To: balk
A handful at FR have opposed Miers nomination since the moment she got it. My own personal impression has been that their impetus was religious affiliation and little else.
430 posted on
10/27/2005 6:20:59 AM PDT by
muawiyah
(/ hey coach do I gotta' put in that "/sarcasm " thing again? How'bout a double sarcasm for this one)
To: muawiyah
Nope, not at all. It was her lack of proven constructionist credentials.
493 posted on
10/27/2005 6:25:45 AM PDT by
RockinRight
(I am beginning to think conservatism is buried somewhere under New Orleans' mud...)
To: muawiyah
A handful at FR have opposed Miers nomination since the moment she got it. My own personal impression has been that their impetus was religious affiliation and little else. I was opposed to her almost immediately because she had so little experience doing any deep legal "wrangling". WE need someone who has had to reason out constitutional problems and is a strict constructionist. From what I read of Meirs, she was neither.
540 posted on
10/27/2005 6:29:02 AM PDT by
Bryan24
(When in doubt, move to the right....)
To: muawiyah
A handful at FR have opposed Miers nomination since the moment she got it. My own personal impression has been that their impetus was religious affiliation and little else. Back that up with cites, or take it back.
554 posted on
10/27/2005 6:29:34 AM PDT by
Cboldt
To: muawiyah
No, I was againsy her due to her lack of experience in constitutional law, the fact that not one person could vouch for her Conservative views, and the constant flow of info suggesting she was not pro-life. Of course those supporting her said she went to church and wait for the hearings.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson