Mystery-Woman Miers (Has Supported ICC, Gay Adoptions, Tax Hikes; Some "Conservative," Huh...?)

World Net Daily ^ | 10/03/2005 | Joseph Farrah

[trubluolyguy]

Running beneath the opposition to Miers is a strong feeling that some ignorant, knuckle dragging, Neanderthal Jesus freak does not belong on SCOTUS.

---

Maybe among the pundits and talking heads. Not here. I have vehemently opposed her and I am an evangelical. I felt very insulted when GWB tried talking up her religious street credibility. And after talking down the religion of John Roberts. It was an obvious ploy and crudely done.

As far as opposing her for elitist reasons? I have never stepped foot on a college campus. I have never cleared more than $35,000 per year in income. I am now retired and living on VA payments. So I don't oppose her becuause of the college she went to. Or because I make more money. I am not an elitist.

I oppose her because I have yet to see in her writings from anywhere that she is a committed strict constructionist. What I have seen in her writings is someone that can put together one heck of a lot of words and not say a damned thing. I also see someone that supports liberal ideals.

I cannot, in good conscience support this nomination. I am however looking forward so very much to the hearings. Especially after the way the one on one meetings went last week. The hearings should be a blast. I think I'll get some popcorn and some pepsi and sit back and laugh.....

[Republican Wildcat]

Uh, no. Perhaps a reading comprehension class is in order for you.

[dfrussell]

Keep on reading, it is thouroghly debunked.

I've read the entire thing and most of your posts on this thread.

My conclusion was that you either have a serious reading comprehension issue or are a DU plant.

Either way, it doesn't appear as though many people are taking you seriously.

[trubluolyguy]

Do you think if Harriet Miers was for the ICC that she would work for an administration that gutted it and gave the UN the finger over it.

---

I think an asskiss more interested in upward career mobility than in conservatism or strict constructionism on the SC would. In a heartbeat.

[trubluolyguy]

"Desperate," however, is a term better reserved, I feel, for those so slavish in their need to prove their undying devotion to a political party (rather than conservative political principal, per se), that they ardently champion -- and even lie on behalf of! -- a pro-ICC quota queen for the United States Supreme Court. YMMV, however.

---

Very nice, by a fellow webbed footed Washingtonian!

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Either way, it doesn't appear as though many people are taking you seriously.

Ohhhhhhh... just the usual suspects, most likely:

:)

Later, df! Keep up the good fight!

[dfrussell]

When you don't have the votes, you compromise.

Sorry, not in this case.

We've been "compromising" for five years of stupid policies from the Bush43 Whitehouse... no more.

Either Republicans start doing what they were elected to do or a lot of voters go 3rd party just like they did for Bush41... and the only ones to blame if the Lovely Mrs. Clinton is elected are the sorry-*ss Republicans in office.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Thanks, tbg! Been enjoying your posts, as well! :)

[jwalsh07]

I think an asskiss more interested in upward career mobility than in conservatism or strict constructionism on the SC would. In a heartbeat.

OK, you win the prize.

You're a freaking lying sack of sh2t.

The woman has spent down her considerable savings supporting her mother and her church rather than pawning them off to the government.

IOW's she walks the talk while assholes like you attack her personally because you don't like her views on x or y. Well, I've had enough of this sh6t to last a lifetime.

Oppose her on the facts or STFU.

[Big Horn]

Our senators are not so hot themselves. Most of them don't know s--- from a good grade of peanut butter. Who does Teddy deserve to judge?

[dfrussell]

That's rich coming from the side that has acquiesced to the politicization of this nomination.

"Acquiesced???"

Shirley, you jest. :-)

I've been a enthusiastic participant for tanking this incredibly poor nominee from the start.

[skr]

Mr. Farah has trouble telling all the facts behind his accusations and this was proven when this article was posted before on FR.

[bluefish]

A better question is, "why not let the Senate Judiciary Committee ask her about these issues."

I have no problem letting the committee ask about the issues - the very issues being raised by journalists, commentators, message boards, etc. Without them being raised here, they aren't "issues" now, are they?

Attempting to silent critics or discussion in the name of "letting the Senate do its job" is the same thing as attempting to turn us all into sheep.

So the real question is.. What is wrong with the people conducting their own investigation to insure the Senate does its job properly? After all, it may be Senate's job to provide advice and consent, but it is OUR job to ultimately consent with respect to the Senate.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with discussion before the hearings, as you seem to imply.

[ez]

That's rich coming from the side that has acquiesced to the politicization of this nomination.
"Acquiesced???"
Shirley, you jest. :-)

You have established your own litmus test for this nomination as shirley as the left has established theirs.

[shrinkermd]

"There is abundant evidence, extending over 25 years, that the 60 year old Miers has the touchy-feely sensibilities of a social worker, that she's borderline illiterate, and completely disengaged from weighty intellectual pursuits especially of a constitutional dimension. She's a glad-hander and everybody's pal. That's all the "gravitas" she has.

If you are correct, this surely will be apparent in the Judiciary Hearings. Regards.

[shrinkermd]

Unfortunately you are wrong. The anti-Miers types are all asking that the Hearings not proceed. There can be only two reasons for this--she will be confirmed and once a vote is held the Senators eventually are accountable to the electorate.

The Constitution gives he President the right to nominate and the Senate the right to advise and consent. Giving Miers a Hearing seems Constitutional to me in spite of all the discussion she will not uphold "original intent."

Bet that she has a Hearing. Odds are better than even she will be confirmed.

[dfrussell]

Are you seriously saying that a woman who OPPOSED letting gays stick it in other guy's butts, who opposed letting gays have freedom to do what they want in their private time, would also be in support of an extreme liberal view of what rights gays should have?

Pay close attention: there are two issues here

1. Whether you think you should be able to tell consenting adults what they can do in private irrespective of how icky you find their personal behavior.

2. Whether you think society should be forced to accept what most people consider deviant behavior as normal.

So, it is easily possibly to not care if Neal and Roger (pun intended) lock their antique shop for long "lunches" and yet be extremely opposed to an attempt to legislate the acceptance of deviant behavior.

[Earthdweller]

Nice summation of the characteristics that you and your chums have painted onto the invisible woman.

Where did you learn to paint? Or do you just use paint by numbers?

[dfrussell]

He wasnt going to do their dirty work for them just because they were cowards.

The buck stops at the President's desk.

Period. End of discussion.

[dfrussell]

I DO believe in civil rights for homos and lesbians, because I don't think they should be discriminated against.

Homosexuals currently have the same rights as does everyone else.

Any attempt to legislate acceptance of deviant behavior will fail... badly.

And what about the "rights" of the people upon whom you wish to force acceptance of deviant behavior.