Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-34 next last
To: Urbane_Guerilla
She may turn out to be a justice in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. We just don't know enough yet.
2 posted on
10/07/2005 8:54:53 PM PDT by
West Coast Conservative
(Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.)
To: Urbane_Guerilla
3 posted on
10/07/2005 8:55:24 PM PDT by
KingKongCobra
(Trying to save the "Donner Party" from themselves.)
To: Urbane_Guerilla
People didn't have much of a clue about Thomas either except that he thought he was a conservative.
He had even less of a judicial paper trail than MsMiers.
6 posted on
10/07/2005 9:01:28 PM PDT by
quidnunc
(Omnis Gaul delenda est)
To: Urbane_Guerilla
I support President Bush and have confidence in his appointment, because Harriet Miers is a true conservative and pro-life.
During 9/11 I watch firefighters, police, and emergency services workers bravely trying to help each other and America. Also today our brave solders in battle find that their similarities far outweigh their differences. People in the military, people on 9/11 and people on the FreeRepublic.com, are working to serve this great country.
Miers understands the national security implications of some important court cases and will be the swing vote in certain national defense cases.
As great patriots, in fighting this war on terrorism, we need teamwork, because it is absolutely necessary for USA and President Bush to win. We sometimes forget that fact, but, I can't think of any other site, where conservatives of different opinion's are coming together to accomplish a vital national mission. And that takes teamwork. And that's happening with our solders in battle and here on FR. today. We work together, different conservative opinion's, from different backgrounds, and because we are looking out to win this war on terrorism, we should support each other and our President.
Now we are engaged in a great internal and external testing whether that conservatives or any conservatives convictions so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. Let us have conviction that right makes might: and in that conviction, let us to the end, dare to do our duty, as we understand it to be and give moral support to our President.
My God Bless our Troops, God Bless America, God Bless President Bush and God Bless Harriet Miers.
Thanks
7 posted on
10/07/2005 9:01:36 PM PDT by
FreeRep
To: Urbane_Guerilla
The younger Bush promised a Thomas or Scalia for the same reasons: to tell the believers in constitutional government that supporting him would mean a definitive change in the jurisprudence of this country, jurisprudence which adhered to the basic concepts in our Constitution, not to a sort of current intellectual church of what's happening now. And, for all you know, Harriet Meirs may precisely fit the bill.
I know. I know. The problem is that we don't know, not for sure.
But, so far, President Bush is notable for having done exactly what he has said he would do. There is no evidence that Harriet Meirs isn't more of the same -- the Scalia or Thomas you crave.
I don't like it either. But, based on his history, I'm inclined to trust him. And I can understand why -- given the spineless nature of the GOP's Senate majority -- why he might choose to avoid the fight we're all spoiling for.
In short, if you have to count on John McCain and Lindsay Graham, you're probably going down.
8 posted on
10/07/2005 9:05:22 PM PDT by
okie01
(The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
To: Urbane_Guerilla
Clarence Thomas wasn't a Scalia either when George H. ("Read My Lips"} Bush picked him. Conservatives called him a lightweight affirmative action candidate who was only picked because GHB wanted to replace a black justice (Thurgood Marshall) with another black.
12 posted on
10/07/2005 9:14:10 PM PDT by
Hugin
To: Urbane_Guerilla
We need another one of these guys.
14 posted on
10/07/2005 9:17:32 PM PDT by
Old Seadog
(Birthdays start out being fun. But too many of them will kill you..)
To: Urbane_Guerilla
She's not who I would have chosen - But I still have great faith in the President's judgement. I hope it is not misplaced.
16 posted on
10/07/2005 9:19:03 PM PDT by
LouD
To: Urbane_Guerilla
You have NO idea how she will turn out, and I am wondering why you would post this.
17 posted on
10/07/2005 9:19:12 PM PDT by
ladyinred
(It is all my fault okay?)
To: Urbane_Guerilla
In the end, one side will be saying "I told you so!"
Depending on which the other side is, it will offer excuses and more convoluted logic, or repeat that "we didn't know at the time, did we?" The time we don't know is now!
18 posted on
10/07/2005 9:19:38 PM PDT by
Revolting cat!
("In the end, nothing explains anything!")
To: Urbane_Guerilla
Read my lips. You don't know what you are talking about. I trust W over this stupid rant.
19 posted on
10/07/2005 9:21:13 PM PDT by
John Lenin
(Don't get stuck on stupid, support the President !)
To: Urbane_Guerilla
The problem is that Bush is asking us to trust him, but he hasn't earned our trust. In fact, he's proven to conservatives that he can't be trusted. So, because Bush can't be trusted, an unknown is too much of a risk for the Supreme Court. That isn't our fault.
21 posted on
10/07/2005 9:22:05 PM PDT by
Nephi
(The Bush Legacy: Known conservatives are ineligible for the Supreme Court.)
To: Urbane_Guerilla
Souterphobia seems to have the right firmly in its grip.
One major difference is that 41 knew little to nothing himself about Souter, but counted instead on Rudman and John Sunnunu, as New Hampshirites familiar with him. 43, on the other hand, has known Ms. Miers personally in a variety of roles for 15 years. He has had the opportunity to hear what she has to say when not under the glare of consideration for the "short list.'
If conservatives believe honesty is doing what's right when no one is looking, perhaps W got a better read on Ms. Miers when she had no idea of the impact of what she was saying. I trust the man's instincts. And, I'm getting mighty tired of movement conservatives jumping on the president and his appointee before she's had a chance to define herself.
35 posted on
10/07/2005 9:33:32 PM PDT by
EDINVA
To: Urbane_Guerilla
Watch out for the Bushbots
.
To: Urbane_Guerilla
Thomas but not Scalia. Again: Thomas was derided as a cynical choice because of the thinness of his resume.
52 posted on
10/07/2005 10:05:08 PM PDT by
RobbyS
( CHIRHO)
To: Urbane_Guerilla
It is a matter of calling out a charlatan, who pretended to be one of our own. "Our own" what?
You're certainly not speaking for the vast majority of people on this forum.
81 posted on
10/07/2005 10:28:13 PM PDT by
Howlin
To: Urbane_Guerilla
I think Bush has let a large portion of his base down. With the pool of proven conservative originalists to choose from, his Mier's pick has me just shaking my head.
To: Urbane_Guerilla
No politician who wishes election to national office can avoid telling powerful groups what they want to hear. Look up Thomas Jefferson's campaign speeches, Andrew Jackson's, Lincoln's. Compare what they said while on the stump with what they did in office.
Just the way democracy works. The Demos has a very short memory.
Perhaps the last President that I see as honest was John Adams. Eugene McCarthy was the most honest candidate in my lifetime. Just how it is.
By the way, I was mad as a hornet over the "no new taxes" business. "No new taxes" was the elder Bush's whole election campaign. He got Clinton elected. A bit much.
108 posted on
10/07/2005 10:48:03 PM PDT by
Iris7
("Let me go to the house of the Father.")
To: Urbane_Guerilla
When did Bush say he was "one of [your] own"? Whatever that is. A crybaby maybe? I hope I voted for someone who's his own man and can make his own mistakes and have his own successes but always does what he believes is right. What you wanted I guess was a Bushbot.
160 posted on
10/07/2005 11:26:48 PM PDT by
bkepley
To: Urbane_Guerilla
I didn't vote for the charlatan, I voted against him, because I knew that the charlatan would appoint Ginsberg-types all over the federal court system.
Bush has an impressive track record in the federal court system. Calling him a charlatan puts you on the same level as a TROLL.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-34 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson