Ohhhhhhh... just the usual suspects, most likely:
:)
Later, df! Keep up the good fight!
Posted on 10/23/2005 5:34:36 AM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
WASHINGTON – Harriet Miers, President Bush's nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court to replace Sandra Day O'Connor, is on record as supporting the establishment of the International Criminal Court, homosexual adoptions, a major local tax increase and women in combat, WorldNetDaily has learned.
While some conservative leaders and organizations were stunned by the appointment, most were not alarmed by the lack of a paper trail by the nominee who has never served as a judge at any level.
But a profile of her positions as a leader of the American Bar Association, a Dallas city councilwoman and as presidential counselor is unlikely to ease the concerns of those who were expecting Bush to fulfill his promise to name a justice in the mold of Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia.
According to Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, Miers has taken positions as White House counsel that violate the law banning women in combat.
"As White House counsel, Ms. Miers either approved of the Department of Defense's illegal assignments of women in units required to be all-male, which is still continuing in violation of the law requiring notice to Congress in advance, or she was oblivious to the legal consequences of those assignments," she said.
Donnelly believes the actions of Miers could lead directly to a future court ruling requiring women to register with the Selective Service for the draft because they are now being, against the wishes of Congress, assigned to land combat.
"I am very disappointed by the president's choice," she said. "Ms. Miers does not have a judicial 'paper trail,' but her record as White House counsel is a legitimate cause for concern. Democrats and liberals who were willing to use the military for purposes of social experimentation have reason to be pleased."
Donnelly also concludes that Miers approved the Bush administrations retention of President Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" regulations, which, she says, are different from the 1993 law passed by Congress
Meanwhile, during Miers long affiliation with the American Bar Association, she submitted a 1999 report to the ABA's house of delegates that included recommendations to develop and establish an International Criminal Court and the enactment of laws and public policy providing that the sexual orientation of adults be no bar to adoption of children.
Under the heading Family Law and subheading Adoption, the document states: "Supports the enactment of laws and public policy which provide that sexual orientation shall not be a bar to adoption when the adoption is determined to be in the best interest of the child."
Also included, under the heading International Law and Practice, is a recommendation for "the development and establishment of an International Criminal Court."
Along with the proposed agenda was a memo, dated Oct. 28, 1998, that explained the document.
"The Committee urges all Delegates to review this list for items of interest to their constituencies, and to act as the catalyst for further contact and action so that each entity will have the earliest opportunity for consideration and input."
The memo is signed by Miers as chairwoman of the Select Committee of the House.
As a city councilwoman, Miers also said Dallas had a responsibility to pay for AIDS education and patient services. And she courted the support of the Lesbian/Gay Coalition of Dallas in her successful 1989 campaign.
In addition, economic conservatives pleased by her corporate law background may find it distressing that in 1990 Miers voted for a 7 percent property tax increase during her short tenure on the Dallas City Council.
Running beneath the opposition to Miers is a strong feeling that some ignorant, knuckle dragging, Neanderthal Jesus freak does not belong on SCOTUS.
Uh, no. Perhaps a reading comprehension class is in order for you.
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.
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.
"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.
Ohhhhhhh... just the usual suspects, most likely:
:)
Later, df! Keep up the good fight!
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.
Thanks, tbg! Been enjoying your posts, as well! :)
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.
"Acquiesced???"
Shirley, you jest. :-)
I've been a enthusiastic participant for tanking this incredibly poor nominee from the start.
Mr. Farah has trouble telling all the facts behind his accusations and this was proven when this article was posted before on FR.
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.
You have established your own litmus test for this nomination as shirley as the left has established theirs.
If you are correct, this surely will be apparent in the Judiciary Hearings. Regards.
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.
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.
Where did you learn to paint? Or do you just use paint by numbers?
The buck stops at the President's desk.
Period. End of discussion.
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.
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.