Posted on 10/06/2005 8:54:53 AM PDT by cgk
Edited on 10/06/2005 9:03:34 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
WASHINGTON -- When in 1962 Edward Moore Kennedy ran for his brother's seat in the Senate, his opponent famously said that if Kennedy's name had been Edward Moore, his candidacy would have been a joke. If Harriet Miers were not a crony of the president of the United States, her nomination to the Supreme Court would be a joke, as it would have occurred to no one else to nominate her.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Nice spelling. It's "Slouching Towards Gommorah". Uh-yup!
No one gives a damn that she's a woman. She was way down below many other good possibilities of both sexes.
And no one gives a damn where she went to law school. It's what she's done, or rather hasn't done, since then.
"Flying through space ain't like dusting crops, boy" -- and there's more to being on the Supreme Court than being loyal to GWB, and Harriet Miers is not the Luke Skywalker of lawyers.
I have to disagree with Krauthammer on this one. She made a half a million dollar salary as a partner of hug law firm in Texas. That has to count for something. Besides that, I do have some beefs with the selection though.
No. I think they should have waited for the process to work it's magic, instead of drawing fire prematurely.
Please. It has nothing to do with envy.
Quite the contrary
I want to see the MOST QUALIFIED conservative, originalist nominated.
Maybe if you sat down and kept your yap shut, let the process go forth, instead of throwing out the nominee without knowing anything about her, you might find out she is a qualified Conservative. Those who know her, have said she's both Conservative and an Originalist.
Quite simply, you don't know her. You're problem, not mine.
Actually, I don't . . . but I'm awfully curious! ;-)
There is NO mention of the word merit in the definition of elite...
Personally I believe the woman does have merit. Do you deny that she does?..and on what grounds?
Nope... I respect their opinions and they may be right.
Like I said, I don't agree with everything the President does, but I'm trusting him on this nomination.
The case could be made about the Miers' critics, you too perhaps.
Nevertheless, would you do me the favor of pointing me towards the particular writing to which you refer when making this assertion?
No, I'm not here to do your web searches for you.
You are.
Perhaps we need to change our motto to "In Ivy Leagers Only Do We Trust."
Ken Starr.
On what grounds? Please highlight the ones that distinguish her over other well-known originalist jurists and thinkers.
I'll spot you the "Bush likes her" reason, so you can move right to your second ground for support.
And for the record, you bear the burden of proof here. Not those of us who aren't convinced. We don't have to prove she doesn't have merit. You have to show us. Unless you uncritically swalllow every single utterance, burp or fart that this President emits. And I like the man, but geez. Come on.
As one of those "elites", I would seriously doubt most of the clasmates since they proudly bear the liberal label. Book smarts does not equal intelligence.
You may not, but the beltway egos do. Read what they have said. The snobbery is obvious.
Ken Starr.
Yes. Perhaps. I've never suggested otherwise.
No, I'm not here to do your web searches for you.
Uh-huh. OK. Just thought you might have it handy. Save some time between pals and all that. But if I waste my time and discover that you're misrepresenting Bork's views on the 2nd Amendment, I'm coming back here looking for you. Capiche? :)
FRegards...
Why don't you give HER a hearing before spouting off. No reason to believe she is any less able than Rehnquist.
Good summation.
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.