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 read a theory the other day that Tony Snow and Mark Levin are going overboard on their dislike of the Miers nomination because Snow really went to bat for Souter while working for the Bush41 term and got screwed and Levin went to bat for Kennedy and got burned."
Wow. It would explain Levin's vitriol here on FR last night whenever Kennedy was mentioned.
With a frying pan, apparently.
I have changed my mind on Miers too. I think Miers is going to be a reliable Scalia faction voter. She likely won't be writing a ton of opinions, but she isn't going to pull any Souters or O'Connors either.
You have confused blustering to the peanut gallery with actual opposition. Rush and company, as well as many liberals, will end up voting for her. She may do even better than Roberts.
Let's remember how well he vetted Kennedy. Some expert.
Here are some groups supporting her:
Several groups, including National Right to Life, Focus on the Family, and the Christian Coalition, American Center for Law & Justice, have endorsed Miers' nomination after reports surfaced showing she's pro-life.
I think the fact that Bush has worked with Miers and personally knows knows her says more than an impersonal vetting process.
Just look at Souter and Kennedy to see that lying to get the job or relying on recommendations from acquaitences is more risky.
After all, who would think that mild manner, thoughtful, quiet spoken people like Levin would want to fight rather than reason.
The best evidence I've seen that she would be an originalist is from Hecht the associate justice on the Texas Supreme Court who attends the same church and has dated her off and on. He stated very strongly that she is an originalist. But with no paper trail it's hard to know for certain.
Yes, and that's going to haunt him next month when he is voting against her for being a whacko evangelical christian extremist.
I've worked with many people for 20 years - none of them "know me". its a business relationship that they have - she works for Bush.
Plenty of conservatives support the President's choice and have spoken up for her. 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.
I hated the pick at first. But she seems a sensible lady with good values and who will be a realiable vote. Bush could have done better with this whole process, but she'll do. I wish he would have found a 40-year old Harriet, except I think they stopped using that name in the 1950's.
I note that she has pulled ahead of the no votes on the poll, even among members.
This is one poll where I wish people could change their votes once a day, it would be interesting to see how the feelings of the group are changing over time, if at all.
Kool-aid, get's you everytime. Anyone supporting Morris over Levin on issuing invovling the Supreme Court, is just plain crazy or anti-US Constitution.
Rehnquist received a B.A., M.A., and LL.B. from Stanford University and an M.A. from Harvard University. He served as a law clerk for Justice Robert H. Jackson of the Supreme Court of the United States during the 1951 and 1952 terms, and practiced law in Phoenix, Arizona from 1953–1969. He served as Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel from 1969–1971.
Then in 71 he was nominated by Nixon for the Supreme Court. I wonder if many conservatives objected then on the same grounds as Miers today. Can't say that I blame them either, considering how some recent justices eventually turned out. I'm hoping Miers is just another Bush misunderestimation. And I keep going back to the fact that Cheney was once the one vetting candidates and then became the candidate himself, at Bush's request, and he's been a great VP.
"I have a tremendous ammount of repect from Levin, that being said he was the one responsible for vetting Kennedy."
Are you kidding? Wow! Well, I'm pleased to learn that several groups, including National Right to Life, Focus on the Family, and the Christian Coalition, and American Center for Law and Justice have endorsed Miers' nomination after reports surfaced showing she's pro-life.
It is when unsupported with evidence, but it may be accurate. For example, her advocacy thatthe entire membership of the ABA vote on the pro-choisce resolution instead of having the position asserted by the ABA policy board resembles advocating a legislative policy-making having priority over judicial policy-making.
I'm uneasy with the nomination more because it looks like cronyism (even if she is exactly what conservatives would want in a judge) and it subordinates a dialoge about constitutional principle to a dialogue about "stealth," than because of concern about her likely jurisprudence.
Reagan nominated O'Connor, so that he would be the first president to place a woman on the SCOTUS.
Kennedy was a pig in a poke, after Bork was "BORKED" and the second nominee, Ginsburg ( yes, another one; this one was a man ) was found to have spent the '70s smoking pot, as a college prof. Kennedy was supposedly a "safe" nomination and you have NO knowledge that he "lied".
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.