Posted on 10/12/2005 12:26:51 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite
You either are thinking of someone else or are lying.
It would behoove you to correct the record as you and I never had an exchange where I said I would not post to you.
Why on earth would I do that? What would I have said to elicit such an extreme response? The answer is it simply didn't happen.
From what I've read on some threads, you'd have had to had Kennedy and Souter hooked up to a lie-detector!
"I trust President Bush and he trust us."
"So do you prefer the red Kool aid or the Purple?"
Neither. That's the eubonics Kool aid.
So it comes back again not to why we would have rather had someone else, but to the question of why she should be considered unacceptable. In other words, what has she done that disqualifies her from serving on the supreme court?
We wouldn't have nominated her and we have lots of reasons for that which can be shared with our Senators. At the same time, I'm not sure any of the reasons we wouldn't have nominated her are valid reasons to deny her confirmation. We don't know how she'll vote. She may not agree with us in crucial areas. But I can't think of a reason she couldn't serve.
F = 7 subjected to failed cloture motions in 108th Congress
4 = "1 of 4" that DEMs offered to let GOP choose which 3 to dump
S = Positive mention in Specter's May 9, 2005 speech
M = MOU of 14 will not vote against cloture
m = MOU of 14 makes no promise regarding cloture
R = Post-MOU, Reid indicates desire to filibuster
C = Out of committee & on the Senate's Executive Calendar
U = Unanimous consent to debate - date TBD
D = Democrats offer to debate - date TBD
v = Debate and vote scheduled
V = Vote -on the nomination- concluded
--S -- C-- Boyle, Terrence W. (4th Cir)
--- -R --- Haynes, William James II (4th Cir)
F4S M- CUV Owen, Priscilla (5th Cir)
F-S -- CUV Griffin, Richard A. (6th Cir)
F-S -- CUV McKeague, David W. (6th Cir)
--S -- -D- Neilson, Susan Bieke (6th Cir)
F-- mR --- Saad, Henry W. (6th Cir)
F4S mR C-- Myers, William Gerry III (9th Cir)
F4S M- CUV Pryor, William H. (11th Cir)
F4S M- CUV Brown, Janice Rogers (D.C. Cir)
--S -- CUV Griffith, Thomas B. (D.C. Cir)
--- -R --- Kavanaugh, Brett M. (D.C. Cir)
Last updated, June 21, 2005
Owen: Cloture passed 81-18 on May 24. Confirmed 55-43 on May 25.
Brown: Cloture passed 65-32 on June 7. Confirmed 56-43 on June 8.
Pryor: Cloture passed 67-32 on June 8. Confirmed 53-45 on June 9.
Griffin: Confirmed 95-0 on June 9.
McKeague: Confirmed 96-0 on June 9.
Griffith: Confirmed 73-24 on June 14.
Myers: Out of Committee on March 17.
Boyle: Out of Committee on June 16.
Coulter's mewling on FOX.
great post!
as ive always said:
vote for dems-- pushing the fast forward button to socialism
vote for repubs-- a small yet ineffective brake on socialism
now when you see conservative congressmen like pence and tancredo, men who have 98-100 ratings with the american conservative union-- being taken to the woodshed by this WH-- you know something's not right with this picture.
And why do people think it would be any different with Miers???
Was Dobson telling the truth when he said the list intentionally excluded men?
He spoke as one who has known and worked with her for well over a decade, who has played host to her when she has been a Federalist Society speaker, and -- perhaps most significant -- who joined her in a battle to get the American Bar Association to rescind its resolution endorsing Roe v. Wade , the decision establishing a right to abortion.
I highlighted her speaking before them, I obviously was aware the ABA has taken stances before and Miers evidently was not for endorsing such.
BTW, remember the brouhaha over Roberts being listed one year on the Federalist Society roster and saying he didn't remember ever being a member?
Thanks. I was probably remembering four confirmed in a cluster.
She'll be on Hannity and Homely tonight. Is she still demanding that Bush be impeached?
Moot point; I was responding to a poster who said if genuine questions could be asked and answered, we wouldn't have Kennedy and Souter. As it is, we have the Ginsburg-Roberts method.
http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-oppin044453943oct04,0,2335099.column?coll=ny-viewpoints-headlines
And:
She also said during her sworn testimony that she would not join an organization like the Federalist Society, a group of conservative intellectuals that is a leading proponent of a strict - and some say narrow - interpretation of the Constitution.
"I just feel like it's better not to be involved in organizations that seem to color your view one way or the other for people who are examining you," she said.
Chief Justice John Roberts caused a flap earlier this year by insisting he was not a Federalist Society member, even though records listed him in the group's leadership directory in the late 1990s.
Gene Meyer, president of the Federalist Society, said he wouldn't confirm whether Miers was a member, because it's "up to members themselves to say." But he said Miers has spoken to the group's Washington chapter since she became White House counsel.
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/12836996.htm
bump...I smelled a rat with the whole Dobson story...we need to see who the liar was and make sure we give them lots of publicity.
What a lack of respect they have for Dobson to think he would be gullible enough to believe that line.
I highlighted her speaking before them, I obviously was aware the ABA has taken stances before and Miers evidently was not for endorsing such.
For the bold stuff, which isn't your words, an accurate presentation expresses the grounds for her objection to the resolution. Those grounds were that she though such a hot-button issue required the vote of the entire membership of the ABA in order to be valid - it may have passed, maybe not - but it certainly was going to be passed by ABA leadership. I applaud her sense of wanting to put a divisive issue before the entire membership. But I don't attribute any personal position to her, beyond the desire to have all members vote. She's never expressed a personal position on the matter, instead we have to rely on testimonials from others. I find those testimonials weak, personally.
As for Miers speaking before the FedSoc, you must know thatteh FedSoc welcomes and invites people from the full spectrum of political thought. I arranged Josh Sugarman to participate in a FedSoc sponsored debate.
BTW, remember the brouhaha over Roberts being listed one year on the Federalist Society roster and saying he didn't remember ever being a member?
The brouhaha can be addressed with facts. The mission of the FedSoc is not sinister. The FedSoc is apolitical.
The ABA is NOT apolitical. The ABA advocates advancing certain social change, typically via legislation or legislative interpretation.
dobson isnt a liar-- he's being used.
Nah. She was more subdued today, but still insistent that she was too flattering to Harriet Miers last week. She said we should be getting the "big onchilada."
(her pronunciation, not my spelling. :))
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.