Posted on 10/03/2005 4:06:25 AM PDT by johnmecainrino
Harriet Miers
Sorry, I choose with whom to debate. I debate with hundreds of mature freepers on a regular basis in an adult manner.
You just don't qualify. Sorry.
the extra "e" is annoying.
Thomas go through because it was a different time and the hatred level of Bush, Sr. was not as high on the left as for our current president. And he was black. They still tried to get him but the hearings were so distasteful that several Democrats feared for their own electoral prospects if they aligned themselves with those distasteful accusations.
Remember the reaction of the public. It was one of embarassment.
Thomas did not get through because he was conservative. He got through because his nomination ceased to be about pro-life vs pro-choice and became about innocent until proven guilty. Anita Hill had no evidence. There was dynamic that unfolded that refusing to confirm would be the equivalent of convicting a man not proven guilty.
That doesn't apply here. This nominee is probably the rightward most candidate who is confirmable. And she's a Christian. It is this last item that makes this brilliant. It forces Democrats to declare themselves anti-Christian.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV): "I Like Harriet Miers, As White House Counsel She Has Worked With Me In A Courteous And Professional Manner." (Sen. Harry Reid, Press Release, 10/3/05)
Reid: "I Am Also Impressed With The Fact That [Meirs] Was A Trailblazer For Woman As A Managing Partner Of Major Dallas Law Firm And The First Women President Of The Texas Bar Association." (Sen. Harry Reid, Press Release, 10/3/05)
Reid: "In My View, The Supreme Court Would Benefit From The Addition Of A Justice Who Has Real Experience As A Practicing Lawyer. The Current Justices Have All Been Chosen From Lower Federal Courts, A Nominee With Relevant Non-Judicial Experience Would Bring A Different And Useful Prospective To The Court." (Sen. Harry Reid, Press Release, 10/3/05)
Russert: "It Is Also Interesting, Historically ... Of The 110 People Who Have Sat On The Supreme Court, Only Half Have Been Sitting Judges When Selected ... History Is Filled With People With Backgrounds Similar To Harriet Miers." (NBC's "Today," 10/3/05)
Today, of all days.... tin foil hat? No. Just posting the news. Just happened.
But it isn't a spelling error, go figure ;-)
Post# 2989 stands Bambi, or is it Barbi?
Or is it uninformed bushbot?
You have brought nothing to this thread. You cannot answer a single question.
You never did answer this. You said that I was hiding. My name is Tom Eaker. What is your real name?
I agree with many posters who believe that 50% of the disappointment with the Miers nomination is not her strict constructionism, but that they were spoiling for a fight, an opportunity to rub the RATS' nose in the dirt.
There will be plenty of battle with this nomination. She is far less desirable to the left than they would like.
Reid is grasping onto Miers because he has caught Holy Hell at home for opposing Roberts.
I wouldn't frame the Russert statement as an "endorsement" so much as an observation.
I am not an anonymous whiner. I have a web page. I am Conservative Spirit (R) 2003
"Reid is grasping onto Miers because he has caught Holy Hell at home for opposing Roberts."
I absolutely agree with your post.
"If true, I am voting for HILLARY in 2008. "
Calm down..lol..Lets not get crazy now.
Actually, I didn't begin to become a conservative until I was in my late 20's, but your point is well taken. If a person is in their 40's and still supporting Democratic candidates, it's pretty hard to believe that she is suddenly a rock-ribbed conservative (short of a dramatic life-changing event).
My main concern is her judicial philosophy: is she going to be an originalist, or a consensus builder as she is characterized by president of the Dallas Bar Association, Tim Mountz? Wasn't this the one of the main problems with Sandra Day O'Conner?
That hearing was what cemented me as a Republican. (I didn't become a conservative for a full decade later, gradually) But, anyhow, I was 21. And I instinctively knew, just from those hearings, something was very, very wrong and bad about the Democratic party.
Foolishness can be defined as taking a needless gamble. There are well-qualified nominees Bush could have put forward whose conservative commitment to strict constructionism is well-known. We have no such assurance with Miers. Bush is gambling with our future and the futures of our children and grandchildren needlessly.
Why take this chance? I'll tell you why. He has no fight left in him. He's letting Schumer and Reid run roughshod over him.
Speaking of Reid, I didn't support Bush for president just so he could capitulate and let the senior senator from Searchlight Nevada choose O'Connor's replacement.
It was a dumb move.
This is one of the great concerns for me about the Republicans,Democrats and the way our courts and government is being run. That is the total blind sell out to big business.
Big business does not care about the Constitution or the rights of people.
They for the most part do not see people as human but only as assets or liabilities.
They also do not consider anything that stands in the way of increased profits as something good or something to be considered or tolerated.
That includes patriotism, borders, good of the country, rights or freedoms of the people, or the character or intentions of the people or countries they do business with or invest money in.
Their first and foremost consideration is whether or not they can increase their bottom line.
If there is money to be made or saved by abortion, euthanasia, or taking of an individual's property for the good of business then they are for it.
We are headed for a world where treaties and laws passed for the benefit of business takes precedence over any country's borders, or laws, constitutions, or whatever rules may protect citizens from tyranny.
We are seeing judges being appointed who will ignore our Constitution and our God given rights to promote the Corporate world.
This is the new world order where our lives are in reality ruled by a wealthy giant world Corporations who have as front men our elected politicians who are hand picked and have their political and financial future controlled by Corporate elites.
There is nothing that will deal with human beings in such a cold, cruel,inhuman manner than a greedy business seeking profit and power and the people that head them up.
This Republican Revolution was seen by some of us as maybe a last feeble chance to turn our country around through the political process and head it in a different direction or at least slow down the rapid deterioration of our Constitutional Christian based Republic.
When you look around the world at the structure that has already been put in place for corporate rule and then look at the progress it has made in this country, it seems we have failed.
The only chance now, if any, is the even more feeble one of the rise of a third party.
That is just fashion commentary. We need some levity on this very lengthy thread.
But I still trust President Bush's judgement more than I trust yours as to whether or not she is qualified.
You don't know her. He does. VP Cheney does, and he approves. And now Jay Sekulow has come out in support of her.
That's good enough for me until proven otherwise.
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.