Posted on 10/11/2005 6:14:59 AM PDT by Sometimes A River
COVINGTON, Louisiana (Reuters) - First lady Laura Bush joined her husband in defending his nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday and said it was possible some critics were being sexist in their opposition to Harriet Miers.
"That's possible, I think that's possible," Mrs. Bush said when asked on NBC's "Today Show" whether criticism that Miers lacked intellectual heft were sexist in nature. She said Miers' accomplishments as a lawyer were a role model to young women.
...
Mrs. Bush, who had publicly supported the nomination of a woman to the high court, noted that Miers had been president of the Texas Bar Association.
"I know Harriet well, I know how accomplished she is, I know how many times she's broken the glass ceiling herself. She is a role model for young women around our country," she said.
100% on the money!
If GWB really wanted a legacy, he would have picked someone in their 40's or early 50's like Roberts like JRB or someone in the mold to shape the court for years. But no, he picks his personal attorney. What next - his accountant to replace Greenspan?????
Depends on what you mean by worse. Taking Kerry at his word (always a dubious task) it's a fair bet he would have named a nominee who met with the expectations of his voters. Such a nominee would be known as an advocate a living constitution and pro-abortion.
Y'know, they both went to SMU, I wonder if they were friends?
I also wonder if it was LAURA who promoted her as the new Justice? If that's the case, I wonder if it's because Laura knows something about her Pro-Life views that we don't, seeing as (allegedly) Laura is pro-choice?
I hope we Conservative can get her nomination withdrawn...
Ed
Ah, but don't you see, pork barrel politics, unconstitutional restrictions on political free speech and illegal aliens invading America are just all part of the BRILLIANCE of President Bush to return us to fiscal sanity and stopping the Democrat's pork barrel politics, unconstitutional restrictions on political free speech and illegal aliens invading America!
ugh!
Ed
Rush always says that -- it is to drive the liberals crazy. He used to say things far more outrageous, that's why I didn't listen to him initially.
It will turn out alright. People respect & love Bush -- just as you do. He has a natural honesty & self confidence. I fear for the blood pressures on this site.
BTW, I have those same lovely Christmas cards and treasure them.
Indeed. This is generally what a leftist says, when they cannot effectively remonstrate a critical argument.
It's a little chilling because the solution to all this discord is so simple and so easy...yet it's not taken and days pass. All they have to do is demonstrate that she is an originalist and the rebellion ends. The people they are now fighting are not their natural enemies. National Reivew and the Weekly Standard, are not the determined opponents of the Bush administration (if they are, then the administration has no friends at all). So, as each day passes, I'm asking myself why they can't do it. Why can't they sit her down at a computer and have her type an op-ed about constitutional interpretation. As another poster said rather ominiously earlier, perhaps they can't because she isn't.
Well, Laura Bush knows Harriet, but we don't. No sexism here, just worry.
I said other than Roberts. Meirs is a complete gamble.
I think, sadly, that the gov't works best with utter gridlock.
The GOP has shown that they are only a drip better than the RATS.
Oh....they have enough worshippers on FR. These people will support Pres. Bush even if he nominates Barney to the Supreme Court. Their reasoning will likely be that the people who oppose Barney are elitist anti-canines.
I'm beyond worry about the pick at this point. We're looking at serious electoral implications with this schism.
The people defending the pick, need to notice against whom and how many they are defending it from. Unjustly maligning and insulting Republican base voters and the leading intellectual lights of the movement --who have expressed entirely legitimate concerns about Miers' qualifications and judicial philosophy-- is a recipe for political disaster. Our people are not like the Dems who will turn out and vote en mass, for a candidate who pledges to expand a war with more troops that they bitterly oppose (so long as he's got that "D" next to his name). Our base is notoriously independent and will just stay home on you, when they feel they're being abused and/or taken for granted.
Well, he echoe'd my posts. Just look at the times.
he did not fax me any "talking points."
Now you and your types are bashing Rush...because he doesn't think this abominable pick was the best available.
Let's see..who is a "moonbat" now according to the Bushbots: Rush, Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter, John Fund, Charles Krauthammer, Mark Steyn, George Will, Robert Bork, the National Review.
Kinda reminds me of the kook who claims that "everyone has gone mad, except for me!"
The only sexism in this debacle is the insistence of some that O'Connor MUST be replaced by a woman. Sexism doesn't get any more blatant than that.
I'm sure everyone else has already said this ... but that is just SO DUMB. Mrs. Bush has such good hair and clothes, why can't she keep quiet about public policy?
It doesn;t matter to me that she speaks on public policy. She can speak to her hearts content for all I care.
But she should brace herself from criticism when she implies that much of the GOP base sexist.
When Marshall was appointed to the SC he was not an unknown nobody, but one of the most distinguised leaders of our early republic. Your distortion of his record is a travesty, and I will chase your tail all over FR to set the record straight.
Marhsall sutied at William and Mary and studied law under George Wythe (the nation's first Law Professor).
He served in the Revolutionary War in the same regiment as Monreo and rose to Captain. After the war Marshall served as a lawyer and was a Federalist leader in the Assembly. In 1797 he was appointed to negotiate with France. Marshall rejected the extortionate demand for bribes from French officials which became known as the XYZ affair.
Adams asked Marshall to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, but he ran for and was elected to Congress in 1799. Adams appointed his as Secretary of State. Here he strongly opposed violations of American rights on the high seas and adopted a policy which necessitated a strong Navy to give force to American diplomatic protests.
Marshall was appointed Chief Justice in 1801.
Yes, it's disappointing that she would make such an obvious slur. It suggests that she just doesn't understand the concept of principled opposition to a questionable nominee.
Yes, Kerry could have been worse.
I love this man. I support him. But on this, I am NOT happy with the nomination. I do not like how they have adapted to critisism. And certainly do not like falling back on the slights Liberals use as crutches rather than responding with a solid case that would still critisism.
All they have to do is present a case she is a strict constructionist. Instead they respond with "trust me" or say we're elitist or sexist. Neither are acceptable.
Conservatives would have supported any number of women for the position. They would have supported any number of candidates that did not attend the Ivy leagues, they would even have accepted some people out of the Judiciary. They are not happy with this nominee because she has very little to recommend her outside of the President's endorsement.
I trust the President. He tells me we need to go to war, I believe him. But he is asking for unconditional Faith about another, making promises about what she will or will not do that he cannot keep. He doesn't know the future, he cannot make that promise of who she is in twenty years. The only One I will grant that level of Faith is my Lord.
Right now I'm angry at him because he's a better man than this. This administration is better than this. But I don't regret my vote in 2004 and 2000 at all.
Yes, back to my original point...
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.