Mark Levin and Dick Morris get into it

WABC radio | October 5, 2005 | Self

[Huck]

here is a link to cspan video of schumer's remarks. i need to install real player, but I think this is the one:

http://www.c-span.org/homepage.asp?Cat=Current_Event&Code=SCourt


scroll down a little on the left.

[Crush T Velour]

If the following statment by Frum is correct, then she is, in addition to being spectacularly underqualified, a little nutty: "She once told me that the president was the most brilliant man she had ever met."

Or perhaps you don't know the President. I don't know the context of this statement, but I've heard Frum himself attest to Dubya's exceptional intelligence in specialized fields (Energy and Politics). Could it be possible that that a former rounder with an MBA from Havard, who has a penchant for selecting Ace assistants is actually a really smart guy?

[Pharmboy]

And your indication that she will be an originalist is exactly what??

[oceanview]

Levin knows Kennedy lied during the vetting process - he was there.

[johnny7]

Thanks... I'm glad SOMEBODY got it.

[Huck]

It's not really that big a deal. Even Scalia isn't THAT good at the end of the day. See his recent commerce clause rulings. Gives me something to do, but they are all mostly full of crap.

[nopardons]

bttt

[Jim_Curtis]

I think the fact that Bush has worked with Miers and personally knows knows her says more than an impersonal vetting process.

Yet there are still those who think Rafael Palmeiro took steroids even though they don't even know Palmeiro and the President knew him well and believes Palmeiro's clean. And those are probably the same anti-Bush people who don't believe Bush's assertion that Islam is a "religion of peace".

[safisoft]

To keep dragging on my complaining only weakens GWB, our chances in 2006 and 2008, honestly.

I understand, but let me ask you... what for?

- So a Republican majority can spend EVEN MORE of our money?

- So a Republican majority can expand the size and reach of the Federal government EVEN MORE?

- So a yet future "compassionate conservative" President can pick one of his friends for a life-time position on the SCOTUS (passing over EVEN MORE well-known conservatives)?

It may be better to have grid-lock. It may be better to have a liberal for a President - to remind people why our cause is CORRECT.

It is time to send a message to all politicians: CONSERVATIVE means something - and if you have to TELL me you are conservative, you AREN'T. Hear that MR. President?

[traderrob6]

Let me ask all that are soooo quick to point out her lack of judicial experience etc etc blah blah.

If she ends of maintaining a 90+ concurrence record with Scalia /Thomas, will any of that experience background crapola mean a whit to you??

[nopardons]

Actually, he wasn't. According to Mark, last night, he spent all of ten minutes, TEN MINUTES reading Kennedy's CV and then okayed him.

[chris1]

Why don't you try to hit it?

[pcottraux]

"I certainly do so have Pro-life organizations. If you have been reading many of these threads here you would know better than to make such a statement."

Huh?

Did I say something that offended you? I'm sorry if I did. This court nomination is confusing as can be, because I just can't get a clear viewpoint on what people think.

[McGavin999]

But she does have merits. Those include a remarkable career in the law. She was obviously good enough to be made Whitehouse council (not exactly a position you'd give some run of the mill lawyer). The rest we have to wait to find out in the hearings.

We have no business pre-judging this woman. If, during the hearings, you become convinced she is not worthy than you have plenty of time to make your objections known to your senators. We expect a USSC Justice to listen to all the evidence before issuing a judgement, why aren't we willing to do the same?

[Rodney King]

We we have a person that all indications show will be an orginalist.

Which indications are those? W telling us to trust him?

[LibWrangler]

I just stumbled across Levin on another thread and was literally shocked at his responses.

I have always considered him an intellectual middleweight, but he seemed unable to cough up much more than "you did it first" and "I know you are but what am I"s in response.

I expected him (more than most), to have the ability to rise above the pettiness of the namecalling and rhetoric. I do admire him for mixing it up, but namecalling, flaming, insulting, because the other guy did it first doesn't help the case. In fact, his case seemed as weak as "trust Bush" is (and how unfair to respond as if that has been the only argument made in defense of Miers nomination).

[chris1]

Actually, I think the ideal situation seems to be what we had in 1994'-2000', without the cigar and blue dress. Its far better when they do nothing that simply all go along together.

[llevrok]

I hear ya. I started as a Goldwater republican in 1964. I've had enough liberal republican presidents.

I am not ready to give up the fight. But I also remember Rondaldus Mangus's 11th commandment- that was to never attack those of your own party.

[Rodney King]

I have heard almost NO one give any support to Miers

What about the Bush-bots?

[Rodney King]

the "Donner party" is one helluva lot noisier right now.

Donner Party implies eating ones own. I am quite certain that principled conservatives and people who would reflexively support the President even if he came out as a gay communist are not close enough to each other to consider our bickering to be eating our own.