Posted on 10/03/2005 4:06:25 AM PDT by johnmecainrino
"Thank You for understanding that support for our troops is my #1 personal agenda"
You call this a "pet project" ? Something is seriously wrong with your thinking
"Why? Do you know something no one else does?"
I am not saying that the good lady does not have her heart in the right place or that she is not a strict constructionist. What I am saying is that we do not know.
Can you note her appearances before the Supreme Court? What of her published Constitutional studies? How about her noted legal opinions? Nope, none...ok how about this...Has she ever even visited the Supreme Court?
THAT is my problem with this nominee. Compare her to what we desire and deserve. Roberts has forgotten more Constitutional law than Miers has ever seen. We have great jurists with real records and real opinions out there. They were all bipassed for the Presidents Lawyer.
She is in no way qualified for the high court. Heck, I would bet I have read more of the Constitution than she has.
The idea is not to foist any 'strict constructionist' on the court but to get a legal giant if we have one. Well we do, many....sigh, The president simply did not choose one.
Tell your son I said
"Thanks for stepping up to the plate."
Wish him good luck!
BTTT!!!!!!
that hotel will be all booked up for a good 30 years
When President Bush nominated John Roberts to the Court, liberal interest groups like NARAL and People for the American Way were burning up the fax lines within a matter of minutes, denouncing Roberts and demanding that the Democrats block him. This time? Nothing. Check out the NARAL and PFAW web sites. Nothing but bland press releases adopting a wait-and-see attitude.
What did happen within 30 minutes of Bush's announcement was a press release by Harry Reid that included the statement, "I like Harriet Miers." It's hard to avoid the suspicion that Bush's nomination of Miers reflects some kind of deal with the Senate Democrats. Such as, the Dems gave Bush a list of candidates they would deem "acceptable" (pending Judiciary Committee hearings, of course), and Bush chose the best candidate he could off that list.
Is that what happened? I don't know, but the theory seems to fit the facts. Why would Bush accede to the Democrats rather than fight for another Roberts-type conservative? The only reason I can think of is that liberal Republicans in the Senate, starting with Arlen Specter, told him they wouldn't back him up if he replaced Sandra O'Connor with a strong conservative. There are enough RINOs in the Senate to make such a threat credible, I think.
This is pure speculation, but it is one scenario that seems to fit the facts as we know them so far.
Seems to me the Dems would want her. She donated to Al Gore.
?
So it is okay to feed the bears as they will not bite me simply because my dogs don't? I thought that they might.
Further, I have perceived that the Sun is hot and the Moon is not.
Wrong again?
So it is okay to walk across traffic on the freeway?
I could list about a million things that I have perceived to be accurate that I am right about.
I cannot do this in the "stupid mode" that you advocate. I am not stuck on anything, much less stupid.
Yeah, this seems to be quite the pick, so far. "Stealth" candidates haven't panned out for the Republicans; Scalia types have, though. Why pick a stealth when there were many well-qualified and proven individuals?
And - do you really think any here care that you threw out your Bush stuff?
I was posting to a specific person. I figured that
"any here" who did not care for my remarks would ignore them & move on.
Your opinion, however, is noted.
The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), specializing in constitutional law said today that Harriet Miers, the nominee named by President Bush for a seat on the Supreme Court of the United States, is an excellent choice who represents the conservative mainstream of judicial philosophy of interpreting the Constitution, not re-writing it.
“Once again, President Bush showed exceptional judgment in naming Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court to replace Justice O’Connor,” said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ, who argues regularly before the high court and has a pro-life protest case at the high court this term. “At a time when the high court is facing some of the most critical issues of the day – including a number of cases dealing directly with abortion and life issues – the person who replaces Justice O’Connor is critical. Harriet Miers is an excellent choice with an extraordinary record of service in the legal community and is certain to approach her work on the high court with a firm commitment to follow the Constitution and the rule of law. I have been privileged to work with her in her capacity as White House counsel. She is bright, thoughtful, and a consummate professional and I enthusiastically endorse her nomination.”
http://www.aclj.org/news/Read.aspx?ID=1911
Well, again I do not disagree. I hope this will not turn out to be the dissapointment that it might appear to be.
I do, however, think that there is something underlying all of this that we cannot now see.
At any rate, no reason at all to give up the good fight...
Justice Roberts is the exception. Everyone is inner circle or known for years.
""I cannot do this in the "stupid mode" that you advocate. I am not stuck on anything, much less stupid.""
You probably know your name every morning when you wake up and are sure of it. Congratulations. I know also.
This is not what I refer to. See? Do you now understand? What you have perceived my post to be is incorrect. You are in the 1%, not the 99...
We don't know he was considering nominating Gonzales.
All we have is his track record, and that is one area he has not made mistakes in.
Since he actually knows Miers and not you, I presume he has a better idea of where she stands on issues.
I think the democrats are not complete idiots. They saw how badly they screwed up the Roberts nomination -- by the time they knew they should hate him, they had already called him evil with no evidence, and nobody was listening to them.
Surely they learned to wait for the hearings now before screaming about how evil the candidate is.
Do you expect NARAL to support an evangelical christian? Do you think the liberal groups will support a contracts lawyer?
They are trying to look more "thoughtful" than they did last time. Plus, I think they are shocked at the pick, and not ready to respond.
My "proof" is that even we here got confused as to which "Exodus" group she was associated with, but now that we know: Is there any chance PFAW wouldn't have loudly opposed anybody who worked for that type of organization if they were READY with the information?
"This nomination is a betrayal to conservatives."
In order to make that statement you must know alot about her. She is the lead person vetting the president's nominees. Don't you think that person would represent the conservative viewpoint? Your view suggests she shouldn't even be in the vetting process. You trust her so little how could you allow her in the vetting process? So now in order to be consistent you most protest her total involvement.
Justice Roberts was inner circle and known for years. Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by "exception".
Bookmark for a later read.
When we know more, of course.
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.