Posted on 10/04/2005 12:05:25 PM PDT by gpapa
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- When a Supreme Court nominee doesn't have a black and white record on abortion, groups on both sides of the abortion debate look for nuances that could show a glimpse of how the nominee would rule on the contentious issue. Pro-life advocates may have found one on Harriet Miers with regard to the pro-life evangelical church she attends.
(Excerpt) Read more at lifenews.com ...
I don't like the ivory tower types, no. But that doesn't mean anyone outside of it is automatically good. In this particular case there's a choice - either you want experience or you want some other quality. Her experience is not as a judge - on that basis there are many many better candidates. So what is the other quality that elevates her above the other possibilities?
" One stronghold the left still has...the media. And as soon as this one crumbles...look out!"
Then what? There will still be a bunch of liberal Republicans in congress, the courts, and the executive branch, and we will have no recourse.
We're getting socialism lite from these guys - not smaller government.
No...once more truth is blasted more through the airwaves you will have far fewer liberals in power.
Why do you guys not get it?
It is not guesswork. He picked up the phone, called the 7 RINOs and read them the list of FR rock star hardline conservatives and counted the NO votes. He didn't have to guess if he could ram them through. He was told he can't.
Why would he bother? Given that justices change their mind and change their stripes at the flip of a coin, why go to war for a rock star when the guy may just change his stripes -- especially rock stars you don't personally know for 15 yrs.
This is vastly superior as an option and a manifestation of Bush-Rovian genius.
I have no doubt she is well suited as the President's personal lawyer and White House counsel. She is undoubtedly highly competent in managing a law firm and dealing with real-world problems.
The Supreme Court, however, is not the real world. It is a world of theory, of philosophy, of debate, of arguments, of historical research. How well could an everyday lawyer handle such a place--even if she is among the top 100 lawyers in the country? It is entirely out of a real-world lawyer’s element.
No, not a typo. John Edwards was also a trial lawyer, and quite a successful and powerful one, too. Lawyers are a large part of the problem with the legal system in this country, to begin with. If you're going to pick one, pick one with experience and a record as a judge. Otherwise you don't pick a lawyer, you pick someone who has led a different kind of life. With all the talk of "diversity" in the court pick, the truth of the matter is that there is zero diversity on the Court - every last one is a lawyer. That's what got us into this mess in the first place!
Miers is far from an everyday lawyer. She was President of the Texas bar and White House Counsel for 5 years.
Do you have a link on this, because I would like to read up on this claim.
"So is this expected to offset her stance on civil rights for gays and lesbians, or their rights to adopt children?"
Clarification, and feel free to check the facts:
-- A local gay organization circulated a political questionnaire when Miers was a Dallas city councilwoman, asking candidates if they favored civil rights for homosexuals. Not special rights, just plain old civil rights. She, of course, said yes. All citizens are due basic civil rights. There is simply nothing controversial about that.
-- She never backed gay or lesbian adoption. The rumor that she did comes from an ABA conference agenda that listed gay adoption and the international criminal court as discussion topics.
I don't know about you, but I've been in plenty of meetings where controversial topics were discussed. My presence did not indicate my approval of either viewpoint.
There's too much misinformation out there right now. Let's be careful to check our facts.
Here's some interesting pro and con from a Houston lawyer who writes an articulate blog. You might want to read his posts since Miers' nomination was announced. He is very thorough and doesn't just give his opinions but also specifics and details to back them up.
http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/
Once we have the the Senate ... look out!
Once we have the Presidency ... look out!
Once we have a clear majority in the Senate ... look out!
Once we have the Supreme Court apointess ... look out!
There always seems to be one more thing just over the horizon that the Republicans need to implement their agenda. A carrot to dangle in front of those who are disillusioned with the party. Just hang with us a little longer and ...
It doesn't matter who the client is. An everyday lawyer works for a client and handles his everyday legal issues. Miers is such a lawyer. She works in a realm that deals with nuts-and-bolts issues, not with expounding on the Lemon Text, the penumbra of an emanation, or arguing the originalist vs. revisionist theories of constitutional law.
She is out of her element.
"He picked up the phone, called the 7 RINOs and read them the list of FR rock star hardline conservatives and counted the NO votes."
That's called politics, and politicians can be induced to change their vote all kinds of ways.
The goal isn't to get someone - anyone - in. It's to get the best candidate in, which she is clearly not.
The liberals are losing power. It's not "just one more thing". It's taking their ground bit by bit and that's what's going on.
"Not only has Miers never been a SCOTUS law clerk, she has no expertise whatsoever in constitutional law."
Check this:
http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/
You might want to scroll down and read all the posts since Miers was nominated yesterday.
Dobson likes her? I thought it seemed like a decent choice until I heard that....
Just wondering if Rehnquist or Thomas did this?
Sorry, I just don't see it that way anymore.
I'm not completely comfortable in the "trust me" deal... but I guess we've got no choice. I would have probably prefered a nominee with a proven track record. An in your face conservative.
In that sense globalist supremes are more important than any domestic agenda.. i.e globalists; souter, ginsberg, stevens, breyer and now probably Roberts and soon to be Meirs.. CHECK MATE..
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.