Posted on 10/03/2005 4:06:25 AM PDT by johnmecainrino
Harriet Miers
What bothers me is that it looks like she stuck to the dems while the dems were in power, then when the pubbies started gaining control ion TX she switched to the winning side. It sounds more like opprotunism than ideological change of heart.
Yes...great point. It'd be different if she were a conservative for 25 years. Not just Bush's friend for 25 years.
No, you need to do your research. Ginsburg was appointed to the D.C. Circuit by Carter. Thomas was on the D.C. Court of Appeals before the Supreme Court. Blackmun was appointed to the 8th Circuit by Eisenhower. Thurgood Marshall was appointed to the 6th Circuit by Kennedy...Need I go on?
Which is why anyone who has condemned her already is an abject fool.
""It wasn't nasty at all. I trust HIS judgement, and I don't trust yours"
HIS - you mean our president, of course?
Not lately. The last was Rehnquist, and if he were appointed today the Democrats would use that aginst him.
In fact, this can only work in her favor as the rats won't be able to ask "why did you rule this way or that way .....?" with regard to any previous case.
No, they will he able to ask how someone without any judicial experience whatsoever can be considered for the highest court in the land.
He's a man, not a deity. And it's judgment without the "e".
Okay then respond to this:
1) Name every spending bill that President Bush has vetoed.
2) Describe every effective measure that he has taken to stop the surge of illegal criminals into America.
3) Describe every positive measure that he has taken to support the gun-owners that make up a vast majority of his base.
4) Explain why he has done nothing to expose the corruption in the UN and tried to stop it.
5) Explain why he and his father have their noses so far up a disbarred, adultering murder named Bill Clinton's ass.
Do this and get back to me.
You won't because you can't. The Barbi reference stands.
My enemies are those on the left, not the President.
It is those of you who claim conservatism who share a hatred of the President that need to do some soul searching.
Chuck Schumer is a dangerous man who is trying to destroy America.
George W. Bush is not.
And that is why I spend as much time as I do defending the truth. So that the garbage that's gone on on this thread in the name of 'conservatism' is challenged.
If you think I'd ever side with the left, you are a complete fool. It's your far right buddies who side with the enemies of the Constitution, morality and life in their shared disdain for this President.
Now if you want to be taken seriously, remove the ludicrous accusation in the first sentence of your post, and try again.
I'm NOT saving that picture, lol! It was a good post though, think anybody will pay attention to it??
As Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL) has noted, "The U.S. Constitution exemplifies our nation's independence from foreign law and precedent. The Supreme Court's increasing tendency to reference foreign law rather than the original intent of the Constitution jeopardizes the sovereignty of our nation. The American people have not authorized through Congress or through a constitutional amendment the use of foreign laws to establish new law or deny rights here in the United States."
Rep. Feeney, along with Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), has introduced the "Reaffirmation of American Independence Resolution" (H. Res. 97) to take a strong stand against this new -- and dangerous trend. But this resolution needs a LOT more co-sponsors to guarantee it will get to a vote in front of the whole House -- and that it will pass.
We need to DEMAND that our Representatives (Republican AND Democrat) sign up as co-sponsors of this bill -- and that they support it all the way through passage.
TAKE ACTION: The Feeney/Goodlatte Resolution (H. Res. 97) currently has 67 co-sponsors, including the House Constitution Subcommittee Chairman Chabot and 14 other Members of the House Judiciary Committee. The resolution states:
"Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that judicial determinations regarding the meaning of the Constitution of the United States should not be based on judgments, laws, or pronouncements of foreign institutions unless such foreign judgments, laws, or pronouncements inform an understanding of the original meaning of the Constitution of the United States."
This resolution affirms the sense of Congress that judicial decisions interpreting the U.S. Constitution should not be based on any foreign laws, court decisions, or pronouncements of foreign governments unless they are expressly approved by Congress.
Ask your congressperson to sign up as a co-sponsor of H. Res. 97, and to support it all the way through passage.
Both spellings are correct, judgement/judgment, take your pick.
Married people are not better. If they were, there'd be less divorced people.
I, too, do not have enough information yet to form an opinion on Ms Meirs. However, having FINALLY finished reading EVERY post on this very crazy thread, I think I understand why so many are upset. I looked for certain keywords to show up again and again; sure enough, they did.
Fight. Battle. Nuclear. Carnage.
To SO many people, this is all sport. They were so looking forward to the ultimate battle in the senate. I suspect that quite a few are upset because they have, in effect, cancelled the Super Bowl.
I used to look at politics as sport or entertainment as well. But I'm just too old and tired to treat something so bland and (in the eternal sense) inconsequential, as entertainment.
If Ms Meirs turns out to be the right one for the job, I could care less whether Harry Reid or Chuck Schumer gets "bloodied".
I'll wait and see.
Too bad these nominations didn't come up in his first term. We'd have had some leverage. Now we have nothing.
Good point. Timing is everything I guess. By the way, Isn't the timing perfect to nominate an "in-your-face" conservative. I mean, if controlling both houses and the executive branch isn't the right time to nominate two strong conservatives to the bench then WHEN IS THE RIGHT TIME?
You aren't much for debate are you, Barbi.
And you are an anonymous whiner on an Internet forum who cannot.
I trust HIS judgement.........not yours. (spelling correct, caps for emphasis, not deity......duh.......)
"She changed her donations to Republican in the early 90s and hasn't donated to the Dems since."
thanks for pointing that out...
I feel much better already. LOL
I realize you want to take on the Dems., we all do. But I think political realities require a stealth candidate. If Jay Sekulow (sp) and the ACLJ highly endorse her then I trust them. It sounds like we disagree on the tactical use of a stealth candidate. How would you overcome the Dem filerbuster when the Republicans avoided it earlier? How would you deal with the "moderate" senators who broke ranks with Republicans? I believe Harry Reid and Shumer will regret their positive statements on her in the next 3 days. It's already looking like they didn't know her background.
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.