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

Skip to comments.

President's Radio Address (no nominee "has exceeded Harriet Miers' overall range of experience")
WhiteHouse.gov ^ | 10/8/5

Posted on 10/08/2005 9:21:51 AM PDT by Crackingham

Good morning. This week, I nominated an exceptional individual to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court of the United States. Harriet Miers is a remarkable woman and an accomplished attorney. She has wide experience in the courtroom and at the highest levels of government. And she will be an outstanding addition to our nation's highest court.

Harriet Miers was born and raised in Dallas, Texas, where she attended the public schools. When illness struck her family, Harriet went to work to help pay for her own college education. She stayed close to home in Dallas to attend Southern Methodist University, and received a Bachelor's Degree in mathematics.

She remained at SMU for law school and earned a place on the law review. After graduation, she was hired for a prestigious two-year clerkship for a federal trial judge. From there, she went on to an extraordinary career in private practice and public service and became a pioneer for women lawyers.

She was the first woman to be hired at her law firm, the first woman to become president of that firm, the first woman to lead a large law firm in the state of Texas, the first woman head of the Dallas Bar Association, and the first woman elected as president of the State Bar of Texas.

In her law practice, Ms. Miers handled hundreds of cases in state and federal courts, from massive commercial litigation to criminal cases to civil disputes. She served in local government on the Dallas City Council, and later held office in state government, as well.

As Ms. Miers rose through the legal ranks, she also put in long hours of volunteer legal work on behalf of the poor and underprivileged, and served as a leader for more than a dozen community groups and charities. Beginning in the 1990s, Harriet Miers was regularly rated one of the top 100 lawyers in America, and one of the top 50 women lawyers in the country.

Because of her skill and record of remarkable achievement, in 2001, I asked her to work in my administration. For the past five years, Harriet Miers has served our nation in critical roles, including White House Counsel, one of the most important legal positions in the country. As counsel, Ms. Miers addresses complex matters of constitutional law, serves as the chief legal advisor during regular meetings of the National Security Council, and handles sensitive issues of executive-congressional relations, among many other essential duties. She has led the effort to help nominate outstanding judges for the federal judiciary. She was in charge of the process that resulted in the appointment of Chief Justice John Roberts.

Harriet Miers would come to the Supreme Court with a background in private practice and high-government service, and this puts her in strong company. Indeed, since 1933, 10 of the 34 justices came to the Supreme Court directly from positions in the executive branch, such as the one Ms. Miers now holds. And no Supreme Court nominee in the last 35 years has exceeded Harriet Miers' overall range of experience in courtroom litigation, service in federal, state and local government, leadership in local, state and national bar associations, and pro bono and charitable activities.

Throughout her life, Ms. Miers has excelled at everything she has done. She's been a leader and a trailblazer for women lawyers, and her work has earned the respect of attorneys across the nation. I chose Harriet Miers for the Court both because of her accomplishments, and because I know her character and her judicial philosophy. Harriet Miers will be the type of judge I said I would nominate: a good conservative judge.

She shares my belief that judges should strictly interpret the Constitution and laws, not legislate from the bench. She understands that the role of a judge is to interpret the text of the Constitution and statutes as written, not as he or she might wish they were written. And she knows that judges should have a restrained and modest role in our constitutional democracy. Like Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Byron White, who were also nominated to the Supreme Court directly from legal positions in the executive branch, Harriet Miers will be prudent in exercising judicial power and firm in defending judicial independence.

When she goes before the Senate, I am confident that all Americans will see what I see every day: Harriet Miers is a woman of intelligence, strength, and conviction. And when she is confirmed by the Senate, I am confident that she will leave a lasting mark on the Supreme Court and will be a justice who makes all Americans proud.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bush43; harrietmiers; miers; radioaddress; scotus; supremecourt; transcript
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-117 next last

1 posted on 10/08/2005 9:21:54 AM PDT by Crackingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

Right back in your face all you whiners.


2 posted on 10/08/2005 9:24:29 AM PDT by Neville72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

Let's pray for his country, that he is right. Regardless, it is still playing a poker hand with unknown cards while betting heavily. The reality will hit the table with the final "CALL"...


