Skip to comments.
Transcript of Miers 14 page 1993 speech to Executive Women of Dallas (pdf format)
Washington Post ^
| 1993
| Harriet Miers
Posted on 10/26/2005 7:54:50 PM PDT by USAConstitution
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 241-259 next last
To: phelanw
Maybe so, but why are you afraid of allowing her to have her day in court, so to speak?
121
posted on
10/26/2005 8:57:22 PM PDT
by
carlo3b
(http://www.CookingWithCarlo.com)
To: I got the rope
I bet that FR poll is burning you up...isn't it? It is shaking the foundations of government ... All eyes are fixed on the next comment from "I got the rope." The fate of the Republic rests with you ...
To: af_vet_1981
"This speech by her is indefensible and a genuine cause for concern."
We're in complete agreement on that point, at least.
To: rudy45
Good point, as in e.g. "what a terrible time we live in, when abortion clinic protestors have become synonymous with terrorists." It changes the whole picture, doesn't it? I'm not saying that's the context, but AM saying that context does matter. The problem here is the rest of her wording on the abortion issue - talk of one side "criminalizing" abortion, vs. on the other side "letting a woman decide for herself". This gives me the context I need to understand what she meant by the "synonymous with terrorists" statement.
Of course, given Miers' writing skill, that may not be what she meant. No matter - it's how it came across. Can you imagine such poor and imflamatory writing on a Supreme Court ruling? SHUDDER!
To: oceanview
It's hard to "go after" every heathen, though isn't it ?
It's not like you have a spiritual reason to guard your speech.
To: oceanview
"we are both trying to express the same sentiment about her career mobility."
From what I've seen, the word "chameleon" would be an apt description. Looks like she just can't help but say what she thinks those in front of her at the time want to hear, whoever that might be.
To: jdm
Uh-oh.
My, thought too.
but............
This is 2005, not 1993. Lots of water under the bridge since then. Eight years of Clinton, Argh, Islamowhackos running amok, 9-11, John f'n Kerry, Hillary f'n Clinton,
I have a scream Dean, Swift Boat Veterans, MSM fully outed, 5 years of W, etc. I'm far more conservative than then, and I'm a lot older than Harriet. Let's hear what the lady has to say.
To: carlo3b
Because she's ticking. If she goes off in the hearing it's bad for her, for my President, for my party, for my country. It's a big risk to take with the other problems my President, my party, and my country face right now.
128
posted on
10/26/2005 9:00:12 PM PDT
by
phelanw
To: RegulatorCountry
We're in complete agreement on that point, at least. Yes, that speech is terrible. It was a Clintonian speech.
To: All
Miers statements' about abortion are notable for what is
not mentioned in them: namely, the slaughtered innocent unborn.
Reading Miers on abortion is like reading about the World War II Holocaust and finding no mention of the men, women, and children who were gassed, shot, starved, and stuffed into the ovens.
To: RegulatorCountry
its going to be interesting to see how this plays out.
To: SerpentDove
Surf's up!
132
posted on
10/26/2005 9:03:08 PM PDT
by
curiosity
(Cronyism is not conservative)
To: 2ndMostConservativeBrdMember; afraidfortherepublic; Alas; al_c; american colleen; annalex; ...
133
posted on
10/26/2005 9:03:33 PM PDT
by
Coleus
(Roe v. Wade and Endangered Species Act both passed in 1973, Murder Babies/save trees, birds, algae)
To: JCEccles
Reading Miers on abortion ...Abortion is one of the least of my concerns because it is still voluntary. The Court has the capacity to do greater evil than can be done with abortion. That speech had several red flags in it.
To: Cicero
I'm not so sure. Apparently Bush and his loyal supporters want to watch her cook a little while longer. She didn't return her questionnaire by the 6pm deadline today. Maybe a withdrawal is imminent and she didn't want to waste her time.
135
posted on
10/26/2005 9:04:07 PM PDT
by
Texas Federalist
(qualified to serve on the United States Supreme Court)
To: carlo3b
Here is were we may have a disagreement Take it up with Ponnuru.
I cannot understand how we Republicans with the majority behind us, can allow a lone judge make laws that should be overturned by an elected officials.
Same way the GOP lays down to a DEM obstructionist minority when it comes to advise & consent in the Senate. The politicians support status quo.
136
posted on
10/26/2005 9:04:36 PM PDT
by
Cboldt
To: USAConstitution
Will administration whores like Hugh Hewitt continue to embarass themselves and make excuses for this steaming turd of a court pick?
To: Esther Ruth
"When science cannot determine the facts and decisions vary based upon religious belief, then government should not act." Science can determine the facts.
To: flashbunny
Would the term "unprincipled opportunist" be too strong?
139
posted on
10/26/2005 9:06:53 PM PDT
by
isrul
To: af_vet_1981
The person who gave that speech was not a conservative at the time.You may be correct. That said, she was 48 years-old at the time.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 241-259 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson