Specter to Question Miers' Qualifications

Associated Press ^ | October 09, 2005 | AP

[dinoparty]

On the one hand, Specter is full of it because abortion law is simple: the Constitution is silent on the matter. (Here comes the big ridiculous chart again.) On the other hand, Bush and Co. should have seen this coming. Nobody needed to grill Roberts about "abortion law" because they figured he knew all the precedents like the back of his hand. Now we will see what Meiers is made of...

[AmericanChef]

-The jurisprudence is very complicated-

No, it's not. It's really not.

[Huck]

I've been saying since the Miers thing happened that competence would be the primary point of attack, not ideology. Roberts set a high bar.(no pun intended.)And I don't want to hear about "but they voted for Ginsburg." They never should have voted for Ginsburg; making her nomination the standard would be exactly wrong. I'm not commenting on Miers anymore, for the simple reason that the reaction from conservatives was clear, it has been heard, and so these hearings will be interesting. I'm gonna just wait til they happen. Conservatives should settle down and wait at this point.

[Duke Wayne]

Conservatives should settle down and wait at this point.

What kind of statement is that. We have a once in a lifetime opportunity to elect a true conservative judge to the Supreme court and you want us to settle down.

Now is the time to fight for what we have not had for years.We must keep up the pressure and not let this thing slip away without a fight.

I will say it yet again, When corkscrews like Harry Reid, Pat Leahy and Barbra Makluski are defending this pick for judge red flags go up.

Trust but verify!

[paudio]

Miers has met several senators. Has any of them directly asked a question that is related to constitutional law? Or they simply had a priori belief she wouldn't be able to answer?

[Reactionary]

"We have a once in a lifetime opportunity to elect a true conservative judge to the Supreme court and you want us to settle down."

No, you don't. You don't have any such opportunity at all. What you have - what the politicai reality is - is a spineless Senate that will not confirm a controversial nominee.

[Huck]

I agree with you about importance of the issue, and I definitely share your concerns. But, we need to look at the facts on the ground and do what is best for our own interest.

Facts on the ground:

1. The pick has been made and is not going to be withdrawn.
2. The pick will go to the Senate Judiciary Committee for hearings.
3. The overwhelmingly negative reaction to the pick has been heard loud and clear. The message has reached the White House and the Senate, regardless of what they choose to do about it.
4. At this point, the Left stands to gain by stoking the flames of this intraparty conflict. If we continue to bash away on it, we will not accrue any additional benefit (see #3), but we will do harm to the only agents in Washington likely to ever serve our interests.

What to do about it?

Here we can disagree. I don't really see a lot of leverage for us peons anyway. Between now and the hearings, I think we should settle down. Not give in. Not accept. But just pipe down and get past the rage. Nothing of any consequence will happen between now and the hearings, and in the meantime, we harm ourselves only to continue beating on it.

[Huck]

Check out my post #8. I think you might appreciate it.

[cynicom]

Arlen (one bullet) Specter has a dismal record of his own that proves he is not qualified to be a senator.

[ez]

The lack of a judicial track record is the one quality that distinguished Miers above the other nominees.

[VRWC For Truth]

It's time for the people to give the Senate a spine. Contract with America Part II is headed the Sin-ates way. This Category 5 will cause urban renewal. Step aside or be crushed.

[RasterMaster]

Spectre should question his own qualifications to be on the committee.

[savedbygrace]

On the one hand, Specter is full of it because abortion law is simple: the Constitution is silent on the matter.

Which means it reverts to the States because of the 10th Amendment.

[VRWC For Truth]

Most of are for moving Conservatism forward, and aren't interested in getting along. It's put up or shutup time. The rules have changed.

[Common Sense 101]

"Specter to Question Miers' Qualifications"...

I'm assuming the basis for his complaint/"concern" centers around her willingness to cite "Scottish law" in future matters facing the judiciary?

[OkieDoke]

Run `RINOs on Parade' newsreel.

"So, are you now, or have you ever been, a conservative?"

"Yes, yes I am."

"Nothing further."

[independentmind]

Let's see how many Republican talking points show up on this thread. It's almost as if certain regular posters receive them regularly. Not too many bored housewives are capable of generating high quality spin all by themselves.

[Prost1]

"The jurisprudence is very complicated..."

No it is not! No it is not! Got it?!

There is no "means testing for intellect" in the Constitution. It presupposes one can read and think.

Try these two amendments out and tell me how the "jurisprudence is very complicated"!

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

[demkicker]

The Sphincter couldn't stand it. He's got to get his two cents in.... Barf.