Posted on 10/11/2005 5:36:03 AM PDT by OKSooner
You also dragged her religious choices into the discussion of her nomination, and tried to spin them as a positive factor. You seem unable to comprehend that other people, with 'conservative credentials' at least as good as your own can (and do) see those choices in a profoundly negative manner.
Be careful how you drag religion into politics. If this were an election, your initial post on this thread might very well have convinced me to oppose your candidate.
And spare me the scriptural hosefest. Been there, done that, and I'm right. ;'}
I read that statement last week. It's not convincing.
Reason -- that statement is from 1992 and what's been 'leaked' thus far it seems her values and 'beliefs' change with the prevailing winds of the time.
First she's a Catholic then shes not.
Then she's a Dem and then she's not. (ha-ha-ha)
First she's pro-choice, then she's anti-abortion, and then she's ... MUTE.
Then she.... etc, etc.
And I wouldn't - don't consider this reassuring: "They show a concern for the rule of law—and an emphasis on collegiality, compromise and determination..."
So she emphasizes "collegiality and compromise", oh-boy! That's exactly what we DON'T need. Compromise on the Constitution? No thank you, been there, done that.
Lastly as much as I consider the 2nd of paramount importance, I want to know her views on the Commerce Clause and its limitations over Congress, or lack of it. As that little clause is Congress' ticket to writing all its ijit laws as 99% of all laws are based on the effect on commerce. Including the recently passed Homosexual Hate Crime Law in the senate. So if you limit that (or strictly interpret it) you limit Congress' power over us.
Which until this year was not defined in the law. Common Sense would say you are traveling when you are going somewhere, but over the years the courts, not the legislature, steadily raised the bar on what that meant. It got so the rule of thumb was that you had to cross at least two county lines and stay overnight.
The legislature this year finally defined the term. Basically if you are going somewhere, not committing a crime, specifically not including minor traffic violations, you are traveling and may lawfully have a gun in your vehicle.
Unlike the courts, the legislature can be responsive to the will of the people, even if it took them about 5 decades too long.
Perhaps these (all) legislators are getting a wake up call and will take their responsibilities a bit more seriously, ie: impeaching judges that are intent on overriding legislative law to suit the purposes of their particular ideology.
Yeah ... I know. But it's a thought.
I suspect there are far more who were carrying before the CHL law passed who continue to do so without benefit of a permit, than the numbers who do have a permit. Mostly those would be folks who carry in their vehicles. That practice was legalized, more or less, this year.
I don't recommend trying to carjack anyone in Texas.
Ah yes...and conservatives in the Senate have delivered the vote on rock-solid nominees from the president in the past...like Bolton.
Not quite. Here's what she wrote years ago, from a post by Dave Kopel at the Volokh Conspiracy.
The New Republic's fine &c blog points to a 1992 article she wrote for the Texas Lawyer. In the article, she points to three infamous multiple homicides in Texas: the 1966 Texas Tower Shooting, in which a man climbed the clock tower at the University of Texas, and shot 14 people. (He was finally stopped when two policemen and a civilian rushed the building.) The second was the 1991 Killeen massacre, where a man entered a Luby's Cafeteria, and methodically slaughtered 23 unarmed people. (The incident played a major role in Texas rescinding its ban on carrying concealed handguns, and enacting a Shall Issue permit law.) The third incident in Miers' article had taken place recently; a man murdered two judges and two lawyers in a Fort Worth courthouse.
"How does a free society prevent" such crimes, she asked. She then explained:
The same liberties that ensure a free society make the innocent vulnerable to those who prevent rights and privileges and commit senseless and cruel acts. Those precious liberties include free speech, freedom to assemble, freedom of liberties, access to public places, the right to bear arms and freedom from constant surveillance. We are not willing to sacrifice these rights because of the acts of maniacs.
Miers, however, rejected the notion that "precious liberties", including "the right to bear arms," should be sacrificed in the name of crime prevention. Quite obviously, she was referring to the "right to bear arms" as an individual right.
.45 not .44
It certainly just did. A .45 Colt revolver packing SC Justice has a certain amount of poetic license.
Looks like the story got the information from her brother regading how she got the gun.
Buy from private sellers at gunshows and your purchases will never be known.
And the Bush bash-bots are swilling coffee by the pot, staring into their web browsers through glazed-over eyes, going on one week of no sleep, working on any negatives over this nominee. :-)
Yes, but if he hadn't been one of the Annointed a weak defense like that would never have worked.
If Karl "the Puppet Master" is really on his game, Harriet's response to the Judicial Committee's question "Why did you sell the gun?" will be:
"Because I didn't like the way S&W caved into the Clinton administration."
Would cement conservative support, I believe.
I also would like her to time the answer to Kennedy taking a drink from his water glass, cause I want to see him shoot whiskey through his red bulbous nose.
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.