Replies

For starters and for finishers, Will isn't a lawyer. Miers is a lawyer. Miers was never a judge. Neither was Will.

For someone with over 30 years as a legal professional, a managing partner in a large law firm, head of a state bar association and legal council to the most powerful man in the world, Miers is qualified to sit on the SCOTUS.

As far as I know, Miers changed her party affilliation once. As did Ronald Reagan.

"For starters and for finishers, Will isn't a lawyer. Miers is a lawyer. Miers was never a judge. Neither was Will.
For someone with over 30 years as a legal professional, a managing partner in a large law firm, head of a state bar association and legal council to the most powerful man in the world, Miers is qualified to sit on the SCOTUS.

As far as I know, Miers changed her party affilliation once. As did Ronald Reagan."

Nailed it!

----For starters and for finishers, Will isn't a lawyer. Miers is a lawyer.----

That's interesting, considering that one of the most common arguments in the arsenal of Miers' defenders is that experience in the law isn't even necessary for one to sit on the Supreme Court.

----For someone with over 30 years as a legal professional, a managing partner in a large law firm, head of a state bar association and legal council to the most powerful man in the world, Miers is qualified to sit on the SCOTUS.----

Yeah yeah, and she was the first woman head of the Dallas Bar Association and the first woman to get cable TV in her area and the first woman whom George and Laura Bush have seen fit to use in playing the "sexism" card against their own supporters. Sorry, but being a professional bureaucrat and a part-time ass-kisser do not Supreme Court qualifications make.

----As far as I know, Miers changed her party affilliation once. As did Ronald Reagan.----

Nice try, but we knew Ronald Reagan. We knew what he stood for. We knew what he believed the role of government to be, and we knew that he was a conservative ROCK. (And we also know exactly what his response would have been to the "trust me" school of judicial nomination.)

After spending almost a month at the top of the headlines, nobody seems to be able to say for certain just who in the hell Harriet Miers is or what she believes.

-Dan

Don't even bother giving the qualifications to them. No qualifications would be good enough, and even if they were, they would be totally ignored by this anti-Miers herd.

Ask them to produce one sample of Miss Miers' writing, giving the date it was written, and their objections to it; and suddenly, you get empty space.

I have seen good reasons for Miss Miers' confirmation throughout the Free Republic. However, all of the good thinking is totally ignored. The mindless bashing continues without stop. This adolescent herd mentality goes on in lock step.

One last thought: If you want to be a conservative, you need to be able to think outside of the box. So far, a large crowd of them has failed that test.

Ronald Reagan was not in contention for a life long appointment as is Miers and after changing parties he had a clear Conservative as well as Republican track record. Miers does not.

All the other known nominess had either judicial or consitutuional experience or both. Miers does not.

Of all the known nominess, she was the LEAST qualified.