Posted on 10/09/2005 3:28:25 PM PDT by Pukin Dog
Thank you for making this point!!
Out of curiosity, why is that?
Law firms always give to both parties. It's called hedging your bet. Contributions from corporate America are akin to protection money. There is plenty out there to cause doubt about Miers, but I don't think this is it.
He was recruited by Harry Reed and the DNC despite his being pro-life (a Socialist otherwise.) The DNC and the Governor, Ed Rendell (former head of DNC) courted him and promised unlimited funds to take on Santorum. He will not only have all the Dimwit votes from Philly but all the manufactured ones they can make from the dead and non-existant come election day. I seriously doubt that Santorum can win since there will be a huge defection of pro-life Democrats in W. PA, his conservative base is p.o.'d at him over Specter-Toomey and with Rendell running for governor again, they will have the machine cranked up churning out those votes by the millions. Once Philly turns in a certain #, it's not possible to win if everyone else in the rest of the state votes for you. Every election cycle the number of people living in Philly gets smaller and the number of registered votes gets higher. In '04, they reached and exceeded the possible number of living voters just like some of the Ohio counties did. It won't stop them from manufacturing some more for '06 unfortunately.
The sad fact is that these weasels will hold up a SC vote because they want more aid for Louisiana or Mississippi, or a rainforest dome in Iowa, or any number of other issues. The only people hey are afraid of are their constituents or the liberal press.
So if you string a few opii together you got yourself an opera? Live and learn.
That is where we can make a difference.
"Law firms always give to both parties. It's called hedging your bet. "
So you're telling me she and her firm hedged their bets. Wonder who's side she would have been on if Gore had won. I suppose she would have stayed at Locke Liddell and sucked up to the Dems even more. I am glad to hear Miers hedges her bets. Thanks for bringing that to our attention.
Actually, that's a great question which goes to the heart of our present crisis.
US Senators, for the most part, come from the non-producing upper class. They either inherited money, or made money nonproductively (in finance, for example).
They all, or almost all, went to elite schools and all of their friends are members of the social and political elite (the rare exception, like Coburn, proves the rule).
This elite non-producing class has certain common prejudices and beliefs. Of all of them sexual "freedom" and the corollary "right" to kill undesired babies is one of the strongest.
The Democratic senators don't need any discipline. Their side, the death side, is what they all believe already.
The Republicans, however, have depended on pro-life votes for their seats. Most of them who say they are committed to pro-life justices are lying.
They therefore have a strong (or very strong) incentive not to vote.
There are not 20 Senators who would vote to confirm a pro-life nominee, IF their vote was #51.
I seem to recall reading of a number of Justice Department investigations into voting "irregularities" going on quietly. I wonder if PA is among them.
Thanks again for the info!
Your welcome. Not just Miers though, ALL lawyers. That's why we hate them and our government is so screwed up. It's run mostly, by lawyers.
Maybe Rudy said no, but Kristol was on TV right before Bush's speech swearing that it would be Guiliani. I was quite pleased to see Ridge named just to see Kristol's grin wiped off his face.
1) I have no evidence she is an originalist.
2) IF, as said, he has calculated he cannot appoint the BEST people for the position because they are known Strict Constructionists the weasels are threatening to refuse, and IF we have Senators attempting to protect terrorist rights which we do, and IF we have Senators trying to withdraw us prematurely from Iraq which we DO, and IF we have Senators trying to hike our taxes which we DO, and IF we have Senators trying to slowly contrict all free speech which we DO Etc etc ...
You expose them NOW while the President is STILL standard bearer of the Party before real jockeying begins in fall '06-'07, on a topic HE has the advantage of strength on.
Two years from now he will be weaker then he is now, and that is when the traitors will pounce and our country is in true jeopardy at that point in the WOT if Iraq is not stabilized because I guarentee moves will be made to deny funding at that point. They need to be exposed now.
You've lost your marbles. Next thing you know you'll be praising Osama.
You're welcome. Just to clarify, "status quo" in my comment referred to age old society, not to the present subversion of the Constituion practiced by the current ruling class.
I found this interesting article on powerlineblog.com. It was written by Huge Hewitt. Good advice for us here to consider. Read this:
I'm glad to see Hugh Hewitt emphasize the need for mutual respect among conservatives in the Miers debate. The Bush "loyalists" and others who support the Miers selection should respect the right of disappointed conservatives to forcefully air their critique. Not only is this their right, but such commentary provides useful feedback to the administration about the sentiments of a portion of its supporters. At the same time, the critics should respect the expectation of the loyalists that the vote on Miers not be driven by disappointment or punitive considerations, but rather by an open-minded assessment of the options.
Finally, both sides should respect the good faith of the other, as we all try to sort through this messy situation. Not everyone who undertakes an open-minded assessment will reach the same conclusion, and it's fine to criticize reasoning and conclusions with which one takes issue. But calling fellow conservatives toadies, bed-wetters, or elitists, or telling them to just shut up, is immature and unhelpful. Let's leave that sort of thing to the left.
Bork thinks that RKBA is outdated, so I have read. I also consider him to be a believer in the idea that government can take a large role in ordering society. Otherwise, he may understand rather well the responsibilities of a Supreme Court Justice. But if I am correct on my first 2 objections, then he is not qualified in my book, fwiw.
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.