To: Howlin; All
I wonder if some people has read the Constitution about the requirements for a Supreme Court nonimnee?? It looks like they haven't...
38 posted on
10/12/2005 4:35:18 PM PDT by
KevinDavis
(the space/future belongs to the eagles --> http://www.cafepress.com/kevinspace1)
To: KevinDavis; Howlin
I wonder if some people has read the Constitution about the requirements for a Supreme Court nonimnee?? It looks like they haven't... Good point. Because, as you point out, Ann clearly states that Miers isn't at all eligible to be nominated based on the standards the Constitution sets forth.
Huh?
Stop constructing straw men.
110 posted on
10/12/2005 4:54:48 PM PDT by
GraniteStateConservative
(...He had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here...-- Worst.President.Ever.)
To: KevinDavis
I asked somebody to post them the other day, but I never got an answer.
Go figure.
131 posted on
10/12/2005 5:00:13 PM PDT by
Howlin
To: KevinDavis
I wonder if some people has read the Constitution about the requirements for a Supreme Court nonimnee?? No, they haven't. As I posted earlier, they are coming up with extra-constitutional requirements to be used as proof that the nominee wouldn't do the same. You would think that such a highbrow club of keepers of the constitutional truth could do better than this.
278 posted on
10/12/2005 5:39:14 PM PDT by
Dolphy
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson