----I love W, but the "trust me" just won't do anymore. As President Ronald Wilson Reagan said "trust but verify!" Now I wait for verification.----
Be careful with that independent-thought stuff. The mods do a great job here. ;)
-Dan
Posted on 10/03/2005 4:06:25 AM PDT by johnmecainrino
Harriet Miers
Howlin,
I was attempting to point out that the left has and will trot out marital status. I do not agree that it is proper to do so, simply that it is done. The last time it was done, they specifically used "commitment and decision making abilities" on the floor of the house of representatives.
Plenty of people on this very forum are using that argument.
Including many who screamed, hooted, and hollered for weeks on end that they wanted Ann Coulter on the USSC bench.
She was also a gay rights supporter-- Drudge is all over that right now.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1112940,00.html
Still want to trust W here? You *know* that justices get more liberal the longer they stay on the bench. This is Souter in skirts.
To clearly state my position:
I am disappointed in Harriet Miers' nomination. Mainly because of the lack of a "paper trail". Being a lifelong Texan, I am aware of Harriet's past public service.
Yes, I am disappointed that a couple of the other names in the hat were not selected. Not that I was looking for an "in your face" battle in the senate. It may likely turn out that she has written a few dissertations relating to US constitutional law. Her Dallas City Council stint did not impress me personally, and I do understand that city politics is VERY different from national politics. Just as Texas state politics are different from national. What we called a liberal democrat, would be considered fairly conservative in the northeast.
In summary, I am not thrilled with her selection. I will encourage my senators to ask questions that clarify the nominees understanding of constitutional law, and request her commitment to strict constructionist philosophy.
Please explain why being childless is a factor. I consider it a plus that she did not have children if she wished an intense ambitious career. To have children under such circumstances is selfish.
Agreed. People who chase their careers often neglect their kids. Not everyone, not most, but many.
Mostly Dims.
To my fellow Freepers:
I have been a Freeper for many years now. I am one who does not post often, but I check the board everyday. I do this because I value every Freeper's opinion rather I agree with it or not. Some of the most intelligent and informed folks post on this board. I have read so many opinions in the last two days in regard to the President's nomination of Harriet Miers that I feel like my head is spinning, but that is OK because I choose to do so.
In 1988 I gave a year of my life to the Bush/Quayle campaign while I was actively and most aggressively fighting for our POW/MIAs. During this time I was raising twin babies and a young daughter. I lived on little sleep or food for that matter. All was done at home, phone banks or when Bush 41 came to town I would work with the SS to help with checking press credentials etc. Then one day while I was working the phones I happened to turn around and there stood the future Vice President of the United States of America Dan Quayle. I was in such awe of his presence the first thing that came out of my mouth was "You are almost as short as me!" LOL He spent about five minutes talking to me about an article I had published in the Columbus Dispatch letter to the editor. He somehow knew that I was averaging two articles per month that was making print. I assume that someone took notice from our State Republican party and told him. After our conversation he signed a copy of my letter and he moved on. I thought I had died and went to Heaven!
Then over the next couple of years my heart was ripped out by Bush 41. Is was not only "Read my Lips" it was many things. When his re-election came around I would not campaign for him nor would I vote for him again. I felt he was a very nice man, but that was it.
You are probably wondering what does this have to do with Harriet Miers and her nomination? For me personally everything. This is why;
When W was running for his first term I actually supported Buchanan. I was still upset with Bush 41 that I was extremely reluctant to put my faith in his son. At the same time I was finding myself getting angry at Buchanan and realizing in my opinion that I was much more of a Conservative then Buchanan was. I decided that I would watch, learn and listen to what W stood for. I wanted to see if I could once again put my faith in another Bush. The night of his speech to the Republican National Convention was the night he earned my faith in him. I decided that night that the lives of my children and now grand babies was in his hands.
In W's first term he had all of the faith one can give to a President who holds the safety and future of my children and grand babies in his hands. For this past re-election my daughter stood in line here in Ohio for four hours in the rain at eight months pregnant to give W her faithful vote that day. Now in his second term I still have faith in W, but I must say that I have struggled with many issues like many Freepers have stated.
In regard to Harriet Miers I had the same reaction as many on this board. I fought through many emotions yesterday upon hearing of her nomination. To me it felt like Bush 41 all over again. I am very uncomfortable and I have a very uneasiness about this nomination. I have decided after much thought on this issue that I will do as I did before with W. I am going to watch, learn and listen. I will be watching and listening to every word that Harriet Miers has to say in the hearings. From her body language to her words to her facial expressions. With not much of a paper trail this is what we are left with. Very uneasy in deed.
I love W, but the "trust me" just won't do anymore. As President Ronald Wilson Reagan said "trust but verify!" Now I wait for verification.
The one less mentioned aspect of Harriet Miers is that she is a self-proclaimed and publicly-confirmed evangelical Christian. And in that respect her close relationship with the President may have pushed her to the top of the heap based in large part on her faith. So if she is lacking in most generally accepted qualifications then it's clear that the President has chosen her to be the voice of Christian convervatives on the bench.
Which would put her in direct conflict with the statist godless ideology of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
This theory will quickly be put to the test when the likes of Chuck - never met a credit report he couldn't use - Schumer accuses her of being a fire-breathing snake-handling fundamentalist southerner that will force prayer back in school. Look for Michael Newdow to lead the charge against her.
Be careful with that independent-thought stuff. The mods do a great job here. ;)
-Dan
The Dems are lovin this!
Hey Great!!! Pass on my admiration to him. With any luck at all he will wind up at Fort Richardson. Not good luck you understand, but typical Eaker luck.
Thanks for the warning. :)
LOL!!!
Thanks!
Not really, no.
Don't you? You think that their sin should prevent them from have due process? Should all liars, all adulterers, all gossips be denied their civil rights?
This was a simple questionaire to which anyone would answer 'yes'.
The more I hear about this woman from those who know her and her faith, her intelligence, and her strength of character, the more impressed I am with her.
And YES, I still trust the President. He is an honorable man who has had, from the beginning, the goal of moving the court to the right, and that is exactly what he is doing.
"So instead they sweat talk the nominees, and cause people like you to think the opposite and to become dissatisfied."
Talk about a fantasy delusion. The Dems know darn well GW would push it through no matter what his conservative base said. So if Harriet is truly the strict-constructionist that he claims she is they would knowingly be screwing themselves. As for Republican dissatisfaction with GW and the rest of the GOP leadership it's irrefutably 99% self-inflicted by GW/GOP spinelessness. The Dems don't have to do a thing.
"Well, there's this fellow (of course he was over 50 by the time he finally wised up)..."
Okay, besides Reagan, ha ha. Besides, recent revelations of her conversion can explain it to.
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.