Posted on 10/05/2005 4:03:47 PM PDT by perfect stranger
lol...great spit ball, A.H! I'll accept your obtuse answer, as a measure of your slow-witted fact ball.
President Bush is an enemy of Free Republic?
You need to rethink your little theory there.
Three senators would definitely vote against that candidate: Cheffee, Snowe, Collins. Right there you have gone from 55-45 to 52-48. Now subtract the support of the cowards, Voinovich and DeWine. That brings you to 50-50.
At that point, all you would need is to lose the vote of Hagel, McCain, or Spector, and the candidate would not be confirmed.
Name those democrats who might vote "Yes." I am damn sure it isn't going to be Bayh, who is my senator.
Good idea bowing out honey.
You're in over your head.
What a gal! Love her writing style, wit and arguments.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
She should be attacked for such an outlandish and non-reality based assertion.
This is the norm for her, not the exception. She is a better looking Michael Savage, and has only gotten worse as she continues to feed on her own political ideology without checkpointing it with the real world.<<<<<<<<<<<<
TORTOISE, shame on you for making such a cheap statement !
Ann Coulter is not Mike Savage ! Even Bernard Goldberg of 100 PEOPLE WHO ARE SCREWING UP AMERICA would reject that .
As Goldberg pointed out, she is caustic, but she allways injects humor into her criticisms . This is just the extreme exception .
And she has a right to complain ! Too many times Dubya has sold out conservatives and our causes for democrat approval, like we need it anymore .
What is Bush so afraid of, A scathing review by the New York Times ? A gangstercrat filibuster ?
George Bush has given us little reason to trust him and alot of reason not to .
In the end, Miers or any nominee for the Highest Court in the Land, must have experience as an Ajudicator before she considered for the U.S. Supreme Court . .
Right, just keep telling yourself that.
LOL
You've got quite a few things wrong here. First off, I haven't been told she's a bad pick. I've read the opinions of the other actually qualified candidates for this position. If you or anyone else can find any actual documentation, including the President that establishes this woman's ability to make judicial interpretations or her philosophy for doing so, please post them. Also, I haven't liked many of the President's other appointees. Julie Meyers, for one. Another buddy pick to a rather important position at ICE. But then, we also know how seriously this President takes border security, so we shouldn't be surprised.
Also.....do you think an appropriate question for Ms. Miers by someone on the Judiciary committee might question her competence as White House Counsel since she's apparently been stonewalling a request regarding an accounting of Karl Rove's activities during the campaign? Maybe she was too busy detailing her judicial philosophy to the President. You know.....that talk we're supposed to be so trusting about that never covered minor issues like abortion. They must have gotten bogged down in a discussion of substantive versus procedural implications of the commerce clause. Oh, since we know her judicial interpretation, how does she fall on this issue? It's a really important one and is something that will impact a lot of lives.
Julie Meyers is not a judicial nomination. Lets hear the judicial nominations that Bush (and Miers) have put in front of you that you have not like. (chirp chirp chirp)
I'll point out that Condi Rice is also a "crony". I'll wager that Conservatives have been less often under-served by Cabinet-appointments the President made on "recommendation" rather than personal experience.
Secondly, I'm quite comfortable that you have not seen all the rulings on whomever is your favorite choice, let alone read his FBI-bio, interviewed his friends and enemies, or even spoken to him. You also don't have the skinny on the Senate landscape to know whether (given all the above listed), your favorite candidate has a cream puff's chance in a blender to actually pass.
Rove??? Rove???? Are you on vacation from DU? Why would you expect a WHC to provide ammunition to Moveon.org and the ACLU for a fishing expedition in one of their paranoid smear fantasies??
Maybe she was too busy detailing her judicial philosophy to the President. You know.....that talk we're supposed to be so trusting about that never covered minor issues like abortion. They must have gotten bogged down in a discussion of substantive versus procedural implications of the commerce clause. Oh, since we know her judicial interpretation, how does she fall on this issue? It's a really important one and is something that will impact a lot of lives.
????
Everyone who knows her seems to be pretty damn comfortable about her position on abortion. You are flailing now. My kids have never asked my position on abortion either, but I'm sure they know what it is. If you are looking for an elected candidate to make promises that she will deliver on specific issues, I'd say Miers is as close as you are going to get. She's probably the near equivalent of sending Dubya to the SC. But you SHOULDN'T be looking for that. From what I've read (she hasn't spoken for herself yet), she's an Originalist. Like Bork.
IF you are really a conservative, you have ZERO to complain about in this nomination.
As to the Rove matter, the President's counsel is required by law to respond to requests regarding legal matters. There is now a dispute as to whether Karl Rove, during the 2004 election, obeyed federal law (5-USC-7321 - in case you're from Rio Linda, that refers to the United States Code)and properly allocated the time he spent in the White House on political activity, the resources he spent in the White House on political activity from his taxpayer funded role as special assistant to the President, performing duties that are well defined. She has failed to respond to requests for this information as she is required to do by statute. This is important since, we're being told to trust the President and that Harriet Miers is competent for the Supreme Court because she is so good at what she does legally for the President. However, she seems to be incompetent in this regard. Also, today, we see that Ms. Miers employed a rather expansive interpretation of the 12th Amendment in trying to defend a lawsuit against the Vice-President challenging his Wyoming residency. Now, on the one hand we're told that her lack of experience in judicial doesn't matter because she believes the Constitution should be interpreted as written. Yet here, she's trying to broaden the original intent. The White House defense is, yet again, that she's just working for a client and so, like with John Roberts we can't discern judicial philosophy from that. Well, this is what you get with a stealth candidate. The White House, sadly, seems to want it both ways.....they cite her work as White House counsel as a qualification to prove that she's capable of interpreting the Constitution, but then says we can't use it because it doesn't tell us anything about how she's interpret the Constitution. Now, to anyone but a Bushbot, that would seem a bit of a contradiction.
Yet again, you offer third hand testimony to reassure us that Harriet Miers is qualified. I've actually heard that the people who know her are actually anywhere from evenly divided for and against or somewhat against her. But, what I've been saying over and over and over again to you is that such testimony is worthless. It is biased either for or against her. We can go back and cite just as much testimony swearing that O'Connor and Souter and Kennedy were rock-ribbed conservatives.
I am not looking for an elected candidate who will promise that she will deliver on specific issues. That seems to be what you're focused on. (And George W. Bush is also not qualified to be on the Supreme Court. He has no experience in interpreting the Constitution and his little catchphrase that he repeats from time to time that he "doesn't believe in legislating from the bench" isn't informative. Not to mention that he's already violated his oath to uphold the Constitution by signing McCain-Feingold into law.) That's why her judicial philosophy is so important. With an originalist philosophy, her political opinions, whether she's conservative or liberal don't matter because that isn't how she would decide cases at law. She would decide cases based on how her record demonstrates that she interprets the Constitution. You state that, from what you've read she's an originalist like Bork. Could you cite some information to support that.....and don't include personal testimonies, since they are worthless in determining a judicial philosophy. And I am hardly the only Conservative that is appalled at the stupidity of this nomination. Perhaps you need to rephrase that to a Bush conservative.....but then, they aren't really conservative, based on his policies for the last 5 years.
Are you referring to his promise to appoint judges in the mold of Scalia and Thomas? Because neither of them claim to be Originalists. In the case of Scalia himself, I could cite opinions showing that he is not.
is required to do by statute
Well, gosh, why isn't she in jail? *cough*(DUmoonbat)
Ms. Miers employed a rather expansive interpretation of the 12th Amendment in trying to defend a lawsuit against the Vice-President challenging his Wyoming residency
hmmm....how did the courts end up ruling on that case?
Your assessment of Miers's legal activity seems to suggest that you think YOU are on the SC and the only member. The SC backed the most controversial claims in the McCain-Feingold act as constitutional. I don't think Congress should have passed the act, and I don't think having done so the President should have signed it. But my only option is to vote them out of office. I'm not going to make indefensible claims about failing to defend the Constitution.
Your claims about her lack of qualification reminds me of almost IDENTICAL statements by Democrats during the Thomas hearings. Based on history, I don't see how you have a leg to stand on.
I don't have to produce the results of Miers's Originalist DNA test, because it is not me --and certainly not you--that must be satisfied on that matter. Only the President does, on whom the decision is given. It is for you to show that he has been derelict in his selection which your above arguments certainly do not. Based on what I've seen in your paper trail, I doubt the President could have pleased you with any viable or worthwhile nomination other than one that you (lacking information on the candidates background or recently affirmed judicial philosophy) made yourself. It is a relief to me that the President hasn't undermined his decision-making by running back and forth to get in front of ideological loose cannons like yourself.
Both are correct. One is the noun form, the other the verb form.
The senate's responsibility is to advise and consent. What they are to provide is advice and consent.
I wouldn't think her ability to "relate" to you would be of any importance....unless you were looking for an activist nominee.
I wouldn't think her ability to "relate" to you would be of any importance....unless you were looking for an activist nominee.
Not only that, but doesn't that apply to Ann Coulter?
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.