Posted on 10/19/2005 2:09:36 PM PDT by bigsky
Exactly right, Ann. That's why so many of us are against this nomination.
I have been gone a few weeks, who is this Harriet Miers anyways?
So you mean "WAAAAAAH!! I'm a moveon.org conservative! WAAAAH!!" isn't showing to be a winning argument?
Wow. No personal attacks on the president this time (at least none I've seen skipping around), and she actually makes some good points. A step up for Ann!
:-)
LLS
Um, no. There's yet another possibility beyond Miers's being either an "idiot" or a "judicial activist."
And that possibility is that Specter got it WRONG.
Are you aware that Specter had to retract his claim that Miers told him in their private meeting that she endorsed Griswold ???
Specter told reporters that beyond stating that constitution includes a right to privacy, Miers had voiced support for two privacy-related rulings handed down a generation ago in which the court affirmed a right for couples to use contraceptives.But former Sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind., who is shepherding Miers' nomination, said in a telephone interview that the Pennsylvania Republican was mistaken. "When asked about the Griswold case, Harriet Miers said what she has consistently said all along, and that is ... she is not commenting on specific cases," he said in reference to a 1965 ruling involving the use of contraceptives by married couples.
An aide to Specter, William Reynolds, subsequently issued a statement saying the senator "accepts Ms. Miers statement that he misunderstood what she said."
(Reminds me of Dickie Durbin's little caper with his claim about what happened in his private meeting with John Roberts. Seems to be SOP for liberal senators -- like Specter.)
So I'd like to present you with two other possibilities:
1. Either Ann Coulter is unaware of Specter's retraction;
2. Or, she is deliberately ignoring it and is misinforming the public because of animus against Miers.
Not exactly responsible of Ann, is it?
Ann Coulter carried on and ranted against the nomination of John Roberts as well.
What is her problem?
Your snide comment is neither funny nor relevent.
Ann is making telling arguments while other conservative writers cower. We need a SCOTUS nominee who will serve to restore the Constitution. The litmus test is agreeing with the dissent of Griswold .
What provision of the Constitution, then, does make this state law invalid? The Court says it is the right of privacy "created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees." With all deference, I can find no such general right of privacy in the Bill of Rights, in any other part of the Constitution, or in any case ever before decided by this Court.
At the oral argument in this case we were told that the Connecticut law does not "conform to current community standards." But it is not the function of this Court to decide cases on the basis of community standards. We are here to decide cases "agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States." It is the essence of judicial [381 U.S. 479, 531] duty to subordinate our own personal views, our own ideas of what legislation is wise and what is not. If, as I should surely hope, the law before us does not reflect the standards of the people of Connecticut, the people of Connecticut can freely exercise their true Ninth and Tenth Amendment rights to persuade their elected representatives to repeal it. That is the constitutional way to take this law off the books.
If Miers doesn't agree with this dissent, then commit her nomination to the flames, and find an effective originalist nominee.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/18/AR2005101800715_pf.html
Shortly after the 100-minute session, Specter told reporters that Miers had embraced two Supreme Court rulings -- including the 1965 case Griswold v. Connecticut -- that are considered important predecessors to the 1973 Roe ruling. Miers phoned Specter on Monday night to say she had not endorsed Griswold, and the senator's office later that night issued an e-mail saying Specter "accepts Ms. Miers's statement that he misunderstood what she said."
Yesterday, however, Specter told reporters that his recollection of the conversation remains "the one I gave you" Monday. Specter, a moderate who supports abortion rights, portrayed the confirmation process as among the most chaotic and contradictory of his 25 years in the Senate. "I can't think of one where a disagreement arose in quite this way," he said. Specter said he will revisit his Monday conversation with Miers but only at the hearing, when cameras and tape recorders will be rolling. "I may meet with her again on other subjects," he said. "But not on this conversation. We've had it. I've had it."
She's that lawyer-shaped hole next to the President, into which he is asking us to pour our trust.
see #30
"So I'd like to present you with two other possibilities:
1. Either Ann Coulter is unaware of Specter's retraction;
2. Or, she is deliberately ignoring it and is misinforming the public because of animus against Miers.
Not exactly responsible of Ann, is it?"
I'll accept that clarification, but of course we would just (still) be accepting hearsay and in addition to your two possibilities, there could be a third, and that is that everyone is sort of running for cover here and the truth may be getting lost.
I'm curious about the "Warren" episode, also, though. What's the inside skinny on that? Has Specter cleared that up?
Another thing though is disturbing here. I thought this was the stealth nominee that was supposed to sail by people like Specter and Leahy? At the minimum, it seems that not everything is going according to a master plan.
Check out post #30. It seems like though Specter initially retracted, he is now retracting his retraction.....
I think maybe my suggestion that everyone is running for cover and the truth may be hard to figure out is the most accurate.
But we shall see. At any rate, this isn't exactly going as planned.
Specter, a moderate who supports abortion rights, portrayed the confirmation process as among the most chaotic and contradictory of his 25 years in the Senate. "I can't think of one where a disagreement arose in quite this way," he said. Specter said he will revisit his Monday conversation with Miers but only at the hearing, when cameras and tape recorders will be rolling. "I may meet with her again on other subjects," he said. "But not on this conversation. We've had it. I've had it."Ahh. The strategery is working. First get the rank and file into a state of chaos and contadiction; then the Senate. Pretty soon the plan to ... uh ....
What was the plan again?
Exactly right - Funny to watch some on the right simply stay on the wrong side of history on this one -
But is is not funny at all to watch some on the right whore themselves out to the MSM (who assure them TV TIME) if they'll attack GWB and the GOP - They are pathetic -
The MSM is loving this and these cheap whores like Bork, Buchanan and others keep feeding them what they want.
The WH has clustered this nomination. As an evangelical, I don't care about her church affiliation or how she stood on a political issue. The only relevant inquiry is whether a justice has an acceptable judicial philosophy. The best way of determining that philosophy is to see how that potential justice decided cases. With Harriet, we do not have any way of determining that philosophy, apart from the POTUS demanding that we trust him.
Apparently, Bush picked Harriet to avoid a fight with the Dems. Due to their mismanagment, the WH has got a fight with a far less qualified and accomplished candidate. What a complete waste!
Now, one of the bots will flame me for daring to question the wisdom of the President. Go ahead. I just don't care.
You lucky devil.
"Gee I am sorry you all have such a hard time grasping the concept of a Constitutional Republic that has worked fine for 230 or so years."
You're getting even more illogical. The point is that our Constitutional Republic has NOT been working because of the takeover by the courts. This is what we're fighting. Why do you make the illogical leap to conclude that Ann or any of us want a monarchy? It makes no sense.
She's GWB's friend.
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.