Posted on 10/03/2005 4:06:25 AM PDT by johnmecainrino
Harriet Miers
A few interesting facts to me from the Oval Office nomination session - President Bush used the phrase "strict construction" twice in his intro, Ms Miers used it once. Her undergraduate degree was in mathematics... math folks can be painstakingly strict in their construction of things.
I was hoping for an originalist. Hopefully we got one :)
Uh, Roberts has repeatedly said what his judicial philosophy is. Do we live in paraellel universes. Also, President Bush swears that neither Roberts nor Miers will legislate from the bench and will strictly interpret our Constitution and laws. Not good enough for some people, obviously?
Would you say that this was a bold courageous pick in a day when we are battling judicial tyranny?
JRB didn't have a chance. The McCain 14 wouldn't have supported her.
Can someone here please tell me ANY indication that Meirs is NOT a strict Constitutionalist?
LOL. Major conniptions ahead.
They've just never seen an actual debate before, so they don't know how to interpret all this. That's just the difference between a right wing that discusses policy and a left wing that merely copies policy positions from the editorial pages of the New York Times.
I would think that the rats would like to make a token show of resistance to Miers much like they did to Roberts before overwhelmingly voting for her. I would expect a few squeals, nothing more.
Sarah Hughes was a Democrat.
Really. Do you know for what?
Hutchenson might as well have said that Meirs has the same experiences as Ginsberg.
So far the praisers are making it WORSE.
Seems her only asset is the fact she wears a skirt, NOT her legal knowledge or philosophy.
IOW she got the job BECAUSE of her gender not her qualifications.
They want -- as do most on the Hill -- empirical evidence, as opposed to taking Bush's word.
Has this been confirmed?
Before Roberts was nominated there was a leak that Bush was going to pick someone else, a moderate--I can't remember her name, but the doom-n-gloomers and Bush-bashers were out in force saying pretty much the same junk I've been reading here this morning.
Then the president surprised the naysayers by (gasp!) keeping his word and nominating a person like John Roberts--not only to the court, but to Chief Justice.
What I'm wondering is, if this current "pick" hasn't been confirmed, could this be another misleading leak.
For those who are grasping that Miers was supporting a "conservative al gore", this contribution came right around election day when Dukakis was already nominated.
It would have been an anti-Reagan contribution for the most part...Bush was the Reagan legacy at that time and perceived to be quite conservative.
I'd say if we want more we need a third party.
Sorry, but in the "unknowns" and "unproven" category....there's a lack of paper trails.
Can someone here please tell me ANY indication that Meirs is NOT a strict Constitutionalist?
I was thinking the same thing. If it wasn't for the cleaner language, I would have thought I was in DU. I was over there reading their reaction, and in one post, they were actually agreeing with the "Freepers". Scary!
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.