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 ...
A law degree is a tool. Having a law degree does not mean one has memorized every law ever made.
A law degree is a tool. It does not mean one has memorized all laws. Law school, like other schools of higher learning, develop your critical thinking skills.
Thanks.
IOW, go to war with the RINOs.
When the Court found that privacy meant that abortion was going to be legal, that became the precedent.
Meaning, settled.
Of course, we have the 9th. circus, some supremes looking towards Europe and Zimbabwe for their precedence but that is a whole other story.
Isn't string theory learned in astronomy?
It seems that there are two central camps:
1. Those who see this as the best chance to engage the enemy head on, draw copious quantities of blood and leave the enemy utterly vanquished. Or, willingly die on the battlefield content that they've sacrificed themselves for a noble cause.
2. Those who see the war as a war and are not yet ready to define it in the terms of a single, bloody battle; regardless of the momentary satisfaction of bloodlust it may bring.
The scope and extent of the arguments of generals rarely are shared with battalion commanders, platoon leaders, sergeants and corporals. Yet, when the generals decide, the rest of them must go forward. Front line grunts may disagree with the choice made, but forward they go.
Active debate between the blood spillers and the decision makers is a healthy thing, in the main. However, there is always a small, quite vocal at times, minority - both generals and corporals - for whom the immediate battle both defines the war and determines its outcome; usually due to the inability to shift from the narrow focus of the task at hand to the overall stratgey required to triumph in the end; for a variety of reasons not all of which either are explainable nor are logically evident.
The logical conclusion in this instance seems to be to maintain the ability to constructively and realistically criticize the process by which this decision was made. However, any specific, personal criticisms of the nominee's abilities, capabilities and probable future performance cannot logically be done until more insight is gained; which will only occur during the hearing process. Only then, will it be possible to render a cogent, logical decision; unless of course, one is in the habit of making such decisions from a foundation of emotion rather than logic.
Here's another interesting variable to throw into the argument. I wonder how many of the senators who may vote "No" on this nominee, yet who voted "Yes" for Ginsburg (and also, those senators' supporters who continue to vote for them in election after election and are FR posters) - knowing that they fundamentally disagreed with her ideology, her beliefs and her general world-view - will be able to logically justify that "No" vote if this nominee's positions more closely mirror theirs.
Roberts was a good pick who breezed through - do you think another Roberts (i.e. a qualified candidate) would have meant war with the RINOs? I sure don't.
Besides, I'm sure those RINOs would've supported the President's decision, since they'd know that criticizing him would hurt the troops...
Dude.. what the hell are you talking about. No one is saying ", draw copious quantities of blood and leave the enemy utterly vanquished. Or, willingly die on the battlefield content that they've sacrificed themselves for a noble cause. "
We are talking about politics...
and then you continue with ". Those who see the war as a war and are not yet ready to define it in the terms of a single, bloody battle; regardless of the momentary satisfaction of bloodlust it may bring."
Dude you are whacked.. is there anyone else here who understands this diatribe?/
You understand it....perfectly. Both the tone and words you use betray that understanding. Hit a bit to close to home, sonny?
I have looked over my posts and I simply do not see that so I am sorry I cannot respond to it.
...and work for indirectly
How do you work (indirectly) for Robert Bork?
I will give you credit for being consistant. You assume you know what my level of knowledge is regarding aerodynamics despite knowing next to nothing about me. And you assume you know what Miers knowledge is regarding Constitutional law despite knowing next to nothing about her. That is as arrogant as it is ignorant. And typical of those who oppose Miers' nomination to the Supreme Court.
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)
______________________________________________________
From Websters: elite 1) the group or part of the group selected or regarded as the finest, best, most distinguished, most powerful etc.
Are you saying Rehnquist wasn't an elite? Are you saying the common citizen would have as much success understanding and ruling on the constitution as an elite judge or lawyer who has dedicated his life ,education, and training to this pursuit? If so why not just have a lottery and pick volunteers out of a hat like jury selection?
I know that you are not a real expert on the subject, i.e. PhD aerodynamics engineer doing research or applying the research to new designs of things that fly, drive, dive, etc. It is just too obvious.
Re. Miers, you are correct, I don't know what she knows. I have no evidence despite a 30 year career of what she knows. After a 30 year career, however, we should not be left to guess.
No, the Supreme Court decides cases where the Constitution has not been applied before and where the outcome is not clear. That is how they get to the SC (9th circuit foibles aside). It is sort of like applying the theory of turbulent aerodynamics to a fighter aircraft that is to operate at a higher AOA than anything before. The basic principles might be very clear (or not, in this case), but the application and outcome require a lot of hard work, argument, testing, etc.
Thanks! Pretty cool, do you get to work with him much?
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.