Skip to comments.
READ MY LIPS: THOMAS AND SCALIA
Me
| 10-7-02
| Me
Posted on 10/07/2005 8:51:48 PM PDT by Urbane_Guerilla
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 381-392 next last
To: Urbane_Guerilla
She may turn out to be a justice in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. We just don't know enough yet.
2
posted on
10/07/2005 8:54:53 PM PDT
by
West Coast Conservative
(Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.)
To: Urbane_Guerilla
3
posted on
10/07/2005 8:55:24 PM PDT
by
KingKongCobra
(Trying to save the "Donner Party" from themselves.)
To: West Coast Conservative
True - though one could just as easily say that she may turn out not to be.
To: West Coast Conservative
>> We just don't know enough yet. And therein lies the problem. No one is saying she's bad or she's great -- they're saying, "We have NO way of evaluating this person, one way or the other. She has no record we can review, no great deposit of public commentary to reflect her judicial philosophy, etc."
Not so bad for Congress/Senate, where the person can be voted out in 2 or 6 years. Critically important for someone who is about to get a lifetime appointment. When it comes to the Supreme Court, the president -- and the citizenry -- can't afford a mistake.
She could be the next Scalia -- or the next Souter. WE DON'T KNOW. Do we want to roll the dice when it comes to Supreme Court appointments?
5
posted on
10/07/2005 9:00:14 PM PDT
by
NewJerseyJoe
(Rat mantra: "Facts are meaningless! You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!")
To: Urbane_Guerilla
People didn't have much of a clue about Thomas either except that he thought he was a conservative.
He had even less of a judicial paper trail than MsMiers.
6
posted on
10/07/2005 9:01:28 PM PDT
by
quidnunc
(Omnis Gaul delenda est)
To: Urbane_Guerilla
I support President Bush and have confidence in his appointment, because Harriet Miers is a true conservative and pro-life.
During 9/11 I watch firefighters, police, and emergency services workers bravely trying to help each other and America. Also today our brave solders in battle find that their similarities far outweigh their differences. People in the military, people on 9/11 and people on the FreeRepublic.com, are working to serve this great country.
Miers understands the national security implications of some important court cases and will be the swing vote in certain national defense cases.
As great patriots, in fighting this war on terrorism, we need teamwork, because it is absolutely necessary for USA and President Bush to win. We sometimes forget that fact, but, I can't think of any other site, where conservatives of different opinion's are coming together to accomplish a vital national mission. And that takes teamwork. And that's happening with our solders in battle and here on FR. today. We work together, different conservative opinion's, from different backgrounds, and because we are looking out to win this war on terrorism, we should support each other and our President.
Now we are engaged in a great internal and external testing whether that conservatives or any conservatives convictions so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. Let us have conviction that right makes might: and in that conviction, let us to the end, dare to do our duty, as we understand it to be and give moral support to our President.
My God Bless our Troops, God Bless America, God Bless President Bush and God Bless Harriet Miers.
Thanks
7
posted on
10/07/2005 9:01:36 PM PDT
by
FreeRep
To: Urbane_Guerilla
The younger Bush promised a Thomas or Scalia for the same reasons: to tell the believers in constitutional government that supporting him would mean a definitive change in the jurisprudence of this country, jurisprudence which adhered to the basic concepts in our Constitution, not to a sort of current intellectual church of what's happening now. And, for all you know, Harriet Meirs may precisely fit the bill.
I know. I know. The problem is that we don't know, not for sure.
But, so far, President Bush is notable for having done exactly what he has said he would do. There is no evidence that Harriet Meirs isn't more of the same -- the Scalia or Thomas you crave.
I don't like it either. But, based on his history, I'm inclined to trust him. And I can understand why -- given the spineless nature of the GOP's Senate majority -- why he might choose to avoid the fight we're all spoiling for.
In short, if you have to count on John McCain and Lindsay Graham, you're probably going down.
8
posted on
10/07/2005 9:05:22 PM PDT
by
okie01
(The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
To: West Coast Conservative
She may turn out to be a justice in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. We just don't know enough yet. When W made his promise, we knew who Thomas and Scalia were. Their brilliant opinions, their profound understanding of our Constitutional government, were there for all to see.
