Posted on 10/09/2005 5:13:45 AM PDT by Alas Babylon!
The Talk Shows
Sunday, October 9th, 2005
Guests to be interviewed today on major television talk shows:
FOX NEWS SUNDAY (Fox Network): Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich; Texas Supreme Court Judge Nathan Hecht; Gary Bauer, president of the American Values Coalition; Dr. Steven Rosenberg, chief surgeon with the National Institutes of Health.
MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Pat Buchanan, former presidential candidate; Richard Land, president, Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention.
FACE THE NATION (CBS): Sens. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., and Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.
THIS WEEK (ABC): Sens. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., ranking Democrat of the committee; Mike Leavitt, secretary, Health and Human Services.
LATE EDITION (CNN) : Sens. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Richard Durbin, D-Ill.; Mowaffak al-Rubaie, Iraqi national security adviser; the Rev. Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition; Dr. David Nabarro, U.N. bird flu envoy.
Amen!
I disagree, she and GW aren't chuckling about the conservatives who are acting like Rats and appearing to jump his ship over the Miers nomination. Its expected of the democRATS, but it is a slap in our President's face when its his own damn party.
As I said before, unless Harriet Miers commits some huge boners in her hearings, she needs to be voted onto the court. To do otherwise would only weaken our President, hurt the GOP beyond repair and embolden the Rats & the MSM.
Again, on Steffie, its all Roe all the time. I think I'm hearing that Specter is saying he's not going to vote against her because she just might be pro-life.
ping for later , and yuppperzzz to post #198
I agree. Bush is doing rope-a-dope on Kristol, and others. Kristol, as I said before, is typical of Democrats turned into Republicans trying to maintain some of their past Democrat party theories. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad Kristol is on our side now, but he still has not adjusted to conservativism.
Extremely conservative legal groups are the ones praising her nomination
LOL! I'm sorry. Could anyone give me a list of known Conservatives who are supporting this nomination.
(And no cheating. Name them without googling them first).
**snort**...yeah, what does the SCOTUS need with a woman who specializes in Constitutional law, anyway?
The hearing will tell you what?
Just what will you LEARN about this women from the Circus run by insane democrats, asking idiotic questions and trying to make her answer the questions that you might use to make a decision. Her game plan NOT to answer the questions, right?
You will see her defend herself. It will be a performance. Why do you think you will learn what this nominee believes and how she will protect the Constitution during her performance?
I thought everyone thought that these hearings are nothing but a joke, a process, a step, a televised show that has Rats reading from papers written by staff members. But many Freepers are going to base their support for Bush's pick after watching her answer questions from Chuck and Ted. Is this not a bit shallow?
You already know 98% of all you will ever know about this women. She won't say anything during these hearings.
There is a problem here when people like yourself are going to make a decision about a Justice from hearings where she will not say anything and based on the PERFORMANCE and not from a lifetime of written legal opinions that do not exist. Pretty sad.
Can you disambiguate that?
Most of the posters on this thread are conservatives. Most of the posters on this thread are defending the Miers pick as a good pick. They aren't pundits, but their opinions do count.
SOme conservatives do not think the Miers pick was a good pick. They've said and defended their point of view too.
I'm disappointed in the pick, but believe my contributions to the discussion are unwelcome and not useful here.
The big deal on Steffie's show seems to be whether there were back door assurances on how Miers would vote in an upcoming case, based on Dobson putting his foot in his mouth. They may call him as a witness.
I'm curious to see who will take the time in a live news thread to compile a list for you.
Didn't the back stabbing, Scottish law Specter say he wouldn't support any nominee who had been filibustered? If that is true, then what good would a huge fight over this have accomplished? It would have gone on for months and months.....weasley RINOS would never pull the nuclear option trigger.....and there would sit old swinging O'Conner, still mucking up decisions on the SC. A big fight would make for good theater, but I have a feeling that Bush is one step ahead of all the drama queens.
was that Daniel Ginsberg? Either Reagan or Bush 41 appointed him, then it turned out he'd smoked dope with students at Harvard and that was the end of that .. tho in maturity he probably would have made a fine Justice, certainly better than SOuter.
Thanks for that link to a very informative post.....she might be very impressive in her Senate hearings!
No fool like an old fool, I guess.
Specter wants her law school grades. Doesn't think you have to go to Yale or Harvard, but academic standing is important.
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.