Posted on 10/05/2005 12:57:14 PM PDT by jmaroneps37
It is our duty as conservatives and Republicans to point out how unqualified this lady is.
***
Your premise is flawed, or at least unproven. Is she qualified? Not if you demand an ivy league education and a paper trail. But if you want a Rehnquist, she fits that mold pretty well, as far as we know so far.
However, the fact that Levin says that Kennedy lied to him proves that vetting of people who are "accomplished" doesn't seem to be very reliable. I am certain Mr. Levin asked lots of questions, but it still didn't predict the liberal trend Kennedy's thoughts would take.
It seems to me working closely with someone for almost 10 years would give a person a better idea of a candidate's character. You would be able to pick up things that aren't readily ascertainable in an interview...like whether or not the person likes to be the center of attention at parties, whether the person is intimidated by famous names, the person's work ethic and honesty, etc.
Those are things that are pretty hard to determine in an interview, and I think they are characteristics that often account more for weird turns in a justice's legal opinions than is realized.
No, the liberals have "evangelicals" too.
I restated what you, yourself had stated; repeatedly.
You have done nothing but lie about what I said and attack me.
I'm not even a Miers "supporter"; I'm waiting to see what comes out about her, before I decide.
You might want to go to DU, where your kind of names calling and attacks on people who never said what you imagine they did, is the norm.
President Bush is my president and I don't care to hear baseless attacks on him, his character, his strength, his intellegence and his lack of consulting with the elites before he chooses a nominee for the Court.
If you don't like it, don't read my comments.
Some like showing their superiority to the President and to suggest that Roberts was a good choice for the Court just ruins their whole day.
I agree with your point completely. Bush knows exectly what she thinks about Schaivo, Abortion and pretty much everything. He was even carefull to dodge the abortion question during the presser and only admit to not talking about Roe ( why talk about that if you already *know* the underlying situation). I pointed out your point and the following point to Levin also.
This is not likely a Souter who came in under different circumstances. And remember, you dont do a math undergrad, study diffy Q's, linear algebra and analytical calc and not have a logical mind. I bet she would run rings around ole buzzy ginberger in a venn diagram contest (which is important in the law)
I have known you for years around FR. You usually have cogent arguments and are extremely pleasant--especially for a freeper.
Last night you were off a bit on that part of your game and I hope Levin takes you in the full context of your YEARS of posting on FR.
Me too. Morris was good, Levin couldn't get past "holdonnow!! holdonnow!! holdonnow!! holdonnow!! holdonnow!! holdonnow!! holdonnow!! holdonnow!! holdonnow!! holdonnow!! holdonnow!! holdonnow!! holdonnow!! holdonnow!! holdonnow!! holdonnow!! holdonnow!! holdonnow!! holdonnow!! holdonnow!! holdonnow!! holdonnow!!"
Jay Sekulow spoke highly of her yesterday. He knows her well and believes she'll do a fine job. I value his judgement. I was worried at first, but Bush has always picked conservative judges and he knows her best. I don't believe he's turned his back on us now.
I agree!
Cool.
BTW, head on over to "Blogger & Personal" to have a look at my cartoon for today. It's a Miers 'toon sort of describing my own feelings on the matter. Pardon the shameless advertising.
Rehnquist came onto the court over 30 years, prior to RvW and a number of other decisions that have seriously eroded the fabric of our country. Justices are appealing to foreign law. Judicial tyranny has run wild. We cannot afford someone simply because she is a friend of the President anymore. In addition, conservatives had fought long and hard for a chance to change this court. I am unwilling to trust such a big decision to any one man. F
What IS true is that because she is a friend of the President and he has worked with her for a long time, he is dead certain about how she feels about the Constitution and the role of the judiciary. He knows she is an originalist, he knows that she has the temperment suitable for a jusge, and he knows she is an ethical person.
That is why she was nominated, not because she was his friend. If he wanted to nominate a friend he could have picked Don Evans.
LOL....Guess Levin has his own reality too.
Levin is a bully, best ignore his rants and just post your opinions. They certainly just as valid than anything he has to say.
W gave her the 20 year vet. Seems to be compatible with those who want more vetting and deeper vetting.
Many supposedly highly qualified nominees have proven untrustworthy-- Souter, Kennedy come to mind. President Bush knows this candidate. The decision is not entrusted to one man. The senate will hold hearings on her confirmation.
SO FAR, I have seen NO EVIDENCE that I should NOT Trust Him.
He's Kept his Promises to Date...
I Think we should, "Wait & See!!"
Doc
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.