The betrayal by W has happened now. It does not matter if Miers turns out to be in the mold of Thomas and Scalia. W does not know, and nobody knows, how she will turn out. W is Michael Jackson holding his baby over the railing, and smirking.
The smirk is the elder Bush non-vision thing. Hey, we are dolts! and we defy you! we are rich and privileged! We are Kennebunkport, you are voodoo!
To: FreeRep
No, she won't be.
In fact, those vital, urgent decisions are the very ones from which she will have to recuse herself.
That is, if she has even the faintest conception of judicial ethics and propriety.
To: FreeRep
I'd share a foxhole with you any day!
Don't pay attention to the far right extremists...the same type of people who think the goobers in DU are typical democrats. They've got their crazy uncles and we've got ours.
President Bush has earned the right to nominate anybody he damned well pleases.
He's proven in 5 years, he's got gravitas ...up the whaazooo! ;^)
11
posted on
10/07/2005 9:12:43 PM PDT
by
DCPatriot
("It aint what you don't know that kills you. It's what you know that aint so" Theodore Sturgeon)
To: Urbane_Guerilla
Clarence Thomas wasn't a Scalia either when George H. ("Read My Lips"} Bush picked him. Conservatives called him a lightweight affirmative action candidate who was only picked because GHB wanted to replace a black justice (Thurgood Marshall) with another black.
12
posted on
10/07/2005 9:14:10 PM PDT
by
Hugin
To: West Coast Conservative
And therein lies one (a) the problem.
NO ONE knows...but we would have had a much better idea with a Luttig or Jones.
The GOP has 55 Senators, there is NO REASON Bush couldn't push through Genghis Khan if he wanted to.
Zero leadership.
13
posted on
10/07/2005 9:14:38 PM PDT
by
Sometimes A River
(Serving on a Meals-on-Wheels program is NOT a qualification for a SC nominee. Call your Senators!)
To: Urbane_Guerilla
We need another one of these guys.
14
posted on
10/07/2005 9:17:32 PM PDT
by
Old Seadog
(Birthdays start out being fun. But too many of them will kill you..)
To: Urbane_Guerilla
W does not know, and nobody knows, how she will turn out. W is Michael Jackson holding his baby over the railing, and smirking. The smirk is the elder Bush non-vision thing. Hey, we are dolts! and we defy you! we are rich and privileged! We are Kennebunkport, you are voodoo!
Bush knows. He knows Harriett Miers as well as anyone in the entire world.
Your "smirk" comments are DU-type remarks, and really ought to make you ashamed.
But, I doubt they do, as you despise George W. Bush, and it comes through, loud and clear.
And, yes, you are, indeed, a dolt.
15
posted on
10/07/2005 9:17:53 PM PDT
by
sinkspur
(American Staffordshire Terriers should be bred out of existence.)
To: Urbane_Guerilla
She's not who I would have chosen - But I still have great faith in the President's judgement. I hope it is not misplaced.
16
posted on
10/07/2005 9:19:03 PM PDT
by
LouD
To: Urbane_Guerilla
You have NO idea how she will turn out, and I am wondering why you would post this.
17
posted on
10/07/2005 9:19:12 PM PDT
by
ladyinred
(It is all my fault okay?)
To: Urbane_Guerilla
In the end, one side will be saying "I told you so!"
Depending on which the other side is, it will offer excuses and more convoluted logic, or repeat that "we didn't know at the time, did we?" The time we don't know is now!
18
posted on
10/07/2005 9:19:38 PM PDT
by
Revolting cat!
("In the end, nothing explains anything!")
To: Urbane_Guerilla
Read my lips. You don't know what you are talking about. I trust W over this stupid rant.
19
posted on
10/07/2005 9:21:13 PM PDT
by
John Lenin
(Don't get stuck on stupid, support the President !)
To: Do not dub me shapka broham
Perhaps she will recuse herself from judging the constitutionality 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.
20
posted on
10/07/2005 9:22:00 PM PDT
by
FreeRep
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 381-392 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson