Posted on 10/04/2005 3:35:22 PM PDT by maximusaurelius
Leave it to you to post something that is totally inane.
Sorry, didn't mean to give you heartburn. ;) And above all, I don't want an activist judge. I want an originalist, a strict constitutionalist. But I am also a skeptical person (part of the reason I am a conservative) and I like hard evidence. I just don't feel comfortable just accepting something at face value.
*downturns nose*
Pleeeeaaasee, forgive me.
Just did, thanks. If this quote from Hecht is from prior to her nomination, it may be worth considering. If after the fact, it won't impress me that much.
Sorry, didn't mean to give you heartburn. ;) And above all, I don't want an activist judge. I want an originalist, a strict constitutionalist. But I am also a skeptical person (part of the reason I am a conservative) and I like hard evidence. I just don't feel comfortable just accepting something at face value.
*downturns nose*
Pleeeeaaasee, forgive me.
Nothing says credibility like ad hominem attack. Face it, if Clinton had nominated his pal Web Hubbel you have gone nuts and said he was a crony and unqualified.
I don't know any of the potential nominees personally. Neither do 99.999% of the Freepers touting them over Miers. What matters to me is that Bush does know her personally. And he has known her personally for more than a decade. Not knowing Souter personally bit his dad in the ass very hard. He took the advice of well respected conservatives and nominated him anyway. GW learned a valuable lesson from that. It is too bad most people can't seem to understand that. Your implication that Bush did not consider all the alternatives is a little presumptuous. I am certain he did. And he chose the person who best fit the mold of the person he wants sitting on the Supreme Court. In my opinion, the fact that his choice does not fit the mold created by the chattering class inside the beltway is a huge plus. I don't like those people. And I certainly don't trust them. I do trust Bush.
And I wasn't sticking my tongue out. Except a little bit because sometimes it sticks out when I type.
"These country club republicans give me heartburn from time to time..."
You mean like that New England blue-blood George Herbert Walker Bush or his Ivy League son who graduated from Yale where he was inducted into the elite Skull and Bones society along with the patrician John Kerry.
Andy Jackson was not a country club Republican, but the Bush family are all members of the club. So give us a break.
Ah, well, if true, that does change things. Thanks for tipping us off.
No. It means she is established inside the outer intelligentsia. Very well established.
Perhaps you could explain something to me: Why is GWB's word more to be trusted than those "well respected conservatives"? Is he for some reason more infallible?
I agree. I was responding to somebody who said Miers was not well known in legal circles.
"Nothing says credibility like ad hominem attack. Face it, if Clinton had nominated his pal Web Hubbel you have gone nuts and said he was a crony and unqualified."
I know what I would have said if Clinton had appointed his White House counsel Vince Foster or Deputy White House counsel Bruce Lindsey. I'd said they were unqualified and it was nothing but a brazen act of cronyism.
Democrat talkin points all......
Thought this was a conservative site.
Guess not....
"I was responding to somebody who said Miers was not well known in legal circles."
I suppose it all depends on what is meant by the term legal circles. Web Hubbell was certainly well known in legal circles.
That's true. And I also bite my tongue a little when I type. My implication that Bush did not consider all the alternatives is presumptuous, and I am sorry for that, but it's not ENTIRELY unfounded. I don't want a cookie cutter mold candidate either. And, I entirely agree that knowing a candidate personally is an asset, so long as you can make an objective decision still (which normally rules out friends and close allies). And I think you are 100% right with your Souter assesment.
But forgive my skepticism. I don't like being surprised, and the less information I have, the more likely i am to be surprised.
Also, I don't know what you mean by the Beltway. I'm not from the East Coast, if that's what you mean.
Nothing ad hominem about it. You say a woman twice named as one of the nation's most powerful attorneys is not well known in legal circles. That is, by definition, stupid.
"Thought this was a conservative site."
So did I, but it seems many here are happy to turn tail and run at the first sight of Orrin Hatch, Arlen Specter, Teddy Kennedy, Chuck Schumer, you know, those ogres in the Senate against whom it would be useless to do battle to get a conservative nominee through. Better to pick an unknown quantity and be happy with the scraps that we get.
We heard you the first time.
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.