Kashinathpur.JPG)
Posted on 10/14/2005 7:27:06 PM PDT by NapkinUser
The White House, caught off guard by the intensity of the conservative backlash to Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, plans to try to refocus the debate over the next week onto her legal qualifications and away from issues such as her religion, senior presidential advisers said yesterday.
Acknowledging that the campaign for Miers had slipped out of their control, the advisers said they will seek to validate her credentials for the high court through a series of media appearances, newspaper opinion pieces and letters of support from various people who have known the White House counsel during her previous career as a corporate lawyer and bar association leader in Texas.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Far out MAN
Are they going to stop the name calling?
LOL. I was enjoying being an elitist, sexist, cynic. Gave me an excuse to act like a jerk.
I'm looking forward to a debate on the merits. Wonder what took so long.
Yes. Right after I call you a n00b.
cherub05
Since Oct 12, 2005
"plans to try to refocus the debate over the next week onto her legal qualifications and away from issues such as her religion, senior presidential advisers said yesterday"
I thought they refocused to religion, gender, etc. due to concerns about her lack of legal qualifications for the job.
Round and round and round...and down, like a draining sink.
It's kind of pathetic that the administration is now reduced to addressing its conservative supporters via the Washington ComPost, which was evidently happy to pass along this message to the Great Unwashed.
Does this mean that us barking moonbats will now get a red carpet treatment and full rispek? Call up Aretha Franklin!
refocus the debate over the next week onto her legal qualifications
---
Ya think this would have helped in the first place maybe? DUH.
"LOL. I was enjoying being an elitist, sexist, cynic."
You're an anti-Evangelical too.
Meanie.
Not just the Post. Podhoretz reports that the extreme left blog TalkLeft has an accolade for Miers from Jeralyn Merritt. He says she knows Miers through working with her in the late '90's and quotes her as gloating:
Most of those I've spoken with believe she will be okay or better as a Supreme Court Justice. While she may be more conservative than many of us, all thought she would be fair. No one can recall a single instance of her talking about abortion or Roe v. Wade.
I'm convinced we're not being told all the truth on this nominee.
Apparently not. We've added "cynic" to the litany of playground insults from the administration.
We'll soon be moving into the third week of the stand off. Amusing since they thought this would be over in a couple of days.
The very same administration that used religion to try to sell her, which is offensive to me as a Christian to use it in that manner, now says it was a distraction.
Apparently new line of attack is qualifications. Well, that's nice. But I've always stated she was "adequate" not stellar, which acknowldges she has some record.
I'm still waiting for them to get to the main critisisms.
1) Her Judicial philosophy. Her understanding of the text of the Constitution. UNKNOWN.
2) Why wasn't Excellance put forward over "adequacy".
This will be the next stunt to blow up in that idiot Card's face. The best he could do to vouch for Miers' "qualifications" is 3 Texas state judges, 2 of whom are long since retired as judges and now in their 80s. Get a load of this drivel:
"Together we represent 34 years of experience on the Texas Supreme Court," former state chief justices Joe R. Greenhill, John L. Hill Jr. and Thomas R. Phillips wrote in a letter sent to the Senate yesterday. "We feel confident that we know what it takes to be a justice -- Harriet Miers exceeds that mark."
Based on what? Did Miers serve with any of them or ever argue a case in front of them? Guess we should just trust them on Harriet. After all, she is a woman and an Evangelical convert.
What a farce!!! (Thought Harriet would just love the exclamation points.)
"plans to try to refocus the debate over the next week onto her legal qualifications"
Okay, after they spend 5 minutes going over her legal qualifications, then what else are they going to talk about?
Yeah? You weren't told "all the truth" on John Roberts, either, but you were likely dazzled with the mind games he played with the Democrat Senators.
Nothing you've thrown against the wall has gotten any traction. The hearings will start on November 7.
I'm sure the noise from the 'aginners will still be here over the next two weeks, but it won't make any difference.
Perfect! They'll lose that one.
let me guess, you're just another knee jerk bush hating moveon.org 'conservative'!!
/sarc
"Okay, after they spend 5 minutes going over her legal qualifications, then what else are they going to talk about?"
They could take up my suggestion to enact a law that any person who ever ran a state gaming commission is forever barred from being a Supreme Court judge...or any judge...
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.