HARRIET MIERS OUTSHINES BORK

MoonbatCentral.com ^ | October 4, 2005 | Richard Poe

[safisoft]

If after the Senate confirmation hearings, you still have a problem with the choice, you have a right and a duty to complain. But, I feel your cynicism and criticism is premature, unfounded and unnecessary.

Right. Then it will be too late. Please.

[safisoft]

President Bush has NOT irreparably damaged his base. YOU are doing that, not the President!!

OK, I admit it, I have been calling all the country's conservatives and telling them how bad this is... We didn't need marching orders. Conservatives smelled this one IMMEDIATELY. The President has harmed himself needlessly - because he is so out of touch with true conservativism that he didn't understand the firestorm it would cause. The fact that many here on FR agree with him only proves that there are a lot of people still willing to hold their nose for something.

My question to all people who claim to conservative is this: After we have held our noses with all the massive spending, increased size of government, over-reaching of the central government... what is left except the SCOTUS? And our wait gets us this stinker?

[Richard Poe]

Dear safisoft:

I don't know you, and mean no offense. Yet I must speak frankly.

Your attitude reminds me of that of Christopher Columbus' mutinous crewmen whose patience wore out before land was cited.

Was Columbus perfect? Far from it. Was he correct in his geographical calculations? No. He was wrong.

But he was a man of destiny. Those who trusted him and followed him shared in his glory. Those who heckled him are remembered today only for their weakness and faithlessness.

Without trust, there can be no leadership. Without leadership, nothing gets done.

In voting for George W. Bush, we delegated to him a number of powers, among them the power to act as our representative in the appointment of Supreme Court justices.

I will not micromanage President Bush or second-guess him in his execution of that duty.

Selecting Supreme Court justices is the president’s job, not mine. I trust him to do his job. He has my full confidence. He has earned it.

[GeorgeW23225]

So, not only did you not respond to my premise of the President appointing strong, conservative judges, who will NOT legislate from the bench, you now claim to speak for ALL conservatives.

Are you always this stubborn and delusional when you are proven wrong??

Can you give me ONE example of President Bush nominating an activist judge??

I didn't hink so...........

[GeorgeW23225]

BRAVO!! Well said!!

I too, trust President Bush. If I didn't, I would not have voted for him TWICE!!

Go ahead and call me a BushBot. I'll PROUDLY wear the label!!

And to those FReepers who constantly misunderestimate President Bush, shame on you!!

[ConservativeAgenda]

I wouldn't qualify supporting Bush as dissent on Free Republic! Also, I wasn't merely alluding to this nomination. There are other issues (ie the border/immigration, spending, etc) that I think FReepers have asked some reasonable questions about and gotten hammered by fellow FReepers. I'm a big fan of Bush. I organized rallies during the 2004 elections for the President. That doesn't mean that I shouldn't question his actions or inactions right? As far as this nomination, I think it's reasonable, with so many other seemingly more qualified, PROVEN, conservative jurists, for Bush's pick to be questioned...

[185JHP]

Venom, vitriol and vituperation. Viscera set for spasming for any reason or for no reason...

[Mr. Mojo]

Bork also writes: "The Second Amendment was designed to allow states to defend themselves against a possibly tyrannical national government. Now that the federal government has stealth bombers and nuclear weapons, it is hard to imagine what people would need to keep in the garage to serve that purpose.''

Wow. This putz needed a good Borking.

[Mr. Mojo]

I think he is an amazing intellect, and would have been an excellent addition to the court.

Sure, if you're one who believes that the 2nd Amendment states that there's no individual right to own firearms.

I don't.

How about you?

[Wolfstar]

Dissent is fine. I would argue it's necessary for a healthy Republic. That's beside the point I was making to you in my previous post. However, since you brought it up...

The greatest president of the 2nd half of the 20th Century, Ronald Reagan, didn't do anything constructive about the borders or illegal immigration, either. In fact, he made matters worse by signing the Immigration Reform Act of 1986, the first amnesty for illegals in our history. He put a moderate like O'Connor on the Supreme Court due to pressure to name the first woman justice. He made other mistakes, but on balance was a truly great president.

However, it's just as well the internet wasn't around in during his terms in office, because the screeching and caterwauling from the right over some of his policies would have been deafening.

