ilk judging the words of the Constitution alone -

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

Rehnquist did a pretty fine job on the bench I would say (and he wasn't a judge prior to sitting on the SCOUTS if I remember correctly)

[FreeReign]

To be indelibly jackhammered onto the bony forehead of each and every FReeper -- from this nanosecond onward! -- who misuses (knowingly or otherwise) the term "elitist" in attempting to tar or libel anyone simply attempting to uphold traditional conservative standards towards the federal judiciary, or intellectual excellence overall.

The description "elitist" is used correctly against those who argue that it's a demerit to have ones law degree from SMU.

Coulter did that. So did at least one poster on this thread.

Put that on your boney forehead.

[inquest]

and I fully expect them to be serious in fulfilling their personal oath to respect our Constitution, and the President we elected.

I hope this is just a mistake in sentence structure, because otherwise you're saying that they took a personal oath to respect the President. They did absolutely no such thing.

[OldFriend]

Levin is twisting himself into a pretzel with his hysterical ranting about this nominee.

Too bad our side has turned into carbon copies of the lunatic left.

Evidently piling on the President, weakening him in front of our enemies is a game of some kind. The right wing talkers need to prove to everyone that they're soo much smarter than the President of the United States.

After all, doesn't Hannity take callers who say he should run for President?

The egos have taken over the logical side of their brains.

[FreeReign]

As much as I disagree with the positions these two have taken, they were both far more qualified for the high court the Miers.

What?

Both Ginsberg and Stevens either don't understand the Constitution or despise it. They rule against the Constitution on a regular basis.

In my book those are disqualifications for being a SC judge.

[inquest]

Evidently piling on the President, weakening him in front of our enemies is a game of some kind.

That's pretty funny, because it's mostly the Bushbots who think of all of this in terms of a game - "our side" vs "theirs". Whether or not conservatism is actually being advanced is a distantly secondary consideration, at best, just as long as "our side" is "winning".

[OldFriend]

I'm a proud Bush-bot and I view everything from the point of view of our troops fighting for their lives.

I view it all in the context of Americans showing strong support for their president so the enemies don't get the idea that he is weak and might relent on the WOT.

[Dane]

After all, doesn't Hannity take callers who say he should run for President?

The egos have taken over the logical side of their brains

Harriet Miers being on the Dallas City Council is considered a negative by hannity for SCOTUS , but yet Hannity sitting in a radio studio is considered a plus by some to be President.

I will say one thing about Rush, when that topic comes up(President) he shoots it down.

[jonrick46]

I am in agreement with the requirement for mastery of constitutional law. I thought that the awards she has received and her rise in leadership position in the State of Texas would say something about her mastery in all aspects of law. I would think that her current position would also speak loudly enough for our support. If it seems that her accomplishments do not speak loud enough, let's wait until the hearings because all I hear is prejudice, which is a voice that gives me an uneasy feeling.

[NittanyLion]

I'm a proud Bush-bot and I view everything from the point of view of our troops fighting for their lives.

IOW, any and all disagreements with Bush hurt the troops? Is that the claim?

[Rockitz]

Yet another "barking moonbat" joins the ranks of Schlafly, Steyn, Noonan, Krauthammer, Will, Frum, Norquist, Weyrich, Coulter, Levin, Bauer, Malkin, Goldberg, Kristol, Savage, Hannity, Limbaugh, Ingraham, Novak, Buchanan, the Eagle Forum, Operation Rescue, the National Review, the Cato Institute et al! How dare they question the wisdom of the Miers nomination?!

You forgot to add /sarcasm.

[inquest]

I view it all in the context of Americans showing strong support for their president so the enemies don't get the idea that he is weak and might relent on the WOT.

A judicial nominee being rejected for not having good constitutionalist credentials is going to endanger our troops? That's about as paranoid as anything I've ever heard on FR.

What would make America a bit stronger is if certain politicians learned how to actually respond intelligently to criticism, instead of condescendingly. Because just complaining about criticism sure as hell ain't gonna make it go away.

[jonrick46]

Hey Zook, don't you think this dissent against President Bush's nominee has all the appearances of shallow prejudice? I am not talking sexist prejudice, I am calling it pure, unadulterated prejudice because it refuses to look at Miss Miers' accomplishments. They do not exist and her opponents will not acknowledge them when you point them out. When you compare her qualifications to other justices, they act as it they don't hear and go right back to their original talking points.

And, we have heard it all before when John Roberts was the nominee. My antenna is up.

[antisocial]

"I also think that Bush takes the presidency seriously, and thinks that she may be the best for the country - maybe not the best for conservatives - but for the country."

How could she be good for the country and not be good for conservatives?

[ariamne]

Thanks for your kind words of support--I'll pass them on to the "counselor"!!

As you know, being trapped in liberal Ulster County NY--home of Woodstock--we could really trade some horror stories! We should have a marathon sometime.

Ciao!

[AndyJackson]

I would say members of this forum tend to be far more conservative in a broad range of categories than the average Republican."

I would take that observation along with the pole results to be a pretty strong indication that the class normally pointed to as being "conservative" are pretty deeply fractured at present on this issue. It is not difinative, but it is about as good as eveidence gets.