To: COEXERJ145
The same crowd will be yelling for the next crucifixion if a strong Evangelical is nominated.
46 posted on
10/27/2005 5:59:06 AM PDT by
GarySpFc
(Sneakypete, De Oppresso Liber)
To: GarySpFc
The same crowd will be yelling for the next crucifixion if a strong Evangelical is nominated. LOL.. yep
67 posted on
10/27/2005 6:00:23 AM PDT by
kjam22
To: GarySpFc
That just shows how little you comprehend the arguments against her.
99 posted on
10/27/2005 6:01:52 AM PDT by
Tree of Liberty
(requiescat in pace, President Reagan)
To: GarySpFc
There was nothing strong about this woman. Next.
199 posted on
10/27/2005 6:07:27 AM PDT by
chris1
("Make the other guy die for his country" - George S. Patton)
To: GarySpFc
The same crowd will be yelling for the next crucifixion if a strong Evangelical is nominated. Yeah right.
341 posted on
10/27/2005 6:14:59 AM PDT by
Rodney King
(No, we can't all just get along.)
To: GarySpFc
Uh, we weren't opposed to her because she was an "evangelical."
We were opposed to her because that was her ONLY "qualification" put forward by her defenders.
382 posted on
10/27/2005 6:17:07 AM PDT by
Sometimes A River
(Serving on a Meals-on-Wheels program is NOT a qualification for a SC nominee. Call your Senators!)
To: GarySpFc
Oh please. The conservative opposition had nothing to do with her brand of Christianity. What planet have you been on?
402 posted on
10/27/2005 6:19:10 AM PDT by
dinoparty
(In the beginning was the Word)
To: GarySpFc
Crucifixion? You don't think that's a bit of an exaggeration? Let's see, on the one hand you have a high paid lawyer who doesn't get to sit on the Supreme Court. On the other, you have someone being nailed to a cross and left to die. Yeah, I'd say they're equivelant.
631 posted on
10/27/2005 6:35:49 AM PDT by
Huck
(Miers Miers Miers Miers Miers--I'm mired in Miers.)
To: GarySpFc
"The same crowd will be yelling for the next crucifixion if a strong Evangelical is nominated."
That had little if anything to do with the situation. In fact it was Bush who was trying to make the sell based on that. And pretty much that alone. Being an Evangelical has little to do with being a good Supreme Court Justice but obviously doesn't hurt.
664 posted on
10/27/2005 6:38:16 AM PDT by
DB
(©)
To: GarySpFc
The same crowd will be yelling for the next crucifixion if a strong Evangelical is nominated.
From comments I have seen from this site alone, I think the ones who claim their are the biggest christians, seem to have the harshest words. It has sure opened my eyes to the ones who think they have the most power. Shameful imho. I stood beside President Bush for years and enver changed. This will backfire on the ones who think they are most supreme
816 posted on
10/27/2005 6:51:38 AM PDT by
JFC
(President Bush, I pray for you daily. God bless you, protect you and continue to guide you.)
To: GarySpFc
Don't be paranoid. Religious Faith (or lack there of) is not relevant to appropriateness for SCOTUS.
Many here were offended her Evangelical Christianity was held up as a qualification!
1,116 posted on
10/27/2005 7:28:36 AM PDT by
newzjunkey
(CA: YES on Prop 73-77! Unions outspending Arnold 3:1, HELP: http://www.joinarnold.com)
To: GarySpFc
In this case it truely wasn't about her evangelicalism. Maybe for some, but not most. That was her strongest selling point to me, but it just wasn't near enough.
To: GarySpFc
You are pitiful. There is no one that cares one hoot about the religious affiliations of Supreme Court Nominees.
It isn't about how the nominee prays, it is how they THINK
1,496 posted on
10/27/2005 8:18:15 AM PDT by
msnimje
(The "Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations" makes its way to Supreme Court nominations.)
To: GarySpFc
The same crowd will be yelling for the next crucifixion if a strong Evangelical is nominated.
This statement is at best stupid and wrong. At worst a lie. At least half the people that were against Harriet WERE evangelicals.
1,855 posted on
10/27/2005 9:14:01 AM PDT by
trubluolyguy
(Nothing says "Obey me" like a head on a fencepost.)
To: GarySpFc
Wow, how dishonest of you. No one complained about her being a 'strong evangelical'.
It had nothing to do with her religion. It had everything to do with her complete lack of qualifications and unknown, possibly liberal ideology.
2,302 posted on
10/27/2005 10:57:01 AM PDT by
flashbunny
(What is more important: Loyalty to principles, or loyalty to personalities?)
To: GarySpFc
The same crowd will be yelling for the next crucifixion if a strong Evangelical is nominated.
So your hidden agenda is exposed.
Miers wasn't a strong anything.
If she had beem then she wouldn't have been opposed.
2,847 posted on
10/27/2005 2:37:57 PM PDT by
counterpunch
(- SCOTUS interruptus - withdraw Miers before she blows it -)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson