Posted on 10/09/2005 5:13:45 AM PDT by Alas Babylon!
"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."
Douglas Ginsburg. It was Regan, but Ginsburg is Chief Justice the US Court of Appeals - DC Circuit.
Clarence Thomas, on the other hand, was criticized as being an unknown, with no lengthy paper trail of decisions on the bench who was only nominated because the president knew him and because he was black.
Kinda makes the much vaunted "qualifications" demanded by the so called "experts" worthless, doesn't it?
Not so. I support Miers BUT...we here and elsewhere fought hard, stood strong behind W, generally busted ass for election after election, through countless controversial issues and defended W.
We put up with abuse from friends, overlooked Republican lapses like immigration, all because Judges was Job 1. Whatever else happened if we could righten the course of the judiciary all could be well in the future. What in the hell did we fight for?
We don't want or deserve a 'probably OK', but a 'damn straight OK'.
That's why people are pissed. I felt it. Huge disappointment at the end of a 6 year struggle. The adminstration knows it, too. They're worried about a deflated base. If Miers is as advertised, Pubbies survive. If not, there's hell to pay.
Yes...yes...I get it, and you may be right. But, please see my post # 402 on this thread for my SCOTUS strategery.
If she spoke publicly, some who know her would agree with her - and some wouldn't. But that's not what's happening.
Every person so far who knows Harriet Miers has had an almost identical reaction - smugness. The Cheshire cat look ... they know she'll be great. And why the smugness? She agrees with them. Each and every one of them. Even when they don't agree with each other...
Name someone in Washington who doesn't.
thanks for the research and the excellent article about Kristol. What a weasel.
And thanks for using one of my new favorite words, "snarky." It describes him perfectly.
That is part of what I meant by they are peeved that she is not one of their crowd.
No flames from me. I think you stated very well what many of us think.
True, and it further makes the point. Democrats will consistently take whatever side they need to that will help them win. They really don't care about blacks, Hispanics, abortion or anything else that requires a principle.
He's not exactly the type of house guest that would be welcome here.
He's so rude and disrespectful, it's hard to take.
Guess it's the culture gap, but I don't appreciate that type of discourse.
I complained long ago that he doesn't stand a chance of educating a lib when he's calling them names.
Now that he's auditioning for stations around the country perhaps he'll grow up and stop trying to be Savage lite.
Even FOX dodged. Shame on them...
Re your summary of points regarding Harriet Miers. Perfect.
Have you read President Aristotle's blog? Also Beldars Blog. Excellent points akin to yours.
I'm not willing to say I have made up my mind yet, because we don't have enough information. I am willing to contest anyone who says they've made up their minds against her and don't need to wait for any more information.
Of course, I also have to be careful that I'm not pushed towards her just because I hate the type of bleeting going on in what has so rightly been dubbed the Whaa Chorus.
This will be an interesting set of hearings, if they don't get derailed by "our friends."
"The end result of both questions is that Republicans resume the role they are most qualified to assume, minority party."
Especially if all of the whiners and doom and gloomers that have been on this forum all week do what many have said they will in '08 - not vote or vote for Hitlery (my guess is some of those who said this were really 'visiting' from DU).
Sorry but I stopped paying attention to the Sunday morning shows years ago. Just like the NYT's, Time Magazine and PBS. When was the last time Russert had Buchanan on? Probably the last time he thought he could use Buchanan to rail against Republicans. If you seek guidance from the agenda filled Sunday Morning shows, more power to you. I don't.
If Miers is as advertised, Pubbies survive. If not, there's hell to pay
#####
I know it is a circular argument, but after watching President Bush for the past 6 years, I believe that he knows this best of all, and is placing the person on the court in whom he has full confidence.
Good post
Fox News was also all doom and gloom on election day last November when they believed the obviously fake "exit polls". They were doing obituaries for the Bush Administration early in the day! I think it has more to do with hype and ratings, like when they inflate potential death tolls in disasters and report sensational rumors without verification and over-play so many stories that are of no real universal interest (Aruba, Peterson, etc.). Brit is superior to the others but he is still of course very much a part of the media and ratings game.
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.