Posted on 10/15/2005 11:22:42 AM PDT by gobucks
By the time Senate hearings start in late October or early November, Miers will have completed a crash course in constitutional law.
White House officials and others who are familiar with her preparations said she'd paid little attention to the furor over her nomination while concentrating on the task at hand. They dismissed speculation that she might heed calls from some conservatives for her withdrawal.
Supporters expressed confidence that Miers' appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee will quiet critics who question her qualifications for the nation's highest court. But they acknowledged that any embarrassing mistakes by the nominee could doom her chances.
"One thing that characterizes Harriet is that she is extremely diligent. She's going to be prepared," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, a committee member. "The temptation will be great for some to try to match wits with her on constitutional issues. There's some danger that senators might demonstrate not her lack of knowledge, but their own."
snip
Although Miers is still in the early stages of her preparation, plans call for her to participate in question-and-answer sessions with top constitutional lawyers after she digests the briefing books. Those informal sessions will evolve into more formal "murder boards," relentless grillings that more closely resemble confirmation hearings.
Roberts wasn't videotaped during his practice sessions, but Miers might be. Some White House officials worry that her quiet, low-key approach may need to be pumped up for television.
Snip
"A good performance by her in the hearings will seal the deal," said Washington lawyer Christopher Bartolomucci, another participant in Roberts' preparation.
By all accounts, Miers is well aware of the stakes.
"She knows the hearings are an important part of the process," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said. "She'll be ready."
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
See yea!
Roe v. Wade isn't about whether or not abortion laws will be made. It is about WHERE they will be made.
Overturning Roe and its progeny only means the decision will be given back to the people, instead of being made in the courts. The good news is that at least you can attempt to influence your state legislators, but you can't influence the Court.
Obviously you haven't followed the President's career, from Texas to, and including, the Whitehouse.
Should you have, you would have found that the President was never "conservative", as such is want to be defined.
He simply was and is the lesser of two evils.
To understand President Bush, you would first need to understand the words ... "Compasionate Conservatism".
Hitting the books now will do about as much good for her as wearing a short skirt. Too late lady.
True. That's why my tagline didn't apply until now. Also, I am assuming that Miers didn't type her articles for Texas Lawyer while watching SportsCenter.
Same thing the rats said "Thomas is unqualified".
The Red Zone states will crank the restrictions waaaaay down. It's not going to stop someone determined enough to go to another state or another country, but will make it much more difficult for most.
Even as a conservative, I see nothing wrong with using the term "diversity."
Only a true bigot would be opposed to diversity. Everyone should be awarded the same advantages or disadvantages of race, religion, age or sex. No one should be given preferential treatment because of these factors either.
The term diversity actually does not imply preferential treatment.
#109
I wish I had your confidence in her conservative credentials. Yes, she has confided to one witness that she is pro-life. But I'm not sure whether that means she would have the guts to go against stare decisis and reverse Roe v. Wade and Casey, which is the kind of thing that needs to be done.
Or, given her frequent plugs on behalf of diversity, would she have the guts to reverse the recent constitutional-right-to-buggery decision? I'm not saying that there should be laws against homosexual activities, but I am saying that there's nothing in the constitution to this effect and that the matter should be settled by the voters and legislators, not the courts. Anything else is exceedingly dangerous.
Or would she reverse the recent findings supported by Sandra Day O'Connor that favor racial preferences and affirmative action in the universities? Again, I find that her writings point the other way.
There are several candidates who, we can be pretty certain, are reliable enough as constitutionalists to do these things. So, why take a chance betting on an unknown. Sure, she's Christian, but a lot of Christians are pro-abortion, whatever their creeds may say.
I take that to mean I am being brushed off?
I'm ... I'm crushed.
DYK. The position of Speaker of the House doesn't have to be filled by a sitting member of Congress.
Legislators don't want the move of control to go that way, because then the legislators become accountable.
So it's up to we the people to make them accountable.
Think I needed one? ;)
To understand President Bush, you would first need to understand the words ... "Compasionate Conservatism".
You know you just killed a kitten?
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". Your present tagline still doesn't apply.
Thank you for posting this, a select few must have forgotten what Free Republic is all about.
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.