Posted on 10/03/2005 4:06:25 AM PDT by johnmecainrino
Harriet Miers
Oh please - So many of you "sky is falling" types are pathetic! I love Ronald Reagan as much as the next conservative - But don't give me this BS!
Reagan appointed SDO - One of the worst Justices on the Court (one with no principles!, worse then even a true Lib).
Reagan cut and ran out of Beirut when we should have took on terrorism head on -
GWB has been an extremely da*m fine CIC and a pretty da*m fine POTUS!(he hasn't raised taxes once...and Reagan gave us a big hike in 86'after his great cuts of 81,83).
Leave 'em on the floor and ignore them.
Bullseye. I'm not sitting in judgment of Harriet Miers. There's nothing to judge her on.
Maybe this should all be done in secret and then we get the NY Times to publish the class photo every January 1st so we can figure out who's on the Court.
Thanks for posting this information; it goes a long way to defuse my original dimay.
I am emphatically in the pro-Roberts, anti-Miers camp.
Roberts is a towering intellect; only Scalia and Breyer match him in this regard. Miers will take over from Ginsburg as court lightweight. (Remember Ginsburg's stupid questions during Bush v. Gore--freepers knew the appellate record better than she did). Roberts, in my opinion, is too intellectually honest not to go after Roe. He had many discussions with Rehnquist about this.
Professionally, Roberts's greatest influence was Rehnquist, for whom he clerked. He also worked in the Reagan Justice Department and had a conservative, albeit brief, record as a Court of Appeal Justice.
Personally, Roberts adopted two kids and is a devout Catholic.
Roberts will vote like Rehnquist but sway votes like Brennan.
Miers looks like yes-man who flip flops to please her greatest influence, in this case Bush. Let's hope that Roberts, not Breyer, becomes her greatest influence.
I am emphatically in the pro-Roberts, anti-Miers camp.
Roberts is a towering intellect; only Scalia and Breyer match him in this regard. Miers will take over from Ginsburg as court lightweight. (Remember Ginsburg's stupid questions during Bush v. Gore--freepers knew the appellate record better than she did). Roberts, in my opinion, is too intellectually honest not to go after Roe. He had many discussions with Rehnquist about this.
Professionally, Roberts's greatest influence was Rehnquist, for whom he clerked. He also worked in the Reagan Justice Department and had a conservative, albeit brief, record as a Court of Appeal Justice.
Personally, Roberts adopted two kids and is a devout Catholic.
Roberts will vote like Rehnquist but sway votes like Brennan.
Miers looks like yes-man who flip flops to please her greatest influence, in this case Bush. Let's hope that Roberts, not Breyer, becomes her greatest influence.
Read closer. I'm not a "sky is falling" FReeper. I've taken a lot of flak for defending Bush lately.
It's not Bush bashing to say that he isn't Reagan.
And for what? Because Frist's poll numbers might have dipped if he'd had to "go nuclear"? For this we get two stealth candidates for decades to come? I feel kind of sick...
GM: This is like saying that two people who love to play golf are likely to produce similar policy decisions. Or two people who decided to be lawyers. Or two people who decided to move to New Mexico. (snip) Regardless, there's no logic in what you're saying. "Singleness" is a broad category, encompassing all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons, and to infer policy decisions from it stretches credulity.
Not quite. In 1998 (the latest year for which I can find data), 4% of men and 5% of women over 65 had never married. Thus, that is quite an unusual decision. Not quite like taking up golf.
Thus, the reasons for her decision are quite important. Some here have suggested she is a Christian (drawing the inference from her (apparent) service on the Board of a Christian organization). If that is true, that would be wonderful and would certainly overcome all my concerns.
However, we have a woman here who has made the decision only 1 in 20 women make and at the same time devotes herself (and apparently endless hours of her life) to a law firm. Certainly, absent Christian motivation of some sort, that combination leads to a reasonable inference she made the unusual decision for careerist reasons.
[You raise the option of sexual perversion, but I discount that possibility. I doubt the President would put her up in such a circumstance. She could conceivably have sexual identification issues, but it seems highly, highly doubtful to me that this President would nominate anyone engaging in homosexual behavior.]
So, in the absence of a Christian commitment, I would assume careerist motivations -- and that would be very dangerous.
In other words, you cannot cite her positions, so you defame Miers.
Bush made his promise, and he didn't keep it. He didn't say that he'd nominate jurists like Scalia and Thomas only if dirtboy thinks they'd pass the Senate. He promised to nominate those types of judges and he broke his promise.
Once again, do the math. Snow and Collins want a woman on the court, as do many RINOs. 55 pubbies - 7 RINOs = failed nominee. The math is that simple. From what I am seeing, Miers has converted to evangical Christianity and will be a pro-life vote. She will also probably take her direction from Roberts on many other issues. If something comes along that indicates she is liberal, I will take that into consideration. However, I've seen nothing that supports your contention.
History will record this nomination as another disaster for anyone who opposes pushing the leftist's socialist agenda through the court system. A capitulation by President Bush which will reflect very poorly and for a long time to come on Republican leaders in general.
I love this. It's been less than five hours since the nomination. We don't know much to judge her on. And you're already writing history. What a tool.
I know my circle of influence will gladly hear me out on this.
And how many are in your bridge club?
Disciples of Christ here in Nashville are fighting over homosexual clergy right now and one of the more prominant ones....Woodmont Christian Church is having an exodus.
I'm not sure though that the splinter church you are decribing is very conservative. I just looked at the "what we believe" page on their site.
They are not literalist at all.
I'd give them about a 6.
I went to open secrets, put her name in and got nothing. Either I did something wrong or it's been deleted.
sheesh....just catching up and am amazed at some of the sleezy things being said about this woman. Do we know if she was ever married? Do we know if she was physically able to have children? No?? What is wrong with some people?
I sent back the email saying "Bush blew it on this one, sorry I am sitting this one out."
2. Her politics changed to conservative only when it was expedient, and now that she has a lifetime appointment we'll see her true political beliefs acted upon
Well, we'll see what comes out. Note that pro-life Dems used to have a home in the party. Note that a lot of conservative Dems were fiscal conservatives. It could be that the Dem Party left her, as it did for many southern conservatives.
Maybe another supreme is going to retired. Maybe Bush knows he's going to get another pick. I may be dreaming.
It fits into the category of only being able to speak about something of which you have experienced, which is very shallow thinking.
Count me in that camp. Roberts had the qualifications for the job and I consider him an excellent choice. Miers does not, and frankly it is not even close. Even the conservative legal sites are going nuts. Such a tremendous disappointment.
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.