READ MY LIPS: THOMAS AND SCALIA

Me | 10-7-02 | Me

[JerseyHighlander]

I don't suppose you consider it an insult to imply that the other 75 percent of us who don't agree with this mad rush to judgment and condemenation you all are so hell bent on are not "real" or "true" conservatives, and don't care or know about the Constitution or moral values or the United States Supreme Court, blah blah blah, right?

That is incoherent. It was not implied. Why is this being put into terms of a personal attack on your integrity? Why are you taking broad strokes at fellow conservatives? The 25%(granted it's the unscientific number from the current FR poll) are adamantly arguing that the entire Conservative movement would be better served in the process of selecting a nominee if one had been picked with an established record. Including those Miers supporters who are openly anti-elitist in their stance here and in their defense of Miers, including those who are Evangelicals, even including Freeper lawyers.

I don't see how you can accept this outside of rational purview.

[doesnt suffer fools gladly]

You speak for yourself and no one else.

Been living under a rock lately? Like I said, Bush has let down a large portion of his base.

[carton253]

Lots of judging a book by their cover going on on Free Republic.

More posts than one can number saying that she is not a conservative, she's a disaster, she's Souter, or she's Kennedy... how we've been duped, etc.

But no one knows...

Lot's of people running around believing that the world has come to an end...

Two things give me peace about the Mier nominations...

One, I do trust the President... if that makes me a Bushbot, so be it...

Two, she was his vetter. She was the gatekeeper. If Owens, Brown, Estrada, Roberts' names were ever going to be placed in nomination, they had to get by her. They did... which means that she agrees with their judicial philopsy.

Why don't those who are predicting gloom and doom understand that point...

You got Brown, Owens, Estrada because you have her.

[bkepley]

I think I remember Fred Barnes talking about some conservative pundit who said that even if she votes the correct way on all the issues she would still be considered unworthy of Supreme Court Justice.

Fred has gotten more unimpressive with each passing year.

[JerseyHighlander]

And when is the hearing scheduled again, I forgot.


Looked it up, October 18, 2005 is the tentative date.

[carton253]

By why does any nominee have to have an established record?

If an established record was the requirement for the Supreme Court, the founding fathers would have written that condition in.

They did not, leaving the Court open for nominees from all walks of life and not just judges with established records.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

But no one knows...

That bears repeating.

[bkepley]

Been living under a rock lately? Like I said, Bush has let down a large portion of his base.

I wouldn't some of these guys in a voting booth alone anyway.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

No kidding.

:(

[Howlin]

Your opinion only. A lot of people on here disagree with you.

[McGavin999]

You're deluding yourself if you believe that a highly successful lawyer who if adept enough to network her way into leadership positions in the Dallas and Texas Bar is going to make a slip and reveal anything of substance in the dog n' pony show that is the examination technique of the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary.

She's been preparing for weeks, war rooming, using mock nomination scenarios, getting the questions she'll be asked fed to her by friendly Republicans on the Committee, she has at her disposal the last several years of sparring with the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary through proxies she has sent up to them, there is no great oratory tricks that Schumer will magically summon that will shoow us a glimpse of the real Harriet Miers.

Hmmmm, if she's that capable, then she's probably exactly the right pick.

[Howlin]

You're the one who said I was insulting 25 percent of the people on this forum.

I merely pointed out that it goes both ways, a concept that never seens to dawn on you purist.

[KingKongCobra]

She's been preparing for weeks, war rooming, using mock nomination scenarios, getting the questions she'll be asked fed to her by friendly Republicans on the Committee

"An absolute lie; she didn't know until Sunday night."

Yes and no. His original premise was false but interestingly Miers was the one who pretended to be the democratic senators and grilled Roberts to practice for his testimony. So, I do suspect she's ready for those senators. LOL

[Howlin]

I'm sure she picked those nominees just to throw everybody off.

[CMAC51]

You are one of the type of people that would jump out of a boat because it might spring a leak. You have nothing to indicate Roberts and Miers won't vote exaclty as a Thomas or Scalia would. But keep ranting, you are doing the party a lot of good.

Ya Right!

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

That's not much in the way of a testimonial.

I seriously doubt that Senator Cornyn is going to be grilling her once these confirmation hearings begin.

[carton253]

I'm sure she did too! LOL!

But the hysteria has been fun to watch...

[dagnabbit]

You're like a damned broken record

I'm sorry something has you upset. Here's something to help take you to your happy place:

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

But you have nothing to indicate that they would.

See, that's the problem with "stealth" nominees.

You never know which way they might turn.

[doesnt suffer fools gladly]

Your opinion only. A lot of people on here disagree with you.

And many agree that Bush threw us under the bus.