Posted on 10/05/2005 12:57:14 PM PDT by 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?
I agree 100%. Never another dime. Except, of course, I am fortunate to have Coburn as my Senator.
There we differ, Color me a results orientated conservative then.
btw....Goldbergs ananlogy of Miers and an intern is the height of itellectual dishonesty and he should be ashamed
That is not true. His input is not public for one. How he would support an Evangelical Christian is beyond me to believe. Her church's beliefs are more Pro-life than most of the Freepers. This does not pass the smell test.
She spends much time with the family at both the Ranch, and at Camp David. She is far from a "business" associate.
LLS
I understand what you are saying. I think the answer is really one of leadership. Reagan was able to build a grand coalition. HW sort of blew it. W rebuilt it, and is now squandering it by being a weak leader. Which is surprising because his main appeal to me originally was that he was a strong leader.
The various factions of GOPers are held together by strong leadership that proposed bold initiatives regarding our shared goals.
LoL. Come on now do you want the number of post to drop by about 90%? Knowing Jack will severely impact FR. Personally I would rather get to know Jill.
I know plenty of contract lawyers who are liberals. Their view on contract law is how to squirm around contracts to get the desired result. I am not saying Meirs is that way, just saying that her contract law background doesn't mean much.
"Well, the problem is that we might not know for a number of years."
Doubt it, you may know a lot more in a few weeks. My guess is with the soon to be expidited number of cases facing SCOTUS and she's confirmed you'll know for sure in a year.
I am from NY and went to JAX Florida in 2004. I loved the people down there. Great people! Anyways, there were three things I heard over and over and over from everyone to a tee.
1. Bush was way better than Kerry on the WOT;
2. Bush was needed because of the SC picks;
3. Immigration is out of F$%% control and GWB has made it way worse than before.
After 9/11, there is no excuse for his non-action on the border.
And if she takes the Ginsburg-Robert play of not answering any substantial questions, what will we have learned?
I do not believe there is enough evidence either way to suggest a conclusion as to whether she is or not.
There is slight evidence based on the recommendation of the President, active participation in a Biblical Faith, a few statements about gun rights and pro-life positions that she will not be a Souter or an O'Connor by intention. Meaning, I am willing to grant the possibility she may be a "yes" vote on the Thomas and Scalia aisle in some known instances. But granting that possibility largely on Faith in this President, and I will give him that limb, Conservative Christians are not in agreement on all issues.
What about less contentious constitutional issues to the public a large? Remove the 2A and R v. W from consideration. Remove possibly to spare argument gay marriage or assisted suicide. Even give the benefit of the doubt on Kelo.
I know next to nothing about her approach to law. My consideration is not a "yes" vote on the hot issues of the day, nor is her purpose to look over the shoulder of Scalia and Thomas to render a verdict. I need insight into her understanding of the Constitution, the law, the Framers and so on to render a verdict on whether she is a originalist, Constitutionist or Strict Constructionist.
-The three are not the same, though they are used as shorthand to denote interpretation of the Constitution.
To have security the finer points of the law we'll never discuss will be well handled. These Justices set precedent at will, absolutely, but it is harder to justify poor precedent if the reasoning for made prior judgments is sound in law. To date, no one can defend R V W legally and that has hurt the R.v.W supporters. Is Miers up to being not only able to vote appropriately, but pen judgments that even the most activist of Liberals would have difficulty arguing against? We don't know. Her record suggests she is not incompetant, but it does not suggest she can rise to the challenges I cite either which is why i do not feel she was most qualified for this position and am disappointed.
Certainly, the possibility she is competant to this high standard is a possibility even if, imo, her record doesn't show it. But if so, it is in her corner to convince at her hearing or the administration to provide samplings of detailed writings that can calm on this score.
And, as another note, Thomas and Scalia often rule together but they do not approach the Constitution in the same way.
Appreciated.
You are right there, but last I checked conservatives didn't want judges who legislated from the bench. What are her beliefs on constitutional law, how it has evolved, how much she values precedent, etc.?
The more I think about Ms. Mier's nomination, I think Bush did not have faith in his Senate RINO's so he put an unknown up even to them.
Well that's true of all SC nominees. As Coulter loves to point out, Souter had better credentials as conservative justice than John Roberts.
Now that I think of it, she was the one who was complaining that Roberts was a sure-fire conservative vote on the court. Now Bush has picked a gun-toting, anti-abortion, evangelical Christian who put all the justices Coulter liked in front of Bush, and she's mad because Southern Methodist University (on of the top Texas schools) isn't a North Eastern blue-blood obediance training schools.
Conservatives just cannot mentally and emotionally accept it when they win. They always think it's a trick.
Don't disagree, and your right, Thomas and Scalia often take different roads but end up in the same location.
What are you talking about? Innocent until proven guilty applies to courts of law where the state has the power to take away someones freedoms.
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.
Still, I have no idea what you are talking about. Try making your case without putting words in my mouth.
The issue is getting originalists on the Supreme Court.
I could care less if we get to make the dems lose a confirmation war or not. If we get them on, then they lost that battle.
The eventual originalizing of the court is the war.
If "she reads the constitution as she reads her bible in a vernacular, fundamentalist way" you won't be unhappy.
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.