http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=9684
Here is the link.
Most of these questions have been answered by those supporting the Miers nomination.
UM NO, you have this EXACTLY backwards. The Pres picks, the Senate consents. If the "Conservative" pundits want to interject themselves into this THEY have to explain to US why we should listen to them over the people WE picked to represent us. Bush has NO questions to answer. The Conservative PUNDITS need to explain to us WHY we should pay ANY attention to their temper tantrum. So far they have FAILED to make any case beyond "Whaaaa, she is NOT who WE want". Too bad. We are a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy, you self appointed critics have NO role in this.
"You said, "Trust me." But why should we trust you when experience proves we could not trust the judgment of President Reagan (who gave us Justices O'Connor and Kennedy) or President George H.W. Bush (who gave us Justice Souter)? Are you more trustworthy than Reagan or your father?"
So, how long had O'Connor, Kennedy and Soutr worked directly with Presidents Reagan and Bush41?
ping
Make up your mind Phylis! Either YOU know all about her and Bush doesn't need to answer any of you questions, or you DON'T KNOW anything about her and are just ignorantly blathering by making statements like the one above. Which is it?
Very good questions.
A liberal colleague sent me this:
http://www.cronyjobs.com/
Kinda funny until you realize, this is how they regard us.
This is the most disingenuous argument of all, raising the past history of others to predict the end result, then asking Bush to prove a negative (I will not be duped as they were).
Statistically speaking Miers will probably be dead in 20 years. Again, please prove a negative.
In case you missed last night's Brit Hume show on Fox, Fred Barnes--a Miers supporter--hinted that she might have a small weak spot. This is how NRO summarized Barnes' remarks:
"On Brit Hume's show last night, Fred Barnes announced that Miers might have trouble during her hearings, but only if senators set out to embarrass her by asking her about "the third amendment," "the seventh amendment," and other, lesser-known aspects of the Constitution. Think about that for a moment. I mean, really. Just think about it. The third and seventh amendment are parts of the Bill of Rights. Asking Ms. Miers to demonstrate at least rudimentary knowledge of the Bill of Rights would represent an unfair and hostile action? This is what the Miers nomination is doing to us."
She can also reasonably be expected to be a major change.
When President Clinton appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg, it was clear from her paper trail that she was a radical feminist who would surely vote to keep abortion legal. Why do you insult your supporters who expected you to give us a justice who would be the ideological opposite of Ginsburg?
I'm not sure what the attempted connection is here.
In presenting Miers as the most qualified person for this Supreme Court appointment, is there any evidence to convince us that she is more qualified than Judges Edith Jones, Janice Rogers Brown, or Priscilla Owen?
Maybe Mrs. Schafly can call up the Senate and see how many votes those candidates could have gotten and get back to us.
Since many prominent pro-choice officials belong to churches that are anti-abortion, such as John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, and Condoleezza Rice, why should we believe Miers is pro-life because that's the position of the church she attends?
Miers converted to this church and lives by its tenets, as opposed to the likes of Fat Teddy.
Oh, well, at least Schafly isn't asking how a childless unmarried woman can hold a pro-life stance like she did in an earlier column.
Actually has there been anything printed where Reid is quoted as saying "I support Harriet Miers' appointment to the Supreme Court"?
Who cares, if President Bush said today the sky is blue, phyllis would be all over the media saying the sky is orange.
I guess Phyllis is upset that Roberts will have the same view on Roe as Rehnquist did. Either that, or she's not thinking very logically.
Phyllis - don't think will get much out of HM during hearings
Phyllis - Partial birth ban will get to SCOTUS - "Will you recuse yourself on the PBA ban case?"
Phyllis - Entitled to know that know, and if she recuses, that oughta kill the nomination
Phyllis - GWB is not demontrably pro-life, and all of the women in his life are NOT
Phyllis - We are not a Bush party. We are a conservative movment
Phyllis - conservative movement needs to assert itself
In general, she holds that it is bad karma to inject Ms. Miers' religion into the calculus. That is more or less irrelevant for evaluating a SCOTUS pick.
Excellent point, that the pro-Miers in the administration and on FR will probably ignore. This is the best Miers opinion piece I have seen.
Typical presumption from the Antis. The President does not have to answer ANY questions about this nomination and shouldn't. Now it goes to the Senate for disposal one way or another. There will be NO poll to see if we like it or not.
There is no requirement that nominations be popular with all or acceptable to all or even to any except 100 people deciding to accept or reject. And THAT is how it was designed by the Founders who wanted to keep the voters out of this completely.
Good one.