Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Miers' Qualifications Are 'Non-Existent'
Human Events ^ | October 3, 2005 | Patrick J. Buchanan

Posted on 10/03/2005 1:30:05 PM PDT by Irontank

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-135 next last
To: BikerNYC

Good post


41 posted on 10/03/2005 1:49:54 PM PDT by Uncledave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MortMan

So...Miers AND Rehnquist were not judges prior to being appointed? True. However, to paraphrase a legendary slapdown: "Ms. Miers, I served with Justice Rehnquist. I knew Justice Rehnquist. Justice Rehnquist was a friend of mine. Ms. Miers, you're no Justice Rehnquist." Simply put, in terms of stature, in terms of gravitas, the comparison only serves to highlight the gross inadequacy of this nominee. But, maybe we could carry the analogy further. Who else in recent memory served on the Court without prior judicial experience? Hmmm...former Klansman Hugo Black! I'd say we drop that line of argument because it is an obvious loser. Bottom line: Originalist or not, this nominee is very definitely one thing -- a judicial lightweight if there ever existed such a thing!


42 posted on 10/03/2005 1:50:10 PM PDT by Witherspoon (Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: indianrightwinger

Someone needs to ask him what he's done for conservatives lately?


43 posted on 10/03/2005 1:50:37 PM PDT by samadams2000 (Nothing fills the void of a passing hurricane better than government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: JLS

Forming an opinion on a candidate based on who likes and dislikes her. That's intelligent. Harry Reid likes her though. What to think? Makes your head explode.

Attack the messanger when you can't attack the message.


44 posted on 10/03/2005 1:50:56 PM PDT by Texas Federalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sheana
Current politics is the Democrats pandering to the extreme left and the Republicans pandering to the Democrats. That leaves a whole lot of conservative Republicans across this country not represented by the party they helped put and keep in office. That is why so many people are angry over this. The really sad thing is that there is no viable alternative to the 2 parties.

Well put, sheana. Maybe, since we are busy destroying the demonkat party, once gone it will be replaced by a small minority far left socialist party with no real power, and a larger new party will rise up, to the right of the present Pubbie party, where conservatives could find a true home.

It's probably a pipe dream, but interesting scenario to contemplate ...

45 posted on 10/03/2005 1:51:08 PM PDT by Babu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: slyfoxvirden
Who gives a rat's patootie

I care! Pat has strong beliefs and doesn't ever, IMO lie about the facts. His conclusions are sometimes contrary, but he's one of the few conservatives that has fought the liberals over the years and is still going strong.

He instinctively recoiled from it.

I still say, dump Karl Rove and the pussy footers responsible for this slap at the 'party'.

In 2008 the opportunity for change will be gone. Pat was close to right when he stated that there wasn't a nickels worth of difference between the two parties.

46 posted on 10/03/2005 1:51:12 PM PDT by duckln
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: indianrightwinger

Interesting comment.....
Interesting screenname....
Methinks you protesteth too much.


47 posted on 10/03/2005 1:51:31 PM PDT by Dryman (Now, Back to Lurking)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: JLS

At least HE didn't lie about raising taxes!


48 posted on 10/03/2005 1:51:46 PM PDT by panaxanax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: MAD-AS-HELL

I wonder what that makes you?


49 posted on 10/03/2005 1:52:52 PM PDT by duckln
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Irontank
...nominate a Justice in the mold of Thomas...

Wasn't Thomas a stealth candidate too?

50 posted on 10/03/2005 1:52:56 PM PDT by Lekker 1 ("Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?"- Harry M. Warner, Warner Bros., 1927)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: MortMan
Funny, but wasn't Rehnquist another SCOTUS nominee that wasn't a judge prior to nomination?

Yes, but he finished at the top of his class at Stanford Law School and was a distinguished lawyer and scholar, along the lines of Roberts. Nobody can argue that Myers is one of the country's most distinguished lawyers, and she graduated from a mid-tier law school, and I have heard no indication that she was at the top of her class or even on law review. Comparing her to Rehnquist is an insult to Rehnquist.

51 posted on 10/03/2005 1:54:20 PM PDT by Texas Federalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: tomahawk

Buchanan's despicable... but he got this one right.


