Posted on 10/03/2005 4:06:25 AM PDT by johnmecainrino
Harriet Miers
I do not think little of them but I do indeed think less of them then I would if they believed life is precious and deserves to be cherished and protected.
But neither one of them are in a position to do anything about that in the political sphere like Miss Meirs will be.
Sorry, didn't notice. I was listening to her on TV, but amon the computer in another room.
The fact that she donated money to Bentsen and Gore shows ignorance on the part of this Administration...or else they purposely don't want a staunch conservative in the slot.
not a strong pro-lifer
Is anyone surprised that a "strong pro-lifer" is not being nominated? Probably the ones for Souter in 1990 will be most satisfied, but do we really know?
Cowardice
Maybe Brown declined?
I think that question is better asked of Always Right who wrote that he was voting for Hillary in 2008 and going to join DU, if the statement were true.
I'd call myself a conservative. I'll wait until there is more information available on Dr. Miers before I make a decision.
If that's her, Republicans need to vote her down.
LOL! I think we can all agree on that. :)
I would hope at the age of 42 you've thought your politics through to the extent that you won't be throwing your support behind the Dems in 15 years...on ideological issues of that import, by the time someone is in their 40s I'd expect them to have clarified the issue in their own mind. If not, that's an indication of muddled thinking, and certainly not someone I'd want on the SCOTUS.
Baloney. The SC has a history of Justices WITHOUT judicial experience. In fact, this can only work in her favor as the rats won't be able to ask "why did you rule this way or that way .....?" with regard to any previous case.
Nope. That is one thing he is not. This is only a dumb pick if you're a patriotic conservative who believes the Constitution means what the Founding Father's said and nothing more. Bush, I'm very much afraid, is listening to his daddy and Daddy's new buddy: Bill Clinton. This is all part of the grand agenda which remains on track for the process of globalization. I wonder if she thinks that foreign law should be applied when considering US cases? I'll bet she agrees with that doctrine.
Okay, I won't rush to judgement...
Oh, yes, her record is quite impressive. I've just learned that in addition to be president of a couple of state and local bar associations (a hack job if there ever was one), she was a member of the Texas Lottery Commission.
Blech.
bttt
I liked that one comment she slipped in – working with the Congress has made her appreciate the legislative branch more.
That addresses one of my pet peeves. Make many lawyers a judge, and they right away start thinking they are God, and act as if the Judicial Branch is supreme. Any judge who thinks that all 3 branches are supposed to be EQUAL makes a good start.
Nothing. She is the ultimate stealth candidate – she has never been be a judge. NO. PAPER. TRAIL. She will be murdered in the hearings.
That's what I'm thinking. This pick is sooooo bad, he can't possibly be serious. No way.
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.