3 posted on 10/08/2005 9:28:39 AM PDT by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Neville72

For FReepers, knowledge is power.
From Beldar Blog:

A Westlaw romp through Harriet Miers' record
Critics of SCOTUS nominee Harriet Miers make much of the fact that she hasn't argued a case in the United States Supreme Court. And in fact, they've been pretty harsh, some of them, in characterizing her record as a practicing lawyer.

What's up with that? Anything to it? Well, heck, let's find out — shall we? Ever since Al Gore invented the internet, we've been living in the Information Age, so let's get some information!

A search on Ms. Miers' name, run in a Westlaw database containing both state and federal court reported decisions from Texas, pulls up 19 separate cases dating back to 1974 in which she's appeared among counsel of record.

Eight of those represent not appeals, but published opinions written by federal district judges. But such opinions are generally only published when the authoring judge recognizes that his ruling constitutes an important or new precedent, and they usually reflect a level of briefing by the litigants and writing by the judge that's essentially indistinguishable from an appellate proceeding. Another four are decisions from various of the intermediate-level appellate courts in Texas. The remaining seven are published opinions from decisions in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Now, the way these things work, this database won't show any of the state-court cases that Ms. Miers has handled, even if they were tried to a verdict, unless one side or the other took an appeal. (Texas state-court trial judges don't publish written opinions, and don't very often write them at all.) And this database almost certainly won't show but a tiny fraction of the cases she worked on that settled before trial, which is what happens to 95+ percent of all cases everywhere. So there are are definite limits to what we ought to expect from this romp. At best, it's going to give us her appellate cases, plus a tiny snapshot of a few trial court matters. She's mostly been a trial-court lawyer, not an appellate specialist like John Roberts, so this search is going to leave out anywhere from, I'd guess, at least 50 maybe up to 90 percent of her actual career experiences.

Still, it ought to be interesting to look at these cases. Just for grins.



Since so many of Ms. Miers' critics are painting these really broad caricatures of her anyway, let's start with her work for The Mouse. In Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Esprit Finance, Inc., 981 S.W.2d 25 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, pet. dism'd w.o.j.), the key issue was whether a wholly owned Disney subsidiary incorporated in Delaware could be subjected to the personal jurisdiction of the Texas courts. That in turn took the case into a thicket of both constitutional and nonconstitutional issues — including an analysis of whether there were sufficient "minimum contacts" between the subsidiary and Texas so that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment would not be violated by forcing that subsidiary to respond to a lawsuit in the Texas courts. And that in turn depended on a complicated mix of factual and legal issues involving both agency and contract law. Ms. Miers lost on the personal jurisdiction issue at the trial court level, but then took an extraordinary interlocutory appeal, and won in the San Antonio Court of Appeals. Although her opponents tried to persuade the Texas Supreme Court to hear the case, Ms. Miers apparently persuaded that court to decline to hear it on jurisdictional grounds — meaning, in all probability, that she filed a persuasive brief in the Texas Supreme Court, and then did not have to appear for oral arguments on the merits (and risk losing) precisely because her brief was so persuasive.

(Now how stupid was that, writing such a good brief? Sheesh. If she'd just blown it, and as a result the Texas Supreme Court had taken the case, then she could tell all her critics now that she'd at least argued a case in the Texas Supreme Court. No foresight, this Miers woman. Altogether too focused on what her clients' needs are. How's she ever going to get ahead in the grand game of Beltway Lawyer-Snark if she acts like that?)

Well, anyway: How big a challenge was this case, then? What does it say about Harriet Miers and her intellect and her skills? Some may say that this was "meat and potatoes" stuff, even on the constitutional issues, and it's not the sort of case that was likely to make it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. But nevertheless, it obviously was complicated enough to perplex the trial judge, who (according to the appellate court) got it wrong. It was a close enough case that Ms. Miers' opponents thought they had a shot at getting the Texas Supreme Court to hear it, even after losing at the court of appeals level. The facts and law were complicated enough that this case would have made a reasonably good law school exam question. And I'm reasonably sure that to Ms. Miers' corporate client, getting this six- or maybe seven-figure fraud case thrown out of what it would have regarded as a hostile, pro-plaintiff venue — the famously dusty streets of Laredo in Webb County, Texas — was a pretty significant victory.

But what do they know? They're just cartoons and stuff.



