CNN: HARRIET MIERS HAS WITHDRAWN!

[SoFloFreeper]

just breaking!!!!!!!!

[adam_az]

"Those figures were reversed until Miers was trashed by the anti-Miers crowd."

Look at the 2 polls taken here.

After more information came out about her, the undecideds who said they needed more information broke against her 100%.

Are you calling them all idiots?

[Apogee]

>>A house divided cannot stand!

I agree. While the Republicans have been wrong to always seek to appease their foes, in the hopes of broadening their base. The base has been wrong to divide itself over this, in the attempt to remind the party of the former problem.
Seems to be the imprint of someone's work here.

[American Quilter]

I'm a Catholic, but any Christian, of whatever denomination, is welcome at my house. I make it a point not to bash any Christian even though I may disagree on the politics and lifestyles at times. Any religious or divine differences are considered trivial by me despite the vast differences separating the denominations. United we stand, divided we fall.

My sentiments exactly.

[lemura]

It couldn't be your "handle", now, could it ... ? Hmmm?

Lemura is the nickname of our cat. She (hence, feminine) has a huge, striped, fluffy tail that she holds upright; which, as you might have guessed, looks just like a lemur's.

Now, if we can just get back to our favorite pastime: collectively kicking the sh!t out of libs' rear-ends.

[ohioWfan]

And the Constitution says that the President has the right to choose a SC nominee.

A number of people on this forum seem to be quite selective in what parts of the Constitution they choose to honor.....

It's not 'wallowing' to be disturbed by that.

[adam_az]

"People were mocking that being a Christian was, in itself,THE characteristic about Miers which most qualified her for the Supreme Court."

Gary and Ohio believe that it WAS a qualification, and that any disagreement is belittling their faith.

Oh ye of little faith...

[betty boop]

I would amend the constitution to get rid of lifetime appointment of judges.

Indeed, xzins. The lifetime appointment principle was originally designed to insulate judges from politics. Notwithstanding, the bench has become thoroughly politicized. So it seems lifetime appointment no longer serves its original constitutional purpose.

Still the idea of direct election of federal judges and justices for a term of years seems to go too far in the other direction. Maybe a good compromise position would be presidential appointment for a term of years?

What do you think/recommend?

[ohioWfan]

Gary and Ohio believe that it WAS a qualification, and that any disagreement is belittling their faith.

That is an outright lie. I'll debate anyone on any issue, but I will not tolerate lies. So stop it. NOW.

[Cold Heat]

You can write whatever meaning you care to for that word.

It means nothing to me.

Originalist apparently comes from original intent, but it is but one of many factors in a constitutional view.

If it is the only view, it is most definitely a horse and buggy Libertarian view. I don't want that on the court if that is all she is and frankly, the term sucks.

Does it mean original intent, or strict construction. Does it include a verbatim assumption of meaning, or does it mean a 18th century understanding.

It means nothing. It has no substance and by it's self can be viewed differently though the eyes of different federalist views like Jackson, Jefferson, Madison....

It means nothing......Too simplistic and far too broad.

[thoughtomator]

I could name, off the top of my head, at least a half-dozen FReepers who would do exactly that.

[caryatid]

Miers should have had her day before the judicial committee.

Harriet Miers, herself, chose to withdraw her own nomination ... to avoid the televised humiliation she would have had to endure before the judicial committee.

Perhaps we should all be gracious enough to allow this woman to withdraw with dignity to try to salvage whatever is left of her peach of mind .... I would say that she probably came to a full realization that she was in over her head.

[caryatid]

peach of mind = peace of mind

[CyberAnt]

Thanks for that prayer - I am in agreement with it.

I'm sure Harriet did this because of her loyalty and love for the President.

[AmishDude]

I personally don't see anything wrong with a fixed term of 18 years. It resets with each appointment, though. There is no "filling out" of a term.

It insulates them from politics (What a joke, but oh, well.) but keeps the court from being dominated by dottering old fools or nominations made exclusively of people in their early 50s.

[BraveMan]

I'm with you on that pick, Michael. JRB is a true conservative who knows Constitutional law.

[JohnnyZ]

You would not get 78 votes on someone to the right of Roberts. You would lose all democrats, so the most you could get would be 55.

This is complete fabrication. Anyone to the right of Roberts immediate DOUBLES the number of Democrats against? I don't think so.

I'm trying to lead you to water here, but if you're content with kool-aid and don't want water .....

[Soul Seeker]

I suspect Presidents Reagan, Eisenhower, Bush 41 etc.. would have in retrospect welcomed their supporters intervening to prevent a legacy that involved atrocious Supreme Court Appointments. No, they wouldn't have enjoyed the public intervention at the time, but they would have appreciated the stronger legacy for it.

In the end intervening here HELPS President Bush in the long run. Condoning a bad/questionable pick for fear of short term fallout is shortsighted. It does NOT ultimately help the President, nor our country which is where our concern should be centered as well.

I refuse to stand by helplessly any longer to fear another "O'Connor" or "Souter". Enough is enough, the line is drawn. The Courts WILL be put in their place, and so will any politician that deviates, even if good intentioned, from a campaign promise. Republicans in Washington WILL listen to their base or lose election next year. If the choice is to tell us to "Shut Up" they WILL be defeated.

[fatnotlazy]

Maybe if you were paying attention you would have known more and would have joined with those people who were being "unfair" by examining her record, or lack of one, and finding it wanting.

You can't just say "I'm ignorant and other people who weren't ignorant were wrong even though I don't know much about the situation."


***

Those who vilified Ms. Miers did so without actually talking to HER first. Most took possibly negative tidbits (note the operative words there are "POSSIBLY NEGATIVE")from this woman's past and tramped her good name into the mud without conducting a full investigation into the facts and circumstances surrounding her past actions.

[wardaddy]

You're right.

Might as well be full bore if we are to fight.

[JohnnyZ]

There will be no healing. Guaranteed.

No, no -- there will be no hearing. Guaranteed :)