Posted on 10/03/2005 4:06:25 AM PDT by johnmecainrino
Harriet Miers
OK - can we put this to bed one way or the other? I thought Rush said the Dem donor was not the right Miers. Did she or didn't she? Do we even know that for sure?
I didn't base that on facts. I only wish he had been more bold with this pick. The Souter reference referred to her unkown quantity. THAT worries me more than anything, NOT that she is unknown, but that the President didn't have enough confidence to pick a known conservative.
Truth MATTERS to me.
you forget the crap that was handed to Thomas, and the tough time he had getting confirmed. Janice rogers Brown is only just beginning her new job and even though I would love to see her on th SC, she can be nominated to replace Ginsburg when her croneship resigns. Brown would have a very hard time getting confirmed now, and it is foolish to put a decent woman through two hard confirmations in 6 months. It was always a dumb idea to nominate her for a second judgeship when she was trashed repeatedly by the scum-suckers in the other party in the first nomination. owen took her name out of contention last week. Let these people get some time in one job before we mess with them again. GWB will have to replace Stevens soon he is 85 and Roberts had to catch him today or he would have fallen down. Ginsburg is unhealthy, and will leave before very long also. We have plenty of time before GWB leaves office to put two or three more in there.
Thanks for sharing your research. The more I learn about Harriet Miers, the more comfortable I'm becoming.
The information is available. Or are some people waiting for CNN to package it up for them? Try Dallas Morning News archives, since the Dallas Times Herald does not exist anymore. I have lived here in north/northeast Texas for 30 years, and this is not the first time that I have heard of Harriet Miers.
"Yes, but did she judge horses like Mike Brown? That would count for something."
- No, but I see that she's never married so it must make her a pretty good judge of men.
As I understand it, she donated to Gore, the DNC and Bentsen in 1988. Some claimed that she donated to Clinton/Gore in 1992; that claim is the one Rush states is false.
I agree.
Ginsberg or Breyer will not leave voluntarily while Bush is in office. This could be his last pick.
You're the one raising the issue - why don't YOU go find it?
Or do you prefer to just bitch and not do anything to back up your opinions?
Yep. And I would submit that preferring Gore, Bentsen and Dukakis over continuing the Reagan Revolution is a matter of grave concern. I'd have reservations about anyone who did so, and is now nominated to the Supreme Court.
OK - thanks for that clarification.
You're making all kinds of emotional assumptions here.
You're afraid, you're worried, you think you know that the President didn't have confidence.
What if..........what if this pick shows that he has such great confidence that he doesn't need to worry about the temporary insanity of people who claim to support him, because he knows that he is right about her, and she will prove to be a great originalist SC justice, and the nervous nellies will eventually find out that he was right?
That's more in keeping with his character.
From what I have seen, she did make the donations in 1988, but did not make the donation in question in 1992.
I think that's a big cause for concern. In the wake of the Reagan revolution she was a Democrat?
That hints to me that her views may have been colored by self interest, and that she saw the Democratic path as better for her in Texas. Will she bend her views to preserve her reputation in the media?
Dirtboy is right, we don't know yet, but my reading of the tea leaves is not giving me a good feeling...
She or he is only the right pick if they can be confirmed. Think about how the democrats are stuck on stupid,crazy,deranged and desperate. Why put up a candidate that will cause a bloodletting when you can get your great candidate without the lunacy?
I'm sure the 'concerns' will multiply when they find out more about her.
""Did you notice that right off the bat on this thread people were jumping to conclusions? Instead of saying, "who is she?", "let's wait and see", they were already assuming she was a bad pick. ""
I can't believe the tone of this thread. Before during and after the announcement, nothing but reactionist anarchy here. Unreal. Extremist, you could almost say. Well, some commentary around the time of the announcement (Schumer) mentioned the extreme wings of both parties, and then I get home and read this thread - its the only thing he has ever said that has made sense to me (I don't belive his sincerity, by the way)
That point was raised in another piece that was posted-I think from The World-on this website.
However, the rest of her curriculum vitae doesn't exactly overwhelm me.
That wouldn't be much of an impediment if we knew for certain that she was an originalist, but we don't.
I prefer not to leave these sorts of things to fate.
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.