Posted on 10/08/2005 3:00:04 PM PDT by AntiGuv
The best I could do with Miers is 75%. She appears too much of a politically correct winnie who willing compromises her conservative principles.
Hmm.. 75% would put her just to the left of Kennedy (for recent years) and a bit more than that to the right of O'Connor. Lemme think about it.
Well, I have a $100 bet riding on Roberts and am more than willing to place one on Miers too. Any takers? The bet is whether Roberts/Miers will be in full agreement with either Thomas or Scalia in 90% of rulings this next year. I say no. For Miers, we'd need to go with the 06-07 session.I'm not interested in a money bet. How about a bet like this:
Same conditions as you propose but the stakes are different:
The loser must publicly eat their words here on FR. And do it in a detailed manner. Must re-post their original arguments (or summary thereof) and then a full confession of how wrong they were.
In other words, the loser must publicly eat crow.
I won't even wait for you to agree to it. I say right here, I will do it. And I hope people on the other side will do it too.
Well there are a lot of honest folks here at FR, so I expect a few people to admit they spoke too soon, especially after Roberts & Miers vote against legalization of gay marraige.
Alright. That works for me!
OK, I would do 80% for Miers, but I'm disinclined to bet on 75%. My basic contention is that I think Miers will end up in the vicinity of O'Connor, and O'Connor drifts up and down in the 70s percentiles (of full agreement with Scalia or Thomas) and some years nudging into the low 80s. So, how about 80%?
I suggest you do a little history review and during that review you might want to brush up a bit on how things work, why they work, and how long it takes things to happen. Your grasp of what is important, why it is important, and what is likely to happen because of it seem to be in need of a little tune up.
ok. it's a bet.
Loser eats crow on FR.
Is Roberts going to vote more or less often than Miers with Scalia?
#####I suspect that a string of "social-conserative" SC rulings is about to start a process of gradually splitting off large numbers of "independent" and "moderate" voters (and especially women) from the Republican party in much the same way that the "civil rights" decisions of the 50s ad 60s eventually separated southern "Regan Republicans" from the Democrats.#####
That won't happen. It's just liberal media agitprop. There is a conservative majority in America on virtually every social issue. In fact, there are more Democrats who break from their party on abortion, gay issues, and other social areas than Republicans. Look at Florida, where Bush beat Kerry by about seven points but a pro-life ballot proposition (parental notification) won by 30 points. Or the eleven statewide referenda on gay "marriage", where the conservative side won by a wide margin (in some cases over 70% of the vote) while President Bush carried those states by much less of a margin, or even lost the state (Oregon).
Conclusion: The public is far closer to the GOP position on controversial social issues than the Democrat position. Taking these issues from the court and putting them in the political arena will help the GOP, not hurt it.
The Democrats know this. It's why they're so desperate to keep these issues in the hands of the judiciary. Their assertions that the GOP would be hurt by overturning Roe, etc. are just agitprop to scare the Republicans out of doing it.
That's a tough one! But my guess is more often, at least once the respective justices settle into the Court. I think Roberts is gonna end up somewhere between Rehnquist & Kennedy whereas I think Miers is gonna end up somewhere between Kennedy and O'Connor.
I agree with you as a guess, but not on Roe. She will vote no on Roe, or chop away at it. My guess is that she will vote much like O'Connor, not very ideological and results oriented, and pro states rights. Roberts will vote much closer to how I would vote, is what is in my crystal ball.
As a general rule, state rights will probably be the key insofar as how much the justices correlate with one another. That is a key distinction between Scalia and Thomas, by example: Scalia votes to uphold state rights when it achieves the result he wants; Thomas votes to uphold state rights just about whenever he can plausibly justify it. Other distinctions, of course, are that Thomas disregards precedent and that Thomas does not read qualifiers into the text of the 1st Amendment as Scalia does. When Thomas sees "no law" he reads it as "no law"; when Scalia sees "no law" he reads it as "no law, except..."
LOL! If the name fits wear it. And I'll say it loud and clear. I'm fed up with Bush.
You obviously haven't been reading the scathing condemnation of everyone on FR that disagrees with this choice. Freepers have condemned Limbaugh, Malkin, Will, Coulter and others as elitists because they dare to point out there were much better qualified picks than Miers. Freepers defending Bush's choice on this reflexively in the face of widespread condemnation from conservatives deserve to be called Bushbots. Are you a Bushbot? Sounds like it.
I suggest you grow up.
I take that as a yes.
Then you would be wrong. I just hate to see people come on an make stupid arguments like "neener neener, you are a bushbot" and think they are somehow contributing to the discussion. But then, that isn't your goal, is it?
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.