52 posted on 10/03/2005 1:55:25 PM PDT by johnny7 (“Nah, I ain’t Jewish, I just don’t dig on swine, that’s all.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Irontank

Well that does it. If Buchanan is against her, she must be OK. She's got my unqualified support, (for whatever it's worth).


53 posted on 10/03/2005 1:55:44 PM PDT by Busywhiskers ("...moral principle, the sine qua non of an orderly society." --Judge Edith H. Jones)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Witherspoon

LOL...well, this "judicial lightweight" is about to become a "judicial heavyweight". Can only judges interpret the constitution?


54 posted on 10/03/2005 1:56:02 PM PDT by Lekker 1 ("Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?"- Harry M. Warner, Warner Bros., 1927)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Texas Federalist

Hear, hear! (See post #42)


55 posted on 10/03/2005 1:56:29 PM PDT by Witherspoon (Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: All
Buchanan is 100% correct. This is a terrible and ARROGANT choice by Bush.

No one can possibly argue that Harriet Miers is nearly as qualified as the dozens of experienced, conservative judges Bush SUPPOSEDLY considered to nominate to the Supreme Court. Where is the evidence of her brilliant, conservative legal scholarship? Where is the evidence of her willingness to fight for a strict reading of the Constitution, or her willingness to roll back the liberal gains of recent decades?

Nor can anyone argue that Miers' conservative ideology, though not codified by legal decisions rendered in court, is clearly discernable. She has been connected to writings advocating the creation of an International Criminal Court, and allowing homosexuals to adopt children. Further, Miers, as the president's lawyer, is complicit in the attempt to expand the Patriot Act to allow what many conservatives believe to be unconstitutional searches and seizures.

This woman is being appointed for one reason: she is a Bush crony. As in cases involving Alberto Gonzales, Michael Brown and Julie Myers, Bush is not looking for the most qualified person he can find for a crucial job. He's rewarding flunkies within arm's reach.

Yes, there is a tendency for some to over-react, rush to judgement and get hysterical when things don't go our way, especially when we have worked so hard to elect Republican politicians.

But there is another mentality that is perhaps worse, and I see it in the Bush apologists here on this board: having someone take a bowel movement on your head, and then thanking them for keeping your head warm.

Summation: Miers is unqualified, a Rorshack test as far as her conservative credentials, tremendously divise to the base (what are we seeing here on FR?), too old at 60, and a pure display of arrogance and fecklessness by Bush.

Those of you who want to call me Chicken Little for this post should check the tops of your heads.

56 posted on 10/03/2005 1:58:15 PM PDT by BushMeister ("We are a nation that has a government - not the other way around." --Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Irontank
Wow...

What's with the hero worship?

Why shouldn't we want a real conservative with a proven track record like Bork or Thomas? Why was it critical that it was a woman?

57 posted on 10/03/2005 1:59:43 PM PDT by CarlPerkins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Irontank

We need a photo thread full of pictures of John Kerry. It would alleviate a lot of pain here today.


58 posted on 10/03/2005 2:01:24 PM PDT by Graymatter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Witherspoon
Originalist or not, this nominee is very definitely one thing -- a judicial lightweight if there ever existed such a thing!

And you know this through what personal or professional interaction with the nominee?

59 posted on 10/03/2005 2:01:24 PM PDT by MortMan (Eschew Obfuscation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Lekker 1

Don't get me wrong -- I TOTALLY AGREE with you on the premise that you shouldn't have to be a professional judge to be appointed to the Supreme Court and interpret the Constitution. However, there are plenty of non-judges with stellar academic credentials who are known commodities on the key issues (Senator David Vitter, for example). Like it or not, a big part of successfully advancing our movement is PERCEPTION. Even though they hate him, law school professors and deans have to acknowledge that Scalia is brilliant and lower court Judges have to take his opinions seriously. You also want someone who is capable of articulating and framing the issues in such a way as to sway the mushy moderates on the court -- no small matter. When you have someone who is brilliant and charming (like Roberts), you are more likely to win over the swing votes and influence opinion within the legal community. There are others out there in the mold of Roberts! THIS IS NOT THE BEST THAT WE CAN DO!!!


60 posted on 10/03/2005 2:03:08 PM PDT by Witherspoon (Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-135 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson