Posted on 10/25/2005 10:55:57 AM PDT by bigsky
A 30-second TV ad is set to air tomorrow, Wednesday, that some believe may be as effective at helping stop the Harriett Miers confirmation as the Swift Boat ads were in helping stop John Kerry.
BetterJustice.org, a conservative grass-roots organization, created and funded the hard-hitting anti-Miers (but pro-Bush) ad. The organization's board of directors includes several otherwise staunch Republican stalwarts, such as David Frum and Linda Chavez.
"Miers is no more qualified to sit on the Supreme Court than I am to be a sumo wrestler!" So stated the so very un-sumo-like Ann Coulter.
(Excerpt) Read more at humaneventsonline.com.edgesuite.net ...
You're quite welcome! Thank you for your post!
The Constitution does not explicitly establish any qualifications for Justices of the Supreme Court. In fact it does not even specify citizenship or age as it does for the executive and legislative branches. However, Presidents normally nominate individuals who have prior legal experience. Typically, most nominees have judicial experience, either at the federal or state level. Several nominees have formerly served on federal Courts of Appeals, especially the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which is often considered a stepping stone to the Supreme Court. Another source of Supreme Court nominees is the federal executive branch—in particular, the Department of Justice. Other potential nominees include members of Congress and academics. On the current Supreme Court, seven Justices previously served on federal courts (including three on the D.C. Circuit); two served on state courts; three were former law school professors; and three held full time positions in the federal executive branch.
Thank you so much for your encouragements, deport! Hugs!
I have yet to hear about all the “Ivy League” names being put forth as MUCH better choices by any “intellectual conservative.” Two names (*gasp* both are women, too) consistently put forth by many “intellectual conservatives” include Janice Rogers Brown (law degree from University of California School of Law) and Priscilla Owen (law degree from Baylor Law School)....hardly Ivy Leaque.
Attacks by the right on Miers for being an evangelical are bewildering. Isn’t it a good thing to be an evangelical?
And this has what exactly to do with being well-versed in Constitutional law? And how does that statement assure anybody that she’d be a social conservative, or like a Scalia with her interpretations of the Constitution and multitudes of prior case law? It assures me as much as it would if I needed surgery and all I had to do was believe a Christian dog catcher could do the job, because he’s a Christian. Does the word “Christian” take on a “different” meaning when used to describe Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton? Regardless of their “Christian-ness”, they’re both liberals and Democrats (the party to which Miers used to belong and donate). Carter’s and Clinton’s social agendas, and values, resemble nothing conservative.
Conservative constitutional law is not rocket science.
She will spend how many years depending on others for interpretations/opinions and being influenced by others’ interpretations/opinions until she’s “up to speed” on Constitutional law and the voluminous case law and precedent? This all BEFORE she is self-reliant (or on par with Scalia or Thomas) in understanding how to apply the Constitution to even prior bad rulings (for example, we can think back to the “separate but equal doctrine” in Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896). It didn’t take a rock scientist to know that was an inherently wrong and immoral ruling.....or did it? (Marshall, in Brown v. Board of Education, overruled the 1896 “rocket scientists” nearly 60 years later.)
Seems to me like conservatives are crying wolf when there isn’t any.
Only if you’re head is buried in the sand, you’re ignoring the numerous valid CONSERVATIVE concerns, of which only a few are stated above, and you think it’s okay to put someone on the bench whose qualifications are dubious, at best.
One has to suspect that some conservatives are drumming up a controversy about Miers in order to force a filibuster.
Wrong; the controversy concerning Miers, and her questionable background/suitability for the highest Court in the land, is not only understandable, it should have been expected as she should never have been selected.
One person is pulling all the strings.
I'm with you 100%. See my tagline.
ON THIS FORUM.
If you are basing your world outlook on this forum, you might want to adjust it.
We're not represenative of ANYTHING.
"So you're against the 2nd amendment, too?"
I don't know what you mean by that. Are you saying that Judge Bork was against the 2d amendment? For the record, I'm all for it. I still can't understand why you can't get over him expressing his opinion?
Has Frum gotten to 6500 yet on his petition? What a joke;
give the woman an up or down vote and be done with it.
Yes, he is.
You expect the 47% of the population that voted for Kerry to back this nomination?
My estimate is that maybe 3% of Freepers voted third party in 2004. Most of them were Libertarians, who are not noticeably involved in opposing the Miers nomination. The rest of us voted for Bush.
But now, more than 44% of Freepers are opposed to Miers. I don't recall any third-party candidates getting 44% in the recent election. I understand your annoyance, but really none of us has any wish to vote third party, unless we are absolutely forced to. The problem is, Bush seems to have decided to force the issue by screwing up the single most important decision of his presidency.
He's against the 2d Amendment? As in, he opposed its inclusion in the Bill of Rights, or what?
She's welcome to sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom. I just don't want her on the Supreme Court. I thought I made that clear.
"In fact it does not even specify citizenship or age as it does for the executive and legislative branches."
You scared the S%^& out of me as I thought were saying GWB could even appoint one of his beloved illegal aliens to the SC. He would never do that right????
FYI, I've talked to many people who worked hard and donated money to get GWB re-elected. ALL but one are FOR MIERS!
I think it is a serious mistake if any Republican Senators fall for the idea that those of us who support Miers are not conservatives who work hard and donate money to the candidates.
The critics do not represent us, and I believe there are a lot more of us than anyone realizes.
Neo-con.
Uber-con.
I like it.
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.