Skip to comments.
Kristol brings case against Miers to town: Conservative decries Bush pick
Seattle Post-Intelligencer ^
| 10/20/5
| Neil Modie
Posted on 10/20/2005 10:02:51 AM PDT by Crackingham
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-76 next last
To: Crackingham
"William Kristol, one of the nation's most influential conservatives"
Puke Alert !
To: Crackingham
Since when is Bill Kristol a conservative?
3
posted on
10/20/2005 10:08:01 AM PDT
by
Antoninus
(The greatest gifts parents can give their children are siblings.)
To: Crackingham
Kristol is entitled to his opinion, but frankly, either run for POTUS Bill, or STFU!
4
posted on
10/20/2005 10:10:03 AM PDT
by
Reagan Man
(Secure our borders;punish employers who hire illegals;stop all welfare to illegals)
To: Antoninus
Conservative of convenience with an agenda.
5
posted on
10/20/2005 10:11:09 AM PDT
by
cynicom
To: Crackingham
What conservatives want, and what they feel Bush promised them in 2000 and 2004, Kristol said, was not "just a person who votes right most of the time; it's someone who can influence the future of American jurisprudence" by becoming a dominant and persuasive voice for conservative principles. I want a strict constructionist on the SC, not a jurist who is dominating and persuading for conservative principles. I thought the SC wasn't supposed to be a political body?
Kristol is just as bad as liberals who want judges to advocate "liberal principles" from the bench.
Oh, and tell me. What arguments have Clarence Thomas made that have influenced the future of American jurisprudence? He usually just says "me too" when Scalia votes and writes an opinion.
And, if Scalia is such a domineering voice on the court, how come he hasn't been able to swing O'Connor and Kennedy more his way?
He's had 20 years, and they're more independent than ever.
6
posted on
10/20/2005 10:12:15 AM PDT
by
sinkspur
(If you're not willing to give Harriett Miers a hearing, I don't give a damn what you think.)
To: Crackingham
For the Seattle PI, the "enemy of my enemy is my friend"....for now. Kristol has never been a Bush supporter but is a McLame promoter.
7
posted on
10/20/2005 10:12:26 AM PDT
by
caisson71
To: Crackingham
Bush hasn't just shot himself in the foot with this Miers pick---he's emptying all the chambers and pausing to re-load. He's not going to be able to even limp to the end of his term if he keeps this up.
8
posted on
10/20/2005 10:15:22 AM PDT
by
Map Kernow
("I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing" ---Thomas Jefferson)
To: Crackingham
Conservatives have decried her lack of a record opposing abortion and on other litmus-test issues
The P.I. has no clue. It's not about Roe. It's not about "litmus-test" issues. It's about not being an intellectually vacant butt-kissing crony.
9
posted on
10/20/2005 10:15:33 AM PDT
by
trubluolyguy
(Now qualified to be Secretary of Defense.)
To: Map Kernow
Lameduck presidents limp out, ruptured ducks get a see you later raspberry from everyone.
10
posted on
10/20/2005 10:17:54 AM PDT
by
cynicom
To: Crackingham
Kristol loves McCain - who's not a conservative.
Kristol should love Miers.
I'm at a loss as to why he doesn't support her.
11
posted on
10/20/2005 10:20:05 AM PDT
by
CyberAnt
(I BELIEVE CONGRESSMAN WELDON!)
To: Crackingham
Since when is Kristol a conservative? I can't stand listening to him and disagree with his "take" almost all the time. He constantly plays devil's advocate and is a major irritation.
12
posted on
10/20/2005 10:20:43 AM PDT
by
goresalooza
(Nurses Rock!)
To: sinkspur
>>>>I want a strict constructionist on the SC, not a jurist who is dominating and persuading for conservative principles.A strict constructionist and an originalist conservative are one in the same. Conservative principles are at the core of our Constitution.
13
posted on
10/20/2005 10:26:44 AM PDT
by
Reagan Man
(Secure our borders;punish employers who hire illegals;stop all welfare to illegals)
To: cynicom
Incidentally, Michelle Malkin has an absolutely
devastating, and impeccably sourced item on her blog today, "The Trouble with Harriet." Miers, various sources reported, seemed to know nothing at all about constitutional law, and even made a bonehead error asserting that 14th Amendment Equal Protection required proportional representation, a scarey insight into her possible policy objectives on the Court. Another Senator remarked:
"She doesn't have the gravitas in terms of the constitutional issues," said another senator who has been critical of Miers. The nominee, the senator said, would not answer questions about whether she would recuse herself if issues involving her work with Bush came before the high court.
That's scarey, too: she doesn't know enough about judicial ethics to know when she has to recuse herself? That's where the advantage of judicial experience comes in, boys and girls, and she ain't got it.
By all means, check out Michelle's blog today.
14
posted on
10/20/2005 10:28:03 AM PDT
by
Map Kernow
("I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing" ---Thomas Jefferson)
To: sinkspur
What arguments have Clarence Thomas made that have influenced the future of American jurisprudence? He usually just says "me too" when Scalia votes and writes an opinion. That's an old left-wing talking point.
I'll cite Thomas' dissent in the infamous Kelso case in New London as a case in point. It was an absolute masterpiece, and one of the best Supreme Court opinions to be issued in the last 20 years.
What makes Thomas so "undistinguished" on the Court is that his opinions tend to be very simple, but very concise -- as they should be.
"Such-and-such is a clear violation of This-or-That Amendment to the U.S. Constitution" is about as clear and concise as a formal opinion needs to be.
15
posted on
10/20/2005 10:28:38 AM PDT
by
Alberta's Child
(I ain't got a dime, but what I got is mine. I ain't rich, but Lord I'm free.)
To: Crackingham
what they feel Bush promised them in 2000 and 2004 Are conservatives now the "feeeeeeling" type. I thought that was the domain of the libs.
16
posted on
10/20/2005 10:29:36 AM PDT
by
colorcountry
(Proud Parent of a Soldier)
To: Antoninus
Since he supported Senator John McCain,whose friend and benefactor is GEORGE SOROS, and Mr Keating of course..
17
posted on
10/20/2005 10:30:27 AM PDT
by
paguch
To: CyberAnt
I'm at a loss as to why he doesn't support her. I suspect Kristol doesn't support her because he's a candy-@ssed, limp-wristed, Northeastern liberal at heart who can't stand the thought of having someone on the Supreme Court with no legal background in Beltway circles or in the Marxist institutions of New York City.
18
posted on
10/20/2005 10:31:08 AM PDT
by
Alberta's Child
(I ain't got a dime, but what I got is mine. I ain't rich, but Lord I'm free.)
To: Reagan Man
either run for POTUS Bill, or STFU!"""
What a stupid statement by you. Have you never criticized a president? What about Clinton? Carter? Were you not entitled to voice criticism, because you yourself had not "run for POTUS"? Only in a dictatorship are people not allowed to comment on what political leaders are doing. In a free society, criticism of the president is allowed, even by people who haven't run for president.
To: Miss Marple
20
posted on
10/20/2005 10:35:11 AM PDT
by
Carolinamom
(Weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning......Psalm 30:5)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-76 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson