Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A full guide to Miers Pro and Con.
Right Side Redux ^ | 10/9/05 | Justin @ RSR

Posted on 10/09/2005 5:10:13 PM PDT by RightSideRedux

Are you totally confused about the Miers nomination. Get the guide Pro and Con to help you out.


TOPICS: Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: justinhart; miers; rightsideredux
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-29 next last

1 posted on 10/09/2005 5:10:19 PM PDT by RightSideRedux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: RightSideRedux

i think most of the outrage here at fr falls under the last item of "solid->cons"... i.e. "Last straw"

(that is not stating my position)


2 posted on 10/09/2005 5:24:06 PM PDT by kpp_kpp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kpp_kpp

If Miers ends up being a squishy centrist (much less if she's a liberal) it could be the straw that broke the elephant's back..


3 posted on 10/09/2005 5:31:25 PM PDT by AntiGuv (™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv

i agree with "Bush 'forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution' by calling McCain-Feingold unconstitutional back in 2000, then signing it into law. "

but i'm still wait-and-see (i.e. waiting for more info) on miers. regardless i certainly hope he gets a chance at a third.


4 posted on 10/09/2005 5:33:25 PM PDT by kpp_kpp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: kpp_kpp; AntiGuv

2002 -- not sure where i found that quote

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020327.html

"However, the bill does have flaws. Certain provisions present serious constitutional concerns"

"I also have reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising"

"Taken as a whole, this bill improves the current system of financing for Federal campaigns, and therefore I have signed it into law."


5 posted on 10/09/2005 5:37:23 PM PDT by kpp_kpp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv

My head hurts!


6 posted on 10/09/2005 5:44:37 PM PDT by olezip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RightSideRedux
The biggest factual reason to scrap Miers isn't even mentioned.

She contributed the max to the Dukakis campaign, through the DNC, five days before the 1988 Presidential Election.

This final push period is when the hard core partisans give their all to their cause.

Unlike other Democrat donations attributed to Miers, this one was personal and not connected to her law firm.

The appearance of a conversion shortly after the Bush 41 win is easier explained as being opportunistic.
7 posted on 10/09/2005 6:00:46 PM PDT by Jim_Curtis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim_Curtis

And that was 1988, about 17 years ago. Harriet was a 43 year old lady. I knew Dukakis was a dufus, and I was only 23. I just don't have much confidence in Harriet changing that much since she was 43.


8 posted on 10/09/2005 6:07:21 PM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
In 1962, at the age of 51, Ronald Reagan switched from being a die-hard New Deal democrat to being a conservative member of the Republican party.

Why couldn't somebody else do the same thing at the age of 43?

9 posted on 10/09/2005 6:28:23 PM PDT by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
And that was 1988, about 17 years ago. Harriet was a 43 year old lady. I knew Dukakis was a dufus, and I was only 23. I just don't have much confidence in Harriet changing that much since she was 43.

To further illustrate the absurdity of this nominee, imagine the tables turned. Would Bill Clinton ever have nominated a contributor to the RNC five days before the Bush 41/Dukakis election? Well, of course he wouldn't, he wasn't that stupid. If he had, one million Democrats would have attacked the White House with torches and sharp sticks.
10 posted on 10/09/2005 6:28:47 PM PDT by Jim_Curtis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RightSideRedux

This has got to be one of the crappiest days on FreeRepublic I've seen in AGES. Review the topics over the past 24 hours -- freakin' depressing.


11 posted on 10/09/2005 6:31:00 PM PDT by berkeleybeej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bonaparte
In 1962, at the age of 51, Ronald Reagan switched from being a die-hard New Deal democrat to being a conservative member of the Republican party.

Reagan was hardly a die hard New Deal Democrat until 1962. Reagan supported Ike and Nixon. Truman and FDR were respectable men, hardly in the mold of Democrats today.

12 posted on 10/09/2005 6:41:10 PM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Jim_Curtis

Haven't made up my mind yet about the lady. I'll wait for the hearings. But just cause she used to be a Dim shouldn'r disqualify her. Heck, even Ronald Reagan was one as well as Charlton Heston. Were they ''faking it'' too?


13 posted on 10/09/2005 6:48:29 PM PDT by Bush gal in LA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Bonaparte
In 1962, at the age of 51, Ronald Reagan switched from being a die-hard New Deal democrat to being a conservative member of the Republican party. Why couldn't somebody else do the same thing at the age of 43?

Everyone knew where Reagan stood, he didn't hide his views from the public. He moved to the Republican party or the Democrat party moved away from him, that's a lot different than Miers who saw her opportunity when the Republicans came knocking at her door.

We are talking Dukakis here...DUKAKIS! Radical Massachusetts lefty who would have undone 8 years of Reagan. Reagan couldn't convert her but a couple of years of Bush 41 and she is all of a sudden worthy of being a future Republican nominee to SCOTUS? We need to look at this matter logically.

14 posted on 10/09/2005 6:53:43 PM PDT by Jim_Curtis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: RightSideRedux
(On the Pro Side)

"Constitutionalist"

Thats all I needed to hear.

15 posted on 10/09/2005 6:57:25 PM PDT by GregoTX (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightSideRedux
I notice that the list is tremendously redundant. For example, the argument that opposition on her credentials is "elitist" occurs at least twice under "solid" arguments, and once under "non-solid arguments". Also, a goodly number of arguments "pro" are mis-classified as "solid".
16 posted on 10/09/2005 7:04:25 PM PDT by Shalom Israel (Pray for the peace of Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GregoTX
"Constitutionalist"
Thats all I needed to hear.

IF you believe it, that is... no evidence for that claim has actually been offered.

17 posted on 10/09/2005 7:08:54 PM PDT by Shalom Israel (Pray for the peace of Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Bonaparte
It's the timing of her conversion that seems curious.

Maybe it was really heartfelt, as a result of her new faith.

But she also seems to have switched right around the time when Republicans took over Texas politics. Opportunistic? I don't know.

Again, however, it's not the most serious objction against her - which is whethr she has a real handle on constitutional law and has an originalist constitutional philosophy and can articulate and defend it well.

We'll find out whether that's the case before long. It's a shame we don't know already.

18 posted on 10/09/2005 7:09:45 PM PDT by The Iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: GregoTX

"she's a constitutionalist"

"she's a constitutionalist"

"she's a constitutionalist"

there. happy?

man, I wish I could back those comments up.


19 posted on 10/09/2005 7:28:22 PM PDT by kpp_kpp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: kpp_kpp
"she's a constitutionalist" "she's a constitutionalist" "she's a constitutionalist" there. happy? man, I wish I could back those comments up.

Don't worry, the President backed you up on that comment.

20 posted on 10/09/2005 7:31:17 PM PDT by GregoTX (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-29 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson