All they forgot was the 'acme supreme court nominating kit'.
Posted on 10/09/2005 8:58:27 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite
WASHINGTON - (KRT) - Senators from both parties said Sunday they plan to question whether White House adviser Karl Rove may have given inappropriate "back room assurances" to secure conservative support for Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers.
Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said his committee "is entitled to know whatever the White House knew" regarding Miers and her views on important legal issues.
"If there are back room assurances, and if there are back room deals, and if there is something which bears upon a precondition as to how a nominee is going to vote, I think that's a matter that ought to be known by the Judiciary Committee and the American People," Specter said on ABC's "This Week."
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
This is out of control. Withdraw this nominee.
to secure conservative support for Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers.
____________________________________________________
If he did, it did not work very well.
Honest to PETE!!!! GIVE THE WOMAN A CHANCE TO SPEAK!!!!!!!!! Now we are ALL acting like Democrats!! Republicans and Demo are getting closer together than I dreamed we ever would!!!!
ping
BTW, you can usually get free logins on www.bugmenot.com
AH I see. ONLY the critics get the 1st Amendment rights on Free Speech. Curious how many Senators lobby for pet pork barrel projects. Are we going to get investigate of the Senators in question to find out if they have ever given "back room assurances" to get other Senators votes?
What were the Senators promised to get them to vote for McCain's Terrorist protection Amendment added to this year's Defense Appropriation's bill? Do we get an investigation into that?
When the going get tough the tough wimp out?
"When the going get tough the tough wimp out?"
That's a self-defeating way to look at this. Withdrawing this nominee and instead nominating a Well Qualified Conservative would be brave and admirable... not "wimpy".
Are you saying that because Specter is a traitor and attacking his own president, that the president should do what the traitor wants?
That's insane!
And if it isn't true, then it means that Specter just woke up to how conservative Miers really is, and is badmouthing her just like you'd expect out of a traitor.
Either way why would anyone side with a traitor?
She gets her hearing, Betty.
Everything else is noise.
Arlen Specter is worried about back room deals.
Someone cue the laugh track.
I know one "assurance" made pertaining to Miers was the "assurance" made between Reid and Bush that led to this disaster. Bush took conservative support for granted and made a sweet deal with Reid... that pretty much explains everything we've seen this past week.
I look at it more as of "living to fight another day" (for another nominee). And hopefully then for a qualified conservative.
Don't you know the woman is a baby eating Satanist?
I personally heard a rumor from a guy I know who knows somebody who's cousin knew somebody in middle school who saw Miers run over a puppy with a steam roller and laugh!!
Below are my reasons for opposing Miers... neither of them are going to be changed by the hearings. I'm wondering where the Miers apologists are getting this notion that nobody's allowed to criticize a nomination before "hearings" are held.
Miers:
1. Has no particular qualifications aside from being a personal friend of Bush. Neither experience nor exemplary performance/intellectual weight is in her record. As a matter of fact, commentators have noted her complete lack of any particular evidence of ideological courage (which is absolutely necessary on the Supreme Court if one is to not move left like Souter, O'connor, or Kennedy). Furthermore, the Supreme Court is not merely a 9-way voting booth. Just as important as votes are Justices that will influence the court with their insightful questions/opinions. We have no reason to expect those things from her and the Miers apologists haven't even addressed that subject.
2. Is over 60 years old. This is not a disqualifier in and of itself, but it does tell me that Bush clearly was not trying to make the choice that would have the biggest long-term impact on the Supreme Court, and I consider it a wasted opportunitiy to choose as a replacement to O'connor a justice only 14 years younger than her... particularly when there were far more qualified justices over 10 years younger than Miers.
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.