Why Miers Must Be Defeated (Founding Fathers Didn't Envisage Cronyism For High Offices Alert)

Worldnetdaily.com ^ | 10/10/05 | Joseph Farah

[goldstategop]

Why should we reject Harriet Miers? The Founding Fathers, in particular Alexander Hamilton, feared cronyism would have a corrupting influence on the government. The Senate was designed to check appointments not based on distinguished accomplishments and impeccable character. Our President may be shameless in appointing a crony to one of our nation's highest offices - the United States Supreme Court. That's reason good enough to see Miers defeated by the Senate. If only as a tribute to the Founding Fathers who shaped the Constitution that governs our lives today.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[SteveMcKing]

Reminds me of how Dick Cheney was selected. (If you recall -- he choose himself!)

[Betaille]

PING!

[flashbunny]

[Stellar Dendrite]

Man, I cant keep up with all these threads

[flashbunny]

Just have some koolaid and your desire to question anything will disappear.

[Southack]

You know, after WND predicted that Zarqawi and Bin Laden would nuke the U.S. by Ramadan 2005 (started Oct 4), I wondered what they would do when the date came and went without a big nuclear attack.

After reading their recent bottom-scaping articles on Miers, now I know.

[goldstategop]

A political position is different from that of a judge. Personal favors and loyalties may be requisite in an appointment where one serves at the pleasure of the President but it precisely such consideration that rules one out for a judicial post.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[Betaille]

"Man, I cant keep up with all these threads"

This is the monday morning rush. I think we're reaching critical mass. I won't be surprised if Miers withdraws herself from the confirmation process this week.

[RobbyS]

Baloney. Hamilton owed his own elevation to his connection with Washington.

[eleni121]

Give the woman a chance to speak! This is not cronyism... far from it!

She is going through hell to get confirmed!

[Stellar Dendrite]

Actually, it might make things a bit easier-- pour me a glass.

[Betaille]

"After reading their recent bottom-scaping articles on Miers, now I know"

I have not seen a single reason in favor of Miers... only attacks on those that oppose her. I think she's near finished.

[goldstategop]

I do question the pick and so do have of the Senate Republican caucus and almost all conservative commentators. I can't think of a single reason, other than her being a friend of the President, that qualifies her to be a jurist. If the White House has mentioned one, I am not privy to it.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[counterpunch]

Imagine if Bill Clinton had nominated his personal attorney and White House counsel to a post on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Then Vincent Foster would still be alive today.

[xzins]

What is the difference between a crony and a friend? a crony and an associate? a crony and a colleague? a crony and a preferred expert?

[flashbunny]

she brought cookies to sunday school...isn't that enough for you?

[Prost1]

Joseph Farah is, like his buddies M.Savage and P.Buchanan, wrong.

There is no reason to hold a nominee to the Supreme Court to a higher standard than we do our Senators or Presidents.

And though it is "life-time", they can always be impeached for usurping authority.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

World Net Daily is the online edition of Newsweek now.

[goldstategop]

If Bill Clinton appointed a personal White House aide to be a Supreme Court justice, we'd be against it. I am against cronyism regardless of party. There are more qualified individuals to serve on our nation's highest court.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)