Posted on 10/08/2005 6:01:01 PM PDT by arnoldpalmerfan
A conservative uproar erupted over President George Bush's recent appointee to the Supreme Court. Bush nominated Harriet Miers to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. But several key Republican senators say she not the best candidate.
MSNBC-TV's Tucker Carlson talks to former judge and Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork about the Harriet Miers' nomination. He says it's, "a disaster on every level" because she has "no experience with constitutional law whatever". The nomination is a "slap in the face" to conservatives.
TUCKER CARLSON, MSNBC HOST: Are you impressed by the president’s choice of Harriet Miers?
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Because elitism is what this looks like.
Ginsberg apparently is "qualified", but she's an idiot. Even O'Connor has been quoting non US law in her decisions. How "qualified" is someone who doesn't understand that non US law is irrelevant?
How "qualified" is she compared to Thomas? Granted, I like his opinions, but if I remember right he wasn't any particularly deep constitutional lawyer. He was head of the EEOC and I think a Judge for a year or so.
What she does have is real world experience, and lots of it. Knowing Bush, her appointment will stand and she'll get a vote in the Senate.
It's 11th commandment time.
There is a line from "The Last of the Mohicans" that applies to Bork here when Madeline Stowe says to the British major:
"Taken on the whole, Duncan, I was wrong to think so highly of you".
I disagree with it.
I don't know. Maybe this guy can answer that:
"The practices of other nations, particularly other democracies, can be relevant to determining whether a practice uniform among our people is not merely an historical accident, but rather so 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty' that it occupies a place not merely in our mores but, text permitting, in our Constitution as well. See Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937) (Cardozo, J.)." -- Justice Scalia, Thompson v. Oklahoma. 487 US 815 (1988)
It's 11th commandment time.
If Bush was nominating Ruth Ginsburg would you be saying "it's 11th commandment time?"
All the people that are advocating overturning Roe vs Wade are dreaming. It won't happen.
However, what should be done instead is how the LEFT handled the "smoking" and the "seat belts" issue...they got public opinion on their side.
Instead of showing dead mangled baby bodies and protesting at abortion clinics, they should be putting forth smart and savvy commercials showing a baby in the womb smiling. Today's technology has been able to do just that.
Change people's minds...make they stop and think about before taking an act. Be active in your churches when you hear someone is pregnant. Get active in schools where many pregnant teens are. Help them find a loving family to adopt. Work in adoption clinics and help get children adopted. These are the types of things that will make it "unacceptable" in society to abort a baby.
Then, whether there is Roe vs Wade or not, it won't matter. Acceptability is the REAL judge.
Me: "Would you and the 80,000 other Freepers who are calling everyone who advances honest questions about this woman's credentials and abilities quit calling us elitists?"
You: "Because elitism is what this looks like. Ginsberg apparently is "qualified", but she's an idiot. Even O'Connor has been quoting non US law in her decisions. How "qualified" is someone who doesn't understand that non US law is irrelevant?
How "qualified" is she compared to Thomas? Granted, I like his opinions, but if I remember right he wasn't any particularly deep constitutional lawyer. He was head of the EEOC and I think a Judge for a year or so.
What she does have is real world experience, and lots of it. Knowing Bush, her appointment will stand and she'll get a vote in the Senate.
It's 11th commandment time."
Thank you for the hysterical overreaction--but hey, you're not alone in this. I asked a question: Why are those of us who ask questions about the nominee called elitists?
And you came back with Ginsburg, real-world experience, Thomas...and all the rest of that.
Again (not that I really want your answer): If we have concerns about a candidate, and ask questions...we're elitists?
If the Democrats threaten to filibuster a known conservative nominee, the Republicans should invoke the consitutional option. The Republicans could obtain at least fifty (50) votes for invoking that option. Once the constitutional option is invoked, the Republicans could get fifty (50) votes for the confirmation of a judge with a conservative track record. If the Republicans obtained exactly fifty (50) votes in either of those voyes, Vice-President Cheney would be ready to break a tie.
If the Republicans lost a vote on the constitutional option, President Bush should keep sending judges to the United States Senate with conservative track records and let those who vote for a filibuster against such nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court explain their actions to the American people.
Instead, conservatives are asked to support a stealth nominee, just as President George Herbert Walker Bush asked conservatives to support another stealth nominee, David Souter, when he had the chance to have picked Edith H. Jones.
they won't get 50 votes...that's the point
I agree completely. Roe v Wade will only be overturned in the court of public opinion.
My point is, that we have just had half the fifth amendment hacked right off.
Bush signed the CFR bill that outlawed political speech, plus we have hate crimes,leaving the first a hollow shell.
