Posted on 10/03/2005 4:06:25 AM PDT by johnmecainrino
Harriet Miers
ROTFL! Oh that we already know about him! :~D
You keep saying this. Any quotes? I don't recall Thomas being sold short by the GOP.
On the other hand, I do recall the Democrats being deathly afraid of him, though.
I agree that the Democrats have just been sucker punched.
Bush did speak to 80 Senators before naming his choice. The 20 he didn't call, well we all know who they are.
Give her a chance people. You just might be surprised.
hmmm...
well she isn't the one I would have picked, but then again, seeing certain individuals have hissy fits over it makes me think this is an excellent choice.
Now if WORLDNUTDAILY can confirm it for me :)
Sounds like she can be swayed. Never been a judge is not a plus if she's been slithering around with the ABA.
Yeah. But, don't beat yourself up about it. Both of those guys are grade-A liars. They pulled the wool over many, many eyes.
The Court is in trouble, our country is in trouble and I don't like playing "what if" with the solutions. Besides, watching the left go beserk over Owens or Brown would only help the Republicans.
You wrote: She's single and doesn't have kids.
One interesting thing I've noted in all these threads.
Some people feel that in order to be conservative, she needs to be married and have children.
Others feel that she needs to be younger.
If a woman graduates college at 21, then graduates law school at 24, marries, has two children whom she parents (no daycare drop off for this conservative mom), she'll be in her mid-to-late 40s when her youngest heads off to college.
I've been married to an attorney for 21 years, and we have four children. You can certainly be a working mother in this profession, but the hours can be grizzly. Sixty-hour work weeks are baseline -- it can easily be 80-96, especially during trial periods. Not ideal for our mom with conservative values.
A mother who insists on a 40-hour work week will likely face some difficulties. There are some part-time options -- everything from legal aid and pre-paid legal services to working of-counsel with a firm or starting your own practice in your home -- but none of these options are as easy as some might think, especially with the demands of children. They are also not options likely to give you great experience on your resume. I'm not saying it can't happen or doesn't happen -- it's just not that easy.
So at 46, our conservative legal eagle begins a more serious part of her legal career. She has about 10 years to go from virtual novice to Supreme Court calibre.... Pretty ambitious. Not impossible, but very, very difficult.
I believe women should be on the Supreme Court. It doesn't make sense to ignore the wisdom of 50% of the population. I don't think they should be chosen solely because of their gender, but because of the insight, experience and perspective they can bring to the Court.
I personally agree that parenthood brings many changes to one's understanding and outlook. I highly recommend it! But if we want a conservative married mother on the bench, we may need to accept a woman of more advanced years.
If we want a younger woman on the bench, then perhaps it's good to have a woman who has ordered her life in such a way as to serve in this capacity -- even if it means remaining single and childless.
One woman of our acquaintance was a brilliant law school student who got a job with a large state firm. She was married to the Vice President of a bank who understood her working hours. She worked long and hard her first few year, made partner at a very young age (early 30s). She was partner for a few years and then became a judge. After she became a judge (which has regular hours, vacation, etc. Nice gig!), they started a family. She and her husband have two children. She will probably go far in her judicial career.
Not everyone, however, can do what she did. I know that if I had waited until my 30s to have children, we would be childless.
You are usually not a tin foil type, that sounds like something waaay out there.
I'm praying. Still don't like Reid's little show of support.
I wonder if she is a baseball fan.
I wonder who she is rooting for to win in the World Series.
Thank you for the insight. I was initially opposed to her nomination, but I think my kneejerk reaction was due to who she was not.
I had wholeheartedly been hoping for JRB; any name other than that was sure to get a negative reaction from me.
I'm not just withholding judgement, I'm rubberbanding into her camp. I'll continue to trust GWB's motivations and insight, (on this issue, anyway).
That's also my concern. It could be that she's undergone a transformation, and has genuinely evolved from a Democrat to a Republican due to reasons we'll never know. Or, it could be that she was a Democrat when it helped her career, and became a Republican when that proved to be more expedient. Freed from the need to worry about pleasing a particular master, she could return to whatever her beliefs happen to be.
In the absence of any track record, we just don't know. And since we control the Senate and White House, that's an unnecessary risk in my opinion.
She is most likely a Texas Rangers fan. We don't worry about the World Series after football season starts. It's always irrelevant to us by then.
Probably not. I was so totally floored by the horrible-ness of this nomination when I first heard, I just couldn't believe it. I still can't believe it, really. Unfortunately, Bush is likely serious. I called my senators and told them to oppose her (not like they ever listen to me, but what the heck). On the bright side, she's 60 years old--and looks about 70 already--so maybe she won't be around for long if she's confirmed.
Anyway, good to know you're still alive. :-)
You forgot:
1) Gave money to Gore in 1988.
2) Didn't give money to Clinton, but someone with a similar name DID.
3) Harry Reid said she would be a good pick (much worse than having Leahy on board with Roberts?)
4) Frum may or may not have said she would cave under pressure
I'm sure there were even MORE good reasons to dislike this pick, but those are the 4 I noticed missing from the list.
I had a mystery date game. There were only 5 or so choices. I think Karl Rove was one of the picks.
When it comes to judicial nominees, the GOP does not control the Senate.
The Gang of 14 demonstrated that they control the acceptable ideological range of nominees.
And Bush had to operate within that constraint.
Yes, all that stuff Rush just said is old news, hours upstream in this thread. FR still rocks.
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.