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

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

[Condor51]

***I hear Sununu speaks highly of her.***

That's exactly what I'm afraid of.

[George W. Bush]

I agree. I'm hitting on my own Dim senator. He's up for re-election next year. Red state. He needs to worry more about us than he does about whether Rove will find a credible opponent against him next year.

I think we can flip him. He came out echoing Harry Reid on 10/3 but he hasn't committed Harrieticide on the SCOTUS yet so there's good reason to think he can be flipped.

[rollo tomasi]

Sorry, my trust in Bush vanished when he refused to veto CFR leaking, "The Supreme Court will rule it unconstitutional" or something like that.

Plus the Pres. approves spending like there is no tomorrow hoping our GDP can continue to dwarf the deficit.

Where the hell is SS reform. I went fighting for Bush with this in mind and he decides to take it up the rear from the "moderates".

Maybe Delay should give lesson to Bush on how to keep your own Party members in line. The President sure as hell needs it.

It is a shame that the weakest part of the Bush presidency is bending over and saying "Thank you sir, may I have another" while moderate Republicans continue to slam him in the ass.

Who runs things, the Senate? Bush's lack of veto, willingness for compromise, refusal to play hardball and lack of fight ensures this.

So trust Bush, not in this lifetime. I want a fighter no some slick back door politician.

[Dane]

but avoiding any connections with the Federalist Society is also acceptable

Yeah Leonard Leo a biggie at the Federalist Society, who is helping her through the confirmation process is so unacceptable.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Get caught putting things out of context

It takes someone either uncommonly brave or impossibly stupid to accuse someone else of "putting things out of context" [sic], in light of the revelations of Posting #42, in this very thread. And I've seen no hard or convincing evidence of your valor.

She as President of the ABA, signed off that those proposals to go the ABA members for further debate, yep debate, no votes taken yea or nea.

Provide a link including Miers' own words, explicitly stating that. Otherwise: you're just thrashing about frenziedly, making it all up as you go along.

Again.

[Dane]

Illogical arguments raised solely for convenience

LOL! Common sense is now "illogical". If Hariet Miers was for the ICC, why would she work so closely with the person who put a dagger through it's heart, GW Bush.

[ez]

Oh, BTW, add World Net Daily and Joseph Farah to Chucky Schumer on the list of entities who support your arguments.

Step out of the Matrix...

[ez]

So trust Bush, not in this lifetime. I want a fighter no some slick back door politician.

So then you agree with Chucky Schumer that we need to know this nominee's judicial philosophy before we can vote to affirm her?

[Dane]

Provide a link including Miers' own words, explicitly stating that. Otherwise: you're just thrashing about frenziedly, making it all up as you go along

LOL! Projection at it's best. That is exactly what your hero farah does.

Give the lady a break, and why all of the sudden the hysterics over a judicial appoitment over a person who has an excellent record(even you would admit that) on judicial appoitments.

[shrinkermd]

Most of the anti-Mier people and pundits do not want a vote. Why not? Well, for the same reason that the RATS didn't want the Senate to vote on President Bush's previous judicial nominees. In a word, they either may lose or face electorate consequences.

The way our system works, we have the Senate agree or no agree to the President's recommendation. Apparently, you want something else.

Like Alice in Wonderland George Will, Limbaugh et al all want the sentence first and the trial later.

If I am right, the President is not going to cave to George Will and the others simply because they dislike his choice.

PS: thanks for the service to our Country. RVN Class of 69 could be my other handle.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Provide a link including Miers' own words, explicitly stating that. Otherwise: you're just thrashing about frenziedly, making it all up as you go along.

Look, buttercup: if you can't back it up... then you just can't, is all. (Certainly not as if I ever genuinely believed you actually could, after all.)

Incidentally: you ever gonna butch up and respond to counterpunch's Posting #42, or what...?

[shrinkermd]

I might remind you our current President did not nominate Souter. Souter was an unknown. Our President has known and worked with Harriet Miers for over 10 years.

[Dane]

hey farah slaverers, I posted the whole quote from Newsmax.

Just because she is more pro-2nd amendment than Bork, really grates you doesn't it.

Oh BTW, can you provide of Ms. Miers actual yea or nea vote on the ICC, instead of implying that she is, when in actuality she signed off for those issues to be debated within the ABA.

Oh that's right you can't stand debate, nevermind.

[chris1]

Because that is where her bread was buttered.

[Paladin2]

IWWT.

[counterpunch]

So you're blaming the cover-up on Newsmax?
Got a link to the article you copied it from?

And why are you choosing Newsmax of all things as your source?
Their writing is even worse than Harriet Miers's.

It's quite ironic that you would diss WorldNetDaily readers in the same sentence that you admit to sourcing from Newsmax.

[Dane]

Because that is where her bread was buttered.

Whatever, but even you have to admit that Bush's previous judicial picks have been excellent, so it seems that Bush has the track record and not his critics.

[Dane]

Got a link to the article you copied it from?

The Link is in my reply #27.

I guess you anti-Miers moonbats are blind as bats also.

[phelanw]

"These are not the droids we're looking for."

[A. Pole]

IGNORE this article.

Yes.