[supercat]

Certainly "well regulated" implies the power to maintain order and discipline.

The term "well-regulated" in this context refers to smooth and effective functioning. A well-regulated chronometer is one that keeps uniform time. The Second Amendment says that an effectively-functioning militia is necessary. It states that the people have a right to keep and bear arms, presumably in furtherence of that goal.

Compare the construction of the Second Amendment with that of Congress' copyright power. In the latter case, Congress' ability to grant exclusive ownership of works is only authorized to the extent that it promotes progress in science and the useful arts. In the former case, the right to keep and bear arms is partially for--but not restricted to--the purpose of maintaining a well-functioning citizen army.

[Ancesthntr]

Bork is nothing but a Statist. Any law that the Congress passes is good enough for him, simply on the basis that such a law must represent the "will of the majority." Bork apparently gives not a damn about the rights of the minorities of this country (NOT racial minorities, but those in the minority on issues of opinion or ideology), and is terribly UNconcerned about the possibility of a tyranny of the majority. I wasn't at the time, but for several years I have celebrated the fact that he was not confirmed - the Republic is better for it.

I don't know what kind of justice Miers will make, but I'm glad that she's no Bork. I am encouraged by her statement regarding guns, which I had seen nowhere else. Maybe she will end up as a female Thomas or (2nd choice) Scalia (who's got a little bit of the Statist in him).

[pollyannaish]

You know, I never paid that much attention to his Second Amendment positions because I just assumed it was a no brainer.

That's what I get for not paying close attention. I ABSOLUTELY believe that is an individual right.

I still think the man is very, very intelligent and serious, but perhaps I will have to back up and rethink my "Bork would have been great on the cour" position. Of course, we'll never know, so it is probably immaterial.

[Mr. Mojo]

Agree. ....certainly his (high) intelligence isn't in dispute. But I disagree with him on a fundamental position.

[Dead Corpse]

This is exactly the kind of info that should have been disseminated early on. Why hasn't it been?

I now know three things about Harriet:
1. She has at least READ the Second Amendment and from an article written long ago had a nominal idea of what it means.
2. She goes to Church.
3. She's known the President for 20+ years.

Still not 100% sanguine about her, but I know one more thing about her than I did an hour ago.

[ConservativeAgenda]

"...The greatest president of the 2nd half of the 20th Century, Ronald Reagan..."

Agreed

"...Ronald Reagan, didn't do anything constructive about the borders or illegal immigration, either. In fact, he made matters worse by signing the Immigration Reform Act of 1986, the first amnesty for illegals in our history..."

At that point, Al Qaeda was not, to the best of our knowledge, trying to smuggle sleepers and weapons across our borders as they assuredly are now.

"He put a moderate like O'Connor on the Supreme Court due to pressure to name the first woman justice...."

O'Connor was an Ivy League law grad and had bench experience. Also, in the 25 years since her nomination, the pool of women, minorities or whomever else you might want to see represented on the Supreme Court (other than the white males) has grown significantly. Certainly, there are enough qualified individuals that you aren't FORCED to pick somebody with virtually no record and who's best justification is 'I know her'.

[rdb3]

....it was unbelievable....the immaturity was eye opening for me.

Fawn, if you think that this was/is bad, I can say with absolute authority that it has been WORSE on other subjects. Much, much worse.

If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!

[XEHRpa]

> Could it be he's over-educated himself? Thinks too damn much? Is out of touch with the common man?

Reminds me my grandfather used to warn against the dangers of too much formal education. He called it "uberstudiert," which in German means "over learned". I guess I survived though... even with myself as a PhD, he still requested that I give the eulogy at his funeral... an honor that I have cherished more with each passing day.

[bIlluminati]

While I personally agree with those among the founders who expressed that intent, I doubt that they intended for the Federal government to have the power to prevent State and local government from imposing restrictions, for example on cannon.

Actually, that is exactly what they had in mind. The colonial provoked the the Revolutionary War by parading the town square with cannons. The equivalent today would be for the Ohio Unorganized militia to circle the State House at Broad and High with Bradley tanks. I think that should be legal, as long as they pay for wear-and-tear on the roads. Frankly, most of the roads near downtown (ca. 1995) would have been improved by having Bradley tanks driven on them.

Orange barrels forever!