We won't behave like the Miers opposition.
Posted on 10/31/2005 10:18:38 AM PST by freedomdefender
Hello! It's not a novel.
A 'right to privacy' might be a good idea, but then it needs to be clearly stated as a principle and adopted as an amendment. Otherwise, it's a legal fiction that can be expanded (or contracted) depending upon the prejudices of the judges sitting on the SCOTUS.
You might have a point there. Miers likely would have gotten on the court and voted like David Souter on most issues.
But, how in world can any pro-Miers person not acknowledge that Samuel Alito in an infinitely better choice for Supreme Court than Miers would have been? I guess pride wouldn't allow such admissions. But, conservatives are far better off with a known originalist with clear Constitution philosophy on the bench than Miers.
Italics are people too
We won't behave like the Miers opposition.
Oh, please, you people are insane. Just insane.
What was Alito's major in college?
If it wasn't math, he's an academic wuss compared to Miers, skating by in an easy subject.
Miers was trained in the idea of abstract thinking. But Breyer, who has similar academic credentials to Alito, can't seem to comprehend that the Constitution might be abstract enough to apply to today. Apparently that supergenius can't function unless he has an instruction booklet.
In my judgement, you keep throwing rhetorical bombs, without any valid reasoning behind them. You ignore recent history, and perpetuate the divisions that became apparent with Miers' nomination.
After all - pillorying Miers for her religious affiliation was fair game, but noticing Alito's appears to be out of bounds (based on my reading of your posts).
That's what I mean by "the division".
I am not bitter - but I do bristle at unnecessarily abrasive language.
Watch your head, those bridges can be mighty low.
Well, you totally misread my posts. Where did I ever pillory Meirs for her religious affiliation? I want as many Christians on the court as possible.
She therefore says that someone who interprets the Constitution literally disagrees with the right to privacy because it literally isn't there.
Little early to put a period to Bush's second term.
[[You might have a point there. Miers likely would have gotten on the court and voted like David Souter on most issues.]]
Like I said, assumption, something you nor I will ever know, likely or otherwise, the Miers debate is over
[[But, how in world can any pro-Miers person not acknowledge that Samuel Alito in an infinitely better choice for Supreme Court than Miers would have been? I guess pride wouldn't allow such admissions. But, conservatives are far better off with a known originalist with clear Constitution philosophy on the bench than Miers.]]
You again base your argument on assumption, I have seen no one say the Miers pick was superior to Alito or refuse to acknowledge said assumption. My personal opinion was that Estrada would be the best nomination, even superior to Alito. But I fully support the nomination of Alito.
My whole point is 'Let the Miers nomination go'. Stop pandering to division and start pulling people together, Alito is going to be a tough battle and we need ALL conservatives unified joining in the fight.
Hell, I think she did it consciously and directly. She just thinks nobody will notice because she's the 'cuddly katie curric'.
And would not that cause many libs to move to pro-abortion states, concentrating there vote and permanently ceding the senate to conservatives and moderates?
I am quite aware of the 9th Amendment. I am also aware of the 5 different originalist interpretations of it. To which do you subscribe?
And upon their arrival, Thomas will say, "What took you so long?"
Justice Breyer thinks it's an outline with vague and amorphous boundaries. I swear him and Ginsberg must hit the crack pipe every weekend.
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.