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 ... 821-840841-860861-880 ... 941-943 next last
To: jonrick46
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.

The awards she has received in the state of Texas are for participating in the arena of power brokers. It is neither evidence for nor against her intellectual prowess in the law.

841 posted on 10/08/2005 9:26:08 AM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 833 | View Replies]

To: ARCADIA

You are just reiterating the same old tired arguments: that somehow judicial experience results in judicial wisdom and expertise.

Nothing oucld be further from the truth! Judicial wisdom comes from the a quiet intellect and legal experience combined with faith in the Almighty.

Stop with the elitist crap already! It has done nothing to advance conservatism.


842 posted on 10/08/2005 9:26:17 AM PDT by eleni121 ('Thou hast conquered, O Galilean!' (Julian the Apostate))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 769 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson
"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."

Again, I would suggest that when 40% of the respondants haven't decided, it is a little premature to declare anything is "fractured". But time will tell. What will be interesting is if the undecideds shift significantly for or against, whether people will still be describing a great fracture. I imagine it will depend on whether the "describers" opinion falls in the majority or the minority opinion.

843 posted on 10/08/2005 9:31:07 AM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 840 | View Replies]

To: DevSix

"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)"

Yes, but here is his official biography from OYEZ. This is about as gold-plated "elitist" as it gets.

"World War II erupted before Rehnquist had a chance to complete his education and the future chief justice enlisted in the air force branch of the army as a weather observer. He served in North Africa.

"Like many Americans in his generation, Rehnquist attended college after World War II with the support of scholarship money from the GI Bill. At Stanford, he earned both a bachelor and a master of arts degree in political science. A distinguished student, Rehnquist was elected to Phi Beta Kappa in 1948. He continued his education at Harvard where he received another master of arts degree -- this time in government -- two years later. Rehnquist returned to Stanford Law School in 1950; he graduated at the top of his class. (Sandra Day O'Connor, who would eventually serve with him on the Supreme Court, graduated third from that same class.)

"At law school, Rehnquist started down the path that would eventually take him to the Supreme Court. Having already established a reputation among his instructors and peers as a brilliant legal thinker and an able scholar, Rehnquist impressed one professor sufficiently to earn a private interview with Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, who was visiting the law school. Rehnquist's professor, a former clerk for Jackson, arranged the meeting in hopes that his favored student could convince Jackson of his qualifications for a clerkship. Rehnquist walked away from that meeting feeling he had failed to impress Jackson in the slightest. However, his fears proved false as Jackson eventually selected him for clerkship that year. Rehnquist's clerkship under the moderate Jackson did not alter his conservative beliefs in any noticeable manner. Instead, his exposure to the other clerks may have served only to confirm his conservativism.

"Rehnquist married Natalie Cornell, whom he had met during his law school years, after his completing his clerkship. He also moved to Phoenix, Arizona to work for a law firm there. Rehnquist chose Phoenix for its pleasant weather and favorable political leanings. The next few years passed uneventfully for Rehnquist. He, together with his wife, raised a son and two daughters. Following advice given to him by Justice Felix Frankfurter, Rehnquist began his participation in the Republican Party. He became a Republican Party official and achieved prominence in the Phoenix area as a strong opponent of liberal initiatives such as school integration. Rehnquist campaigned for Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater during the 1964 elections. During that time, he befriended Richard Kleindienst, another attorney from Phoenix. When Richard Nixon rose to the presidency a few years later, he appointed Kleindienst deputy attorney general of his administration. Kleindienst sought Rehnquist for the position of deputy attorney general in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. When Justice John Marshall Harlan retired in 1971, the Nixon administration chose Rehnquist as Harlan's replacement. A Democratic Senate overwhelmingly confirmed his nomination. On January 7, 1972, Rehnquist -- and fellow nominee, Lewis Powell -- took their oaths of office."


844 posted on 10/08/2005 9:31:34 AM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 825 | View Replies]

To: jonrick46
Hey Zook, don't you think this dissent against President Bush's nominee has all the appearances of shallow prejudice?

Considering the diversity of voices that raise this dissent, it would be very difficult for you to chalk it up to any simple personal foible. Compare that to the rather undiverse crowd that's supporting the nomination, which appears to consist mostly of people too afraid to face the possibility that their hero isn't what he's been portrayed as.

So if you're going to argue in favor of her nomination, be my guest, but you're not going to get very far if your chief strategy is to try to psychoanalyze your opponents.

845 posted on 10/08/2005 9:33:56 AM PDT by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 837 | View Replies]

To: jonrick46
all I hear is prejudice

I agree. I am waiting for one unassailable accomplishment of this nominee that demonstrates her intellectual seriousness.

846 posted on 10/08/2005 9:34:15 AM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 833 | View Replies]

To: Rokke
What will be interesting is if the undecideds shift significantly for or against, whether people will still be describing a great fracture

"fractured" means exactly what it means. If the undecideds shift against then the movement will no longer be fractured, an overwheliming majority now being in clear opposition.

847 posted on 10/08/2005 9:37:14 AM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 843 | View Replies]

To: inquest
you're not going to get very far if your chief strategy is to try to psychoanalyze your opponents.

We are not being psychoanalyzed. The diagnosis has been made and no consultation with the patient is found necessary. We're nuts.

848 posted on 10/08/2005 9:39:15 AM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 845 | View Replies]

To: AndyJackson
"If the undecideds shift against then the movement will no longer be fractured, an overwheliming majority now being in clear opposition."

Ummm, you lost me at "an overwhelming majority now being in clear opposition." What part of "undecided" shows clear opposition?

849 posted on 10/08/2005 9:44:41 AM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 847 | View Replies]

To: Dane
LOL......he knows exactly what the callers are going to say in advance. He was roundly criticized for those early callers saying he should be President.

Now it's only occasionally, but sheesh.

We're to put the opinion of the pundits as more informed and intelligent than the President's?

850 posted on 10/08/2005 9:46:35 AM PDT by OldFriend (One Man With Courage Makes a Majority ~ Andrew Jackson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 832 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
Are you intentionally missing the point?

Calling the President weak is hurting the troops. Doubt it?

851 posted on 10/08/2005 9:47:11 AM PDT by OldFriend (One Man With Courage Makes a Majority ~ Andrew Jackson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 834 | View Replies]

To: RTINSC
As much as I like Judge Bork, it is disappointing to see him make such decisive statements without allowing Miers to be subjected to hearings and questions. Shouldn't a judge have all the facts before making a decision?

Miers is not a constitutional scholar. Period. That is an objective statement of fact. For all the bushbots railing about "snobbery" and "elitism" THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES IS AN ELITE POSITION. It requires constitutional expertise. It requires command of 200 years of legal precedent. And she doesn't have the qualifications.

852 posted on 10/08/2005 9:48:58 AM PDT by Sam the Sham (A conservative party tough on illegal immigration could carry California in 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend
Calling the President weak is hurting the troops.

Well then maybe he should strengthen up a bit to the Dems. Because no matter how strenuously you object, people are not going to stop saying whatever they intend to say about him. You're completely wasting your energy by trying to bring that about.

853 posted on 10/08/2005 9:54:05 AM PDT by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 851 | View Replies]

To: Sam the Sham
"It requires constitutional expertise."

Is it possible to be an accomplished American lawyer and not be an expert in the Constitution?

854 posted on 10/08/2005 9:54:48 AM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 852 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend
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.

Our soldiers are fighting for American democracy, not so anyone can demand automatic obedience as a right.

855 posted on 10/08/2005 9:56:39 AM PDT by Sam the Sham (A conservative party tough on illegal immigration could carry California in 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 831 | View Replies]

To: Rokke
Is it possible to be an accomplished American lawyer and not be an expert in the Constitution?

Of course it is. Attorneys specialize. What does personal injury law have to do with free speech issues ? Or corporate law have to do with sodomite marriage ?

856 posted on 10/08/2005 9:59:28 AM PDT by Sam the Sham (A conservative party tough on illegal immigration could carry California in 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 854 | View Replies]

To: Sam the Sham
For all the bushbots railing about "snobbery" and "elitism" THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES IS AN ELITE POSITION.

It's funny how they consider it elitist to expect a person to be highly qualified for a top position, yet they have no problem haranguing Bush's critics by saying things like "You lost, get over it", "Fringer!", "You people are irrelevant!" (that last one's my favorite, by the way, considering how worked up they get over irrelevant people)

857 posted on 10/08/2005 10:00:15 AM PDT by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 852 | View Replies]

To: Sam the Sham
"Of course it is. Attorneys specialize."

Doctors specialize too, but there isn't a doctor in practice that isn't an expert in human anatomy. Are you saying law students graduate from law school and apply for the bar without studying and knowing the Constitution? What exactly do they study in law school? Isn't the Constitution the very foundation of law in this country? Is it possible to practice law in America without a firm knowledge of the source of that law?

858 posted on 10/08/2005 10:20:10 AM PDT by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 856 | View Replies]

To: Rokke

Do you remember stuff from your first year in college ? Do you remember every course you ever took ? How are you at high school trig ?

It's like someone who hasn't openned a math textbook since high school being asked about string theory.


859 posted on 10/08/2005 10:23:36 AM PDT by Sam the Sham (A conservative party tough on illegal immigration could carry California in 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 858 | View Replies]

To: Rokke

You are the one who began the muddled quibble about the definition of fractured. I am merely arguing that "fractured" is an accurate description of the current state of affairs, and if it were resolved per your hypothetical illustration through the undecided changing into decided -all on the same side - then it would no longer be fractured.


860 posted on 10/08/2005 10:24:06 AM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 849 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 821-840841-860861-880 ... 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