Posted on 10/07/2005 4:19:05 PM PDT by Burr5
Yes, she'll be a big help. She seen it from the inside. Perhaps she will recuse herself from judging the constitutionality of some of these war decisions. These are crucial years, in the war on terror, and some of those national security court cases will be new and she will be the swing vote for national defense.
Your post makes no sense whatsoever. About as much sense as saying that Ann Coulter really like's Bush's nomination if I look at her archives of columns that support some of Bush's other positions.
"That's fine. I, however, do not make my desicions based on who is on TV."
Well, as much as I frequently agree with your opinions, it appears this time you are making YOUR decision based on trusting Bush, which is about as bad as basing it on whose on TV. Bush Sr. appointed Souter. Reagan appointed O'Connor (against the advice of many of his conservative advisors). Anyone can make a mistake, especially when there is no constitutional law track record anywhere to be seen. Just hope you are guessing right here, as it truly is just a guess, isn't it. Even Bush Jr. is just guessing, as there is no record to look at, just his "gut" instinct.
I've decided I don't want to let this sit, either.
This argument has nothing to do with Coulter's argument and everything to do with trying to discount it. You absolutely would not let a liberal get away with making a group identification argument like this. No Freeper would.
Agism. A hundred years ago, 50 was old. In any case, look closely at the fact that Miers' mother is in her 90s and that Miers is a bachelor girl who lives a very temperate life. Quite likely she will be a lot like Stevens, who ay 85 is still not "old" as Thurgood Marshall was "old " The odds are that she will last as long as Sandra Day, who is quitting at 75.
This is my opinion, but formulated far better than I ever could.
Yep.
Miss Marple is absolutely correct. Ann Coulter is too young to know what it took for a woman to get where Harriet Miers got. She has no idea the kind of courage it took to go up against a man's world. Coulter had her way paved for her by women like Miers. Not the loud mouthed bra burners, but the quiet workers who got ahead by the brilliance of their mind and their ability to work rings around everyone else.
How does that qualify Miers for the Supreme Court?
The constitution wasn't written for elitists, it was written so the average American can clearly understand it. It has become complicated because elitists with no practical real world experience have been interpreting it according to "their" understanding. They have never had to live with the consequences of their rulings, they have no idea how it impacts on the lives of people. Harriet Miers has worked for a living, she's had to meet payrolls, she's had to deal with clients who are trying to function under the constraints the courts have imposed on them. I would say she is far and away more qualified than any of the people who have been slamming her.
Whether she is qualified for the USSC I can not say because she has not uttered a single word to the judicial committee yet, so I am reserving judgement on her.
However, I am no longer reserving judgement on the pundits who have been running off at the mouth lately. Their dispicable behavior has shown me just what they really are and what they really think of not only Miers, but the rest of us as well. If you don't belong to the "inner circle" you aren't cut from the right stuff.
i like.
Ditto!
Yeah, more cowbell!
My comments on Krauthammer were based on what I heard him say in the immediate aftermath of the hurricane. The column you quote is a refined version of his column. In the aftermath of the hurricane, Krauthammer was griping that the president didn't mount a massive PR campaign. Well, too bad. He was busy getting relief in and STILL dealing with a governor who wouldn't ask for federalization of the guard.
I just heard Krauthammer again on a Fox replay, concerning this Supreme Court pick, and once again he uses words like "small" . He says he isn't being an elitist, and then proceeds to be just that.
It is not my inclination nor do I have the time this morning to personally refute everything you wrote. I will say this; as a group, the pundits have disappointed me by shooting from the hip before they have even heard the woman. Those who have worked with her professionally, like Ken Starr, seem to think this is excellent choice.
And I stand by my comment about Ann Coulter. Coulter's insults about this woman were crude and demonstrated a lack of appreciation for Mier's accomplishments. Whether you consider her one of our best pundits or not, she was part of the mix.
So, should the nominee have been Luttig, for example, could you guarantee he wouldn't have gone native once ensconced on the court, like Kennedy or O'Connor? No.
I want to hear her testimony. If she is incompetent or appears to be liberal, I will withdraw my support.
In my view is an honest expression (as is IMO or IMHO). All of these things are our opinions, and there is no universal truth that jumps out at us.
That being the case, I see nothing in the record of this candidate that disqualifies her, a lot that qualifies her, a lot that puts her above a vast majority of other female lawyers, and a lot that has her above many other lawyers in federal service. (Jaime Gorelick for example.)
I've run across no one who has yet supplied the name of a female, conservative lawyer with her credentials. And her credentials top those of a Hillary Clinton, a Jaime Gorelick, and a Ruth Bader Ginsberg who was simply an aclu lawyer.
In my view is an honest expression (as is IMO or IMHO). All of these things are our opinions, and there is no universal truth that jumps out at us.
That being the case, I see nothing in the record of this candidate that disqualifies her, a lot that qualifies her, a lot that puts her above a vast majority of other female lawyers, and a lot that has her above many other lawyers in federal service. (Jaime Gorelick for example.)
I've run across no one who has yet supplied the name of a female, conservative lawyer with her credentials. And her credentials top those of a Hillary Clinton, a Jaime Gorelick, and a Ruth Bader Ginsberg who was simply an aclu lawyer. (And who was Clinton's Attorney General....Waco Reno...)
It's very simple here in MA.. All we have to do is wait to see what our senators (Fat Teddy and John Heinz-Kerry), think about Harriet and then take the opposite view. Her being outted as a Christian (Horrors!), should be enough for the dems to reach for garlic and a wooden stake and mallet, but who knows.
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.