From the Mouse on to Bill Gates: Another recent case on the list is Microsoft Corp. v. Manning, 914 S.W.2d 602 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1995, pet. dism'd), which was an appeal from a state-court ruling that had granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, again in a rural Texas county that I'm sure Microsoft was very wary of being sued in. This case turned on cutting-edge issues, including the interplay between state and federal class action laws, that are currently the subject of heated tort reform debate at both the state and national level. And while much of the law was strictly procedural, some of it also got into federal constitutional issues involving the Due Process Clause and the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The plaintiffs' counsel in this case (some very sharp lawyers with whom I'm acquainted) were extremely formidable, and although I don't know what ultimately happened after this appellate opinion against Microsoft was issued, my guess is that the case settled pending further appeals.

"Okay, Beldar," you say, "But what was the case about?"

Well, the case was fiendishly complex both factually and legally, as it involved alleged violations of a host of confusing, potentially competing state and federal consumer laws in connection with Microsoft's upgrade from MS DOS 6.0 to MS DOS 6.2. Now, the geeks among my readers will, as I did, immediately say "Ooooh! Wow!" — but for the benefit of the rest of you, let me point out that as of the early 1990s, anything involving Microsoft's MS DOS operating systems would have been extremely important to that company, touching on the core business on which that company was built. So, friends and neighbors, this was serious, complicated, challenging commercial litigation that many firms would never dare undertake, for a client even fewer firms could ever hope to land. And it was the kind of case that might eventually have beaten the odds and made it up to the U.S. Supreme Court, depending on how things broke. Neither John Roberts nor any lawyer I know, including lawyers in DC or NYC, would have turned up his nose at this case.

But it's no big deal, probably. I mean, look at the client's name. "Micro." Like little, tiny. And "soft." So it couldn't really have been a big, hard case, could it?



On with our tromp through the cases, but let's try to pick up speed. Here's another intermediate Texas appellate court decision, this one involving a commercial dispute over a foreclosure on a deed of trust note. It's the kind of fight that quickly makes most folks' eyes glaze over — unless it was your $2,235,077 bid that was involved, maybe. Ms. Miers won this one.

Another involves the priority of various state lien laws, with a mid-six-figure judgment at stake. Another win for Ms. Miers, ho-hum. This is getting really too predictable.

Then there's a federal case, a Fifth Circuit appeal involving allegations of real estate fraud in a $165 million condo tower deal. No constitutional issues involved, so I guess handling this case counts for less than nothing to Ms. Miers' critics.

And so it goes. As I'm skimming through these cases, I always look to see who Ms. Miers' opposing counsel were. They're mostly names that are familiar to me, which isn't a surprise, since they're also among some of the best lawyers and law firms in Texas. And some of these cases do look as dull and dry as desert sand, except there are always big bucks involved, and often some wicked-complicated legal stuff.

But some of them look pretty exotic. Here's one involving a fight over whether the State of Texas could obtain copies of investigation materials from an ongoing federal criminal grand jury's probe of possible antitrust violations in the prestressed concrete industry. There were probably only a few dozen careers on the line over that, maybe a few tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, with of course the Texas Attorney General and the U.S. DoJ involved, and it looks like a parallel case was going on in Illinois that did in fact make it to the Supreme Court while this one was still kicking around the Fifth Circuit. Looks like Ms. Mires just missed a shot at a Supreme Court appearance there by the skin of her teeth. She won again, though. Bor-ing.



Oh, wait. Here's one that doesn't seem to fit with the rest. A Fifth Circuit appeal — Ware v. Schweiker, 651 F.2d 408 (5th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 912 (1982) — involving a denial of Social Security benefits to an indigent and ill single mother. No big bucks there, how the heck did Harriet Miers get into this case, fighting the Department of Health and Human Services on behalf of some nobody?

Ah, well, here's a clue. The very first words of the opinion read: "Now ably represented by volunteer private counsel, obtained through a community legal aid service ...." This was a pro bono case then.

So Harriet musta been hangin' out down at the legal aid clinic, just like Meadow does on The Sopranos. That's kinda cool. But to no ultimate avail, it seems: "Like many who appeal negative Social Security decisions, Mrs. Ware is now undeniably ill and may indeed be unable to work, but, fettered by the bonds that the Act places on judicial review, we conclude that the district court properly denied her relief and we affirm the judgment." Touched their hearts and drew their admiration, Harriet Miers clearly did, but she couldn't get this panel — comprising in my opinion three of the finest judges ever to sit on the Fifth Circuit, the judge for whom I clerked, now-Chief Judge Carolyn King, plus Tom Gee and Alvin Rubin, tough graders all — to bend a harsh administrative law out of shape. Funny, that, how Judge Rubin still went out of his way to compliment Ms. Miers. Because, like, she was just a loser, you practically could see the thumb and forefinger-L on her forehead, couldn't you? Don't you think the judges shoulda seen that?

One little bit more about this case: If you aren't up on your citation form, here's what that "cert. denied" notation means: After losing in the Fifth Circuit, Harriet Miers apparently petitioned the United States Supreme Court to hear the case. But the Supreme Court wouldn't hear it; the odds of it actually taking a Social Security benefits denial case were, oh, about 603,209,214-to-1. Oh, well, trash this case then — it just doesn't count, 'cause Harriet Miers has never actually argued in the Supreme Court, y'know, and this couldn't possibly have anything to do with her qualifications as a Justice. What kind of law nerd would try to take some sick mommy's case all the way to the Supreme Court? Like Nina Totenburg woulda bothered to talk to her anyway if they'd taken the case, huh? Waste of time, waste of time.

Now here's another pro bono court-appointed appeal in a Fifth Circuit criminal case, Popeko v. United States, 513 F.2d 771 (5th Cir. 1975). Interesting how these federal judges seem to be turning to her when they have an unusual or exceptional case that needs really creative lawyering, even if it's not going to produce a fee. Case like that probably means lost fee revenues for her firm in the five or even six figure range (time spent that otherwise might have been billed to Disney or Microsoft, doncha know). But she takes 'em anyway. Guess that shows she's not very sharp, just giving away her work for free.



And last, there's Jones v. Bush, 122 F. Supp. 2d 713 (N.D. Tex), aff'd mem., 244 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1062 (2001). It appears that Harriet Miers, on behalf of candidate and President-Elect George W. Bush, became one of the country's exceedingly few lawyers ever to handle a case involving the Twelfth Amendment. (How many Twelfth Amendment cases have John Roberts, Larry Tribe, and David Boies collectively handled? Why, I believe that number would be ... zero!)

Twelfth Amendment to what, you ask? It definitely looks like they're talking about the U.S. Constitution.

You remember that one, doncha? "The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves[.]" Gosh, that might have been embarrassing! Win in the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore, then have another federal court rule it was all for naught if both Bush and Cheney were held to be inhabitants of Texas? Ouch.

I wonder: Who was on the other side of Ms. Miers in that case? Who was trying to undo the 2000 election with this Twelfth Amendment argument? Hmmm — hey, I recognize this guy too: Sandy Levinson. He's only the "W. St. John Garwood and W. St. John Garwood, Jr. Centennial Chair in Law" at the University of Texas School of Law. (Translation: heap big professor-guy.) "[A]uthor of over 200 articles in professional and more popular journals." Been a visiting prof at some other pretty good law schools: Harvard, Yale, New York University, and Boston University law schools. Co-author of a leading constitutional law casebook. I actually sorta know Prof. Levinson. Had him for a class, and I edited a book review he wrote for the Texas Law Review; I liked him a lot, and he's definitely one of the national stars on the UT-Law faculty. (I think he blogs some too!)

I suppose that would also make him one of those grand constitutional scholars who spends pretty much all of his time thinking about questions of great pith and moment. You know, the kind of superior, intellectually powerful, big-leagues lawyer that Harriet Miers ... obviously just isn't.

"So tell us, Beldar," you plead, "How'd that case turn out? Did Prof. Levinson save the day for either Al Gore or Joe Lieberman by keeping the Texas electors from voting for both Bush and Cheney?"

Well, the short answer, friends and neighbors, is that Harriet Miers just flat out kicked the distinguished Prof. Levinson's butt in court. On just about every issue, too. And she did it not once, not twice, but three times: federal district court, then again on appeal in the Fifth Circuit, and then again in the U.S. Supreme Court — another one of those "cert. denied" notations.

You ask breathlessly: "But is that 'cert. denied' really a win?" Why yes, friends, it surely is. Because, you see, when you've won in the lower courts, then your job as a lawyer is to persuade the Supreme Court not to take the case. Which is exactly what Harriet Miers did here — after first winning so convincingly in the federal district court that the Fifth Circuit, on the way up, didn't even bother to write an opinion of its own.

