Buchanan?
Mr. Buchanan hasn't been relevant or coherent in years.
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 ...
Ah, I'll repeat it for you since you seem to be having difficulty.
Interesting. Prior to the nomination, we were told by many that choosing the right person for SCOTUS this was the most important decision bar none. Now it's she'll do just fine, our panties are in a wad, it's really no biggy, and well just have to see how it goes.
Interesting thread the other day, when Buchanan wrote about the implied sexist statements regarding those that opposed this nomination. Yet all the qualified male candidates, those with proven track records, were completely passed over. Sexist indeed.
LOL, Constitutional Law for Dummies?
Oh, so that reknowned constitutional law expert, Arlen Specter, adds credibility to the charge Miers need a "crash course." NOT.
I remember seeing an interview with Robert Bork in which he ridiculed Specter. Specter, said Bork, had an overly high opinion of his own understanding of the law.
They're great. This was just another lie from Reid, i.e. the side that is supposed to use lies like that against their opponents.
As I recall it, just about all of us supported Thomas. We almost all supported Roberts, too. I certainly did. I have also usually supported President Bush.
Miers is a different kettle of fish. She's a lousy candidate, as her own record and writings, slim as they are, amply confirm. There are a hundred who are better qualified, but more important, she shows many signs of being squishy on the social issues. We just don't need that. This appointment is far too important to throw it away like this.
As for her work on the group that chose Bush's judges, she was doing what she usually does as a corporate type lawyer--working hard on the task her client set her. It says nothing about her own views.
Some reports say that she did not play an active part in the actual vetting of judicial candidates. I don't know if that's true, but it may be, and I haven't seen anyone say that she attended all the meetings and did the gruntwork.
teh point ive been making for a long time:
she will likely use the ginsburg rule in answering questions. whatever her answers would be that still doesnt give us an idea about how she will rule-- namely she could drift leftward within a decade or less. given her support for affirmative action, creation of "womens studies" (read: radical feminist) lecture series, and so on-- trepidation is warranted.
ping
Pay attention to her legal briefs which of course don't contain any of the airiness and lightness you so loathe. You might get absolutely sick at the "nice notes" that Harriet writes but so what? Refraining from writing "nice notes" that make flashbunnies sick is not part of the job description of a Supreme Court justice.
Buchanan?
Mr. Buchanan hasn't been relevant or coherent in years.
I wasn't talking about hero worshipping notes to GWB. That's another issue.
I'm tlaking about the articles she wrote as head of the texas state bar assocation.
Before, we were lead to believe that being head of the texas state bar association was some kidn of big deal which helps qualify her to sit on the supreme court.
But are her articles written for the texas state bar as the head of the bar now 'meaningless' because they don't exactly put her in a good light?
"
Mr. Buchanan hasn't been relevant or coherent in years."
Niether has Limbaugh, Ingraham, Levin, Krauthammer, Coulter, Malkin and the whole host of other pundits who are against this. They are irrelevant individuals who havent done a damn thing for conservatism.
/Sarc
That applies to all nominees. While Miers hasn't been a judge, she has had a solid legal career. Topped off by being personal legal council to the most powerful man in the world. Unless damaging evidence comes out or unless Miers screws up royal, she will be confirmed.
If these articles were the sum total of her proceedings there, you'd have a prayer... but that's a ludicrous thought.
"He also offers one on political punditry, but there is a few months wait because of class overload."
First time I've laughed out loud today. Thanks.
She better start praying!
That she should have to do this speaks volumes about her qualifications.
IMHO, SCOTUS justices should have more than just a "crash course."
The legal briefs were mostly put together by large teams of corporate lawyers. The one where she defended the administration in Texas named twelve leading lawyers, the Attorney General of Texas, and several others. We just don't know how much of the writing Miers did. We do know that she is good at coordinating large teams of lawyers, but that's more or less irrelevant to a position on SCOTUS.
The various articles and ABA presidential columns reveal a fluff-minded, cliche-driven lightweight. That includes law review articles as well as the social items. In a typical article, she will write, again and again, "We Texas lawyers must all get together and work hard to be nice, to lift up the downtrodden, to help minorities, to work for multiculturalism." That's not an exact quote, but it's a pretty accurate summary.
I posted links to these various writings, with the help of a couple of other freepers who chipped in along the thread, here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1502738/posts
Freepers who think this woman is so wonderful should take some time out to read her work before they say we should go through the hearings and put her on the court first, and then watch how she does second. A bit late if they are wrong.
It's really an obligation that Freepers who support Miers should take. Read her writings. It's the least you can do before helping to put her on the Supreme Court for life. What kind of a woman is she? See for yourselves.
Thanks ... I did not know that.
Interesting thread the other day, when Buchanan wrote about the implied sexist statements regarding those that opposed this nomination. Yet all the qualified male candidates, those with proven track records, were completely passed over. Sexist indeed.
Buchanan?
Mr. Buchanan hasn't been relevant or coherent in years.
Interesting, all you can do is repeat Buchanan's name, and comment on his political popularity, as you continue to cover your eyes and ears and ignore what was said.
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.