Mark Levin and Dick Morris get into it

WABC radio | October 5, 2005 | Self

[jmaroneps37]

Mark Levin and Dick morris have just debated the nomination on Sean hannity's show. After listening to Levin, I am more convinced that Miers is the one I want. Levin talks a good game about not wanting judges who will re write the Constitution. We we have a person that all indications show will be an orginalist. I think Levin is more interested in a fight than actually getting the judical "No" machine we need in the Suprems Court. I think Miers will be a solid money in the bank conservative vote. Since Supreme Court Judges only get one vote, how much more could Miers do? Maybe smack Ginsberg in the chops?

[chris1]

Let's say Scalia and Thomas were to resign or get ill tommorow, then what of her reliable vote?

I hope she turns out fine. I personally think she is too old for what we need right now. But leaving this to "I trust GWB" is just stupid and says nothing of what she may or may not do on the court.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I don't believe that is entirely accurate. Reid has said that he "likes" her but has not committed to vote for her.

[llevrok]

Here is where I get bogged down on flogging RINO's. Split the party into two then. The McCaniacs vs. the Rushbo's. The libs will win every time.

Why?

It happened when the evangelical Christians got hold of the party 10 years ago. Well intended, but still paying for the split.

I think it better to beat the she-at out of the RINO's internally rather than in public.

[Crush T Velour]

Five or so people on this post asked you to please tell us what the evidence is that makes Miers an "originalist." We're still waiting...

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1006/p01s01-uspo.html

He was probably quoting Marvin Olasky, Bush advisor and someone who has spoken to people who know her well: "She's an originalist - that's the way she takes the Bible and that's her approach to the Constitution as well."

Also, her background is in Contract Law which is 100% applicable to Constitutional Law. I wish all the SC justices could start interpreting the constitution properly as a contract.

[sinkspur]

Levin is an expert on these matters. he knows the machinations of the court, he understands and can explain why so many republican appointments drift left once they get there.

Levin vetted Anthony Kennedy for the Reagan administration.

The man talks a good game, but failed to stop a squish from being nominated.

[safisoft]

I am willing to give W the benefit of the doubt untill evidence exists to the contrary. Should that happen I'll jump on the bash Bush bandwagon but not sooner.

You have had the evidence. Bush was told in no uncertain terms that elevating his friends would not be considered a wise move. It ticked him off that we hated the idea of Gonzales. Tough. Now he does this, and you think we should hold our fire to see more? By the time some people finally are ready to jump off the bandwagon, it will have already gone over the cliff. Its there now. Come on... jump!

[Rodney King]

Then this person gets to be interviewed by a committee of Senators. Those interviews are public events. You can watch and listen to every word they say and she says.

Except of course if she takes the Ginsburg-Roberts playbook and doesn't answer any meaningful questions, we won't know anything about her.

[oceanview]

why should we be concerned at all about the votes of the Dems - they are in the minority.

the RINOs and the McCain gang were the reason we didn't get a "top shelf" conservative - Luttig, Owens, Rogers Brown. I blame this group for that, not Bush.

I would have settled for a "second tier" conservative - someone conservative, but not "controversial" enough to spook the RINOs - but the president doesn't want the fight, including the fillibuster.

so instead we got Miers.

and I posed this question on a thread yesterday - and very few offered their opinion, so I will try again:

if tommorrow, Stevens passes away - who would the pick to replace him be? Now that we have the formula above in place, who would we get?

[duckln]

Have you watched Jim Lehrer lately? Concerning the SCOTUS he has had a female professor, I think from Stanford, commenting on what's going on.

She looks just like Ginsberg, and IMO a little loony. I seldom watch Jim, usually by accident.

[Rodney King]

Also, her nomination is a slap in the face to the REALLY qualified people

What will be the long term implication of telling the best and brightest conservative lawyers never to write anything down and never to express opinions? It won't be good, that's for sure.

[Huck]

Well, lots of stuff has gone around, but I recall reading that Reid brought up her name--recommended her--to GWB in private meetings. Not saying he's promised to vote for her. But by all appearances he's practically sponsored her nomination.

[xsmommy]

here's an idea, how about you wait til her hearing and let her speak for herself, rather than listen to the people on this board who don't know JACK at this point.

[justshutupandtakeit]

The clearest evidence of her political beliefs is that she is a member of an Evangelical Christian church. I don't know of any liberals in these, do you?

Since Bush has appointed very conservative judges ON THE ADVICE of Harriet why would you have doubts about her?

This is so ridiculous.

[Rodney King]

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

Yes. See my answer in post 137.

[McGavin999]

Ah, I see. Now we can simply do away with all that "innocent until proven guilty" stuff we've slavishly followed for the last 200 plus years and we can move on to the european system where birth and old school mean everything.

Let's just toss that old constitution away and join the libs with their "living document" campaign. It doesn't matter that there is no requirement for a candidate to be a judge, or for that matter even a lawyer, but what did those old fools know. We're modern, we're advanced, let's make serious decisions based on...........nothing.

[traderrob6]

"You have had the evidence. Bush was told in no uncertain terms that elevating his friends would not be considered a wise move. It ticked him off that we hated the idea of Gonzales. Tough. Now he does this, and you think we should hold our fire to see more? By the time some people finally are ready to jump off the bandwagon, it will have already gone over the cliff. Its there now. Come on... jump!"

Told....by whom? are you making this up as you go? Ticked him off eh....you are making this up aren't you.

Your using the nomination in and of itself as evidence of her not being a consistent Scalia/Thomas vote? Cmon, that's a stretch even for the Dims.

[justshutupandtakeit]

If you believe the Perpetually Pissed Off is the "base" you are wrong. Most of these don't care if the nominee gets approved they just what to see a big rhetorical fight with lots of noise and screaming.

After almost five years they haven't figured out that that is not Bush's style.

[LibLieSlayer]

Bingo!!!

LLS

[Rodney King]

Considering his past record on judicial nominess I am willing to give W the benefit of the doubt untill evidence exists to the contrary. Should that happen I'll jump on the bash Bush bandwagon but not sooner.

Well, the problem is that we might not know for a number of years.

[justshutupandtakeit]

His qualification was that Nixon liked him.