Posted on 10/03/2005 6:25:05 AM PDT by CWW
Why are some Freepers so shocked and disappointed when politicians make political decisions.
Miers is a good pick. Female, light paper trail, and relatively easy to get confirmed. She is not a Souter. Souter was a total unknown. Miers is as close to Bush as you can get. God knows what she told him in confidence behind the wall of Attorney-Client privilige. We don't need a laser shooting intellectual spearhead on the court (already have that in Scalia and Roberts). We just need a vote. My bet is Miers will cozy up to Roberts and follow his lead. She may have even explicity told Bush she would do so. The people screaming that they will stay home next election need to take a chill pill and think about the Marxists Hillary would appoint with full compliance from the media.
Certainly you must KNOW that this is a conspiracy by Dubya, planned parenthood and every liberal there is (including the one's at DU who are only FAKING being upset by the nomination). /sarcasm
Yikes..if ANY of my college friends talked about me on national TV, I'd be doomed! I am not the same person that I was 30 years ago. Neither is she. Most college students don't know who they are or where they're goin'.
From my earlier post, it was not so much that she tried to change it from pro-choice to pro-life or no stance, it appeared that she felt instead of just adopting the stance by the ABA leadership, that it should be put to a vote to the full memvership.
So it is not fair to say she pushed to change the pro-life stance (or some may say give her credit for). She was for allowing the full membership to vote on the issue. But this may bode well for her believing each state (and it's voters) have the right to decide on abortion.
Dems ran Texas in 80s. Doesn't mean she's Ginsburg, or a Souter. All we need is someone slight more conservative than O'Connor to tip this thing and mark my words--this gal is pro-life.
Here's hoping Ginsburg or Stevens keels in the next six months.
The caller told Laura Ingraham, based on what he heard Meiers said in college, that she's clearly a strict constructionist. Of course, that alone would not comfort me, an anonymous college friend from umpteen years ago but there it is.
THey are spinning it as "she ONLY wanted a full vote on the issue" -- so you know, she was like not opposed to it per se. Gee, haven't you noticed, the only thing that matters is she donated to AlGore in 1988. EEK EEK EEK. OF course they don't say anything about the fact that AlGore was saying he was pro-life at that time.
And don;t you dare mention that Ronald Reagan was a Democrat well into his 40's -- that's blasphemy and has nothing to do with Miers. She is totally different -- she donated to Democrats in her 40 for Crissakes!!! oh god oh god gnash wail weep.
"But this may bode well for her believing each state (and it's voters) have the right to decide on abortion."
Absolutely. It's the legislature who legislates. I have no problem with a truly neutral judge.
"OF course they don't say anything about the fact that AlGore was saying he was pro-life at that time."
That's a good point. I'll nod to that. But you know, I get irritated with people who take abortion so lightly, mocking people who care.
"...mark my words--this gal is pro-life..."
Actually, based on what I'm hearing, she believes that legislation is not the judiciary's job, and that right to life/choice is not even the judiciary's business. I can definitely live with that. FRegards....
Well stated, I tend to lean that way for the most part. I do however tend to think in a little broader scope, and get irritated at those that have this as thier sole issue in every decision.
I have seen nothing that "Specifically" points to Miers being Pro-choice. So she donated to democrats in the 80's, Guess what, I voted for Sam Nunn in 80 and 86 and donated to his campaign. At the same time I was voting for reagan for President and donated to his campaign.
What I do see is that in her actions, she has remained basically nuetral on the issue; and I have no problem with that.
If she rules strictly by the constitution and stays nuetral on abortion (meaning she would take the stance that it is strictly a state by state issue - and the feds need to get out of it). I will consider her a successful nomination.
Absolutely not. The pick has to be confirmed before he/she can make a bit of difference and we are replacing a swing vote. Rogers Brown languishing while the Dem/Media coalition sandbags her does nothing to stop the slaughter you speak of.
I mean "pro-life" for over-turning Roe purposes, as you described, although I suspect her personal views are FR-friendly as well, given her devout Christianity.
Too clever by half. Planned Parenthood hated Bork, Thomas and Roberts too. Does that mean they were secretly pining for their success?
Okay. But clearly though, they wouldn't openly support any "conservative nominee" that they would approve of.
Did they support Souter? Don't know, just asking.
I think the most important issue in all of this is not abortion. (I personally view abortion as a ritual murder upon the altar of conceit, before an idolatry of vanity.)
The most important issue is pervert marriages, something old subway senator chuckie scummer inadvertently let slip a couple months ago in his initial reaction to the Roberts nomination.
Watch this carefully...
The most important issue is pervert marriages, something old subway senator chuckie scummer inadvertently let slip a couple months ago in his initial reaction to the Roberts nomination.
Watch this carefully...
She did both.
She opposed the stance in 1992 when it was adopted- see my quote above- and then in 1993 she tried to get the whole membership to vote on it.
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.