The second is tattered by twenty thousand illegal laws.
One by one the court is erasing the Bill of Rights.
We need a solid originalist majority just to stop the gushing of Constitutional blood.
We need a supermajority of firebreathing conservatives if we are ever to roll back the damage already done even the least bit.
We don't have ten years, we don't have more than the end of this administration.
It has to be now.
HOW?
Bush signed the CFR bill that outlawed political speech
???? what? By the way, CONGRESS critters created it.
plus we have hate crimes,leaving the first a hollow shell. The second is tattered by twenty thousand illegal laws. One by one the court is erasing the Bill of Rights
And you don't think Ms. Miers will help stop these things?
We need a solid originalist majority just to stop the gushing of Constitutional blood.
not really, just some people with brains and no leftist anti-American agenda
We need a supermajority of firebreathing conservatives if we are ever to roll back the damage already done even the least bit.
not really, I'm not in favor of firebreathing conservatives after seeing them in action on this Web site
What Republicans would vote against the constitutional option? What Republicans would vote against Edith H. Jones? I believe at least one Democrat, Sen. Nelson of Nebraska, could vote with the Republicans on one or both of those votes.
It doesn't take any kind of real genius to be a supreme court member. Even if she were a bit "slow" (and she's obviously not), it wouldn't be the end of the republic.
Are there another hundred thousand lawyers out there equally or even more capable? Sure. So what? She'll do fine.
As to the "elite" charge. Early after her nomination Brit Hume read a list of the first half dozen conservative commentators that had come out against her and read their school. I believe that all but one were from some ivy league school. Yeah, it looks like elitism.
Just like the genuine islamic terrorist that couldn't get himself past the guard at the gate to 80000 fans at the OU Kansas game last week so he killed himself outside. Had that been in Boston, or LA, or DC, or even Tel Aviv it would have been Big News. But I doubt that many people even know it happened, and those that do probably think it was just a random suicide (it wasn't). It happened in fly-over country, so the elites on the coasts don't think it matters.
Miers is from SMU. Yeah, it looks like elitism to me.
What Republicans would vote against the constitutional option?
Spector
McCain
Susan Collins
Olympia Snow
Voinivich
etc.
plus 1 independent
What Republicans would vote against Edith H. Jones?
Spector
McCain
Susan Collins
Olympia Snow
Voinivich
etc.
plus 1 independent
Why did President Bush endorse and campaign for Sen. Specter, who was in a primary battle with a conservative, Pat Toomey?
Alas, like many a Freeper does, from time to time, depending on the issue...you've not quite taken leave of your senses...but you have definitely locked logic into the closet.
As for all those "elite" schools that those commentators Brit quoted attended...yeah, let's disregard them because they got into the schools the other 95 percent of us couldn't.
The culture in the east is that if you're worth a damn, then you'd best go to the best college that will accept you because you'll be judged by the college you attended for the rest of your life. That culture just does not exist in much of the rest of the country.
I feel free to disregard who graduated from those elite schools, because no one I knew in school even applied to them and I doubt there's some kind of genetic propensity for smart people to be born only in certian places. And some of those folks were damn smart, but a sheepskin from the "right" school just isn't important outside the east coast and parts of California.
I've got to throw in my mother in that category. She's the smartest person I personally know, going from college freshman to Phd in 12 years while holding down a full time job, raising three kids and cooking and cleaning for the family. It wouldn't have been possible for her to move the family to attend an ivy league school, and it just isn't that big a deal to anyone back home.
Miers was arguably the most successful lawyer in Texas among her peers. But the commentators that Brit named went to elite schools, and think that if someone didn't go there then there's obviously something wrong with them.
Sorry, I'm not buying that. Miers will make a fine Supreme Court judge. A conservative one too. Which is something that I'm beginning to suspect is not really desired by some commentators, despite their claims otherwise.
We agree to disagree.
On just about everything regarding this subject.
Let God guide it.
I wish you safe travel.
Because there was no guarantee that the people in that state would vote for Toomey over the Democrat. With Specter, they were pretty sure since the people had sent him to Washington many times. Because many conservatives liked him, there was no guarantee. You go with what you've got to work with. It was more important to have the majority and so far, Specter hasn't done anything to disappoint so far.
Very well stated. People who had to make it on their own without help from daddy and mommy didn't much care about the school's reputation. No one is the great midwestern states wanted to go into the denizen of evil on the coasts....people were just too weird there. ha!
...And you don't think Ms. Miers will help stop these things?..
That's finally the point.
We have no way of knowing, until its too late.
It comes down to whether or not you trust Bush with the fate of the Republic.
Personally, I don't.
I would rather see someone nominated that I trusted.
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.