Posted on 10/03/2005 1:38:07 PM PDT by Rutles4Ever
Absolute 100% DIM Talking point. I just passed a newstand and I believe that was the word used on the cover of NewsWEAK....
Rehnquist had a far more distinguished record as a legal scholar and practitioner.
How, exactly, does one figure out they can't get candidate A through the approval process? How defeatist and limp-wristed is that approach? We've debated this all day, but I still say that we're better off with Clarence Thomas sitting on the bench for all the grief he went through to get there. What is frightening to think about is the notion that if the White House knew about Anita Hill beforehand, they would've run like rabbits from his nomination.
Nothing is worth having if it's not worth fighting for. I don't judge Harriet Miers personally. I judge the president's decision.
As she has been advising the president on federal judicial nominations, including Roberts, I would say the President knows very well what her beliefs are.
Everyone points out that she was a Democrat and gave to Al gore in 1988...
anyone want to bet that Zell Miller didn't also? Or maybe he wasn't a Democrat back then either?
Wisdom is needed more than youth in an office of this kind. If anything bothers me about this choice, it is that a woman will be considered for the office. At any rate, based on other choices the President has made I do not think he made this one without considering all the angles, including especially how best to implement a judiciary that is concerned with maintaining a strict interpretation of the Constitution.
And had he nominated Zell to the SCOTUS, I'd be screaming about what a dumb move it was. I see no inconsistency.
Well, the prez sends his crew over to talk to members of the Judiciary Committee and also probably talks to the Gang of 14 to see who is within the parameters that will hold the gang together. Presidents just don't up and nominate people in this day and age.
32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs—how he can please the Lord.
33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife—
34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband.
35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.
Paul said it is OK not to marry, and for some it's the way it's supposed to be. I am just praying Miers takes her bible as literally as it is being said. Because for now that's all we have on her, and if she is a true believer, then everything will be fine.
Then you admit that your support, when it comes, will be from a purely emotional perspective? Glad you admitted it upfront.
J. Michael Luttig's must assuredly did not pale in comparison to CJ Roberts resume.
[i'No... it's rational. I'm also a little confused as to how such a religious/conservative person has never been married at age 60. It doesn't disqualify her, but it makes me doubt the "She's an evangelical so she must be a conservative" line of reasoning.[/i]
She can't win, can she. If she'd been married with a family, she'd be taking flack for having a career.
You seem to be assuming that she has been celibate, and I do not see any reason to believe that is the case. In fact I would bet the farm that she isn't.
"She can't win, can she. If she'd been married with a family, she'd be taking flack for having a career."
What are you talking about? Are you sure you're on the right forum?
They are fluid, she changes them which is her greatest flaw.
From Nathan Hecht, Texas Suprm. Ct. Justice who has known Meirs for 30 yrs.:
1) Miers has been a member of Valley View Christian Church (Evangelical Conservative) in Dallas for 25 years, "on abortion her views are consistent with evangelical views".
2) Hecht says about Miers' judicial philosophy: "She's an orginalist -- that's the way she takes the Bible," and that's her approach to the Constitution as well -- "Originalist -- it means what it says." He notes that her legal practice involved writing contracts rather than tort law, so she was always looking at the plain meaning of the words: "Originalist."
3) "She was a Democrat years and years ago, in the early 80s." As far as the late 80s contributions, "If she did it, it was because the [law] firm made her do it." She is loyal to President Bush and he to her: "The president demands a lot. The people he's loyal to are productive." Miers and Laura Bush are "very close. Harriet just loves Laura, has the deepest respect for her. Laura has migrated in her faith, it’s stronger than when she got to Washington.”
4) He also says she's not a social butterfly who will be swayed by Washington dinner table conversation: "She goes to the dinners she's supposed to go to. She's not on the social circuit."
5) from Dubya's perspective, Harriet Miers was the one prospective female nominee about whom he personally felt that he could be most certain in predicting what sort of Justice she will become.
On a personal note, I am as perplexed as many about this nominee but these are the best answers on the blogosphere that I have found in answer to your question . . . the same questions I'm asking.
Absolutely. So far, the President is 2 for 2. We were promised an originalist and so far we've gotten a minimalist (CJ Roberts) and an unknown. There is no evidence that Ms. Miers will be an originalist. Cheney's beliefs, while of some comfort in the long run prove nothing. Souter supposedly came off as a conservative in his interview with the first President Bush. This was an appalling bad nomination, especially considering the large pool of actual originalist judges there were to choose from. One almost has to hope that Justices Stevens and Ginsburg remain healthy until we can elect a conservative to nominate their replacements.
Rehnquist wasn't 60...He had time to learn...She's just a fill-in til the Rats take control, in my opinion...Apparently you and George don't take the SC as seriously as some of us conservatives do...
Maybe she'll be a solid conservative of the Scalia stripe. Maybe she'll be another O'Connor or even a Souter. We haven't the slightest idea. What I do know is that the first ruling she makes in which she sides with the liberals there will be anger in the base and the Republican Party will be the loser. Nothing will demoralize conservatives in the country more than if an opportunity to change the Supreme Court in the right direction was lost.
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.