Of course, if she'd failed in that effort, and the Supreme Court had granted certiorari, then she'd have probably gotten to do an oral argument in the Supreme Court. Hey, I guess then her detractors couldn't have made that particular argument for why she's so unqualified for the Supreme Court bench, huh? "She's never argued in the Supreme Court, she's such a light-weight, nyah-nyah!" Well, no, she was so good in this case that she didn't have to. But I don't suppose her detractors are going to choke on that bit of irony, are they? Because this was actually just another missed opportunity for Ms. Miers; I think we've pretty well established now that she's never going to cut it as a Beltway Lawyer-Snark Player.

After all, Harriet Miers is just a "third-rate lawyer" from "an undistinguished law firm" who's never handled any big cases, hasn't got any appellate experience to speak of, and has never, ever done anything involving really hard or important stuff like constitutional law. She's just an unqualified crony. Fetches Dubya's coffee. There's just nothing in her record, no meaningful achievements, to distinguish her from a million other lawyers in the country.

Everyone says so. I read it today in the Washington Post! So it must be true, huh?


4 posted on 10/08/2005 9:33:08 AM PDT by AliVeritas ("A Proud Member of the Water Bucket Brigade-Keeper of MOOSEMUSS".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

Bush burns up yet more political capital. Look for a third "introduction" of the nominee sometime early next week.


5 posted on 10/08/2005 9:33:30 AM PDT by Parmenio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

Bush sure can stand tough against conservatives...a liberal says "boo" and he grabs his ankles.


6 posted on 10/08/2005 9:35:12 AM PDT by Jim_Curtis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Neville72

Double "back in your faces" all you engagers in the politics of personal destruction. You are engaging in what you always accuse the left of doing. Give Miss Miers the benefit of doubt. Wait and see how she does in the Senate hearings.


7 posted on 10/08/2005 9:35:54 AM PDT by conservative blonde (Conservative Blonde)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

---And she knows that judges should have a restrained and modest role in our constitutional democracy. ---

That's it in one sentence.


8 posted on 10/08/2005 9:37:36 AM PDT by claudiustg (Go Bush! Go Sharon!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AliVeritas

Might be a little easier to read if it weren't interspersed with unwarranted potshots at strawmen.


9 posted on 10/08/2005 9:38:23 AM PDT by thoughtomator (Corporatism is not conservatism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jim_Curtis

Why don't you stick to the issues instead of associating Bush and vulgarities? Folks like you are leading this discussion down the path of DU.


10 posted on 10/08/2005 9:44:47 AM PDT by dirtboy (Drool overflowed my buffer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

Mark Levin and Ann Coulter are as or more qualified to be on the Supreme Court.


11 posted on 10/08/2005 9:44:59 AM PDT by Ol' Sparky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator
Might be a little easier to read if it weren't interspersed with unwarranted potshots at strawmen.

Oh, those were'nt strawmen he was shooting at.

It was pundits who form unqualified opinions as to how unqualified Miers is.

12 posted on 10/08/2005 9:46:47 AM PDT by dirtboy (Drool overflowed my buffer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

It is pure characterization and does not refer to any actual criticism made, only the perception of the nomination's defenders of the criticism.


13 posted on 10/08/2005 9:48:15 AM PDT by thoughtomator (Corporatism is not conservatism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Jim_Curtis

You got that right.


14 posted on 10/08/2005 9:55:32 AM PDT by Mulch (tm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

I absolutely could not even get past the ROFLMAO headline on this one.

"No nominee has exceeded HM's range of experience"?

OMG, he has truly jumped the shark.

Dubya - seek mental help. IMMEDIATELY!!


15 posted on 10/08/2005 9:57:33 AM PDT by jstolzen (All it takes for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
How many times does he way "woman" in his address?
16 posted on 10/08/2005 9:59:52 AM PDT by Mulch (tm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
her work has earned the respect of attorneys across the nation

Lets take a survey of attorneys across the nation and see if they have ever have heard of her.

17 posted on 10/08/2005 10:00:19 AM PDT by VRWC For Truth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
Like Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Byron White, who were also nominated to the Supreme Court directly from legal positions in the executive branch, Harriet Miers will be prudent in exercising judicial power and firm in defending judicial independence.

Interesting choice of justices he picked to compare her to - the dissenting justices in Roe.

18 posted on 10/08/2005 10:03:11 AM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservative blonde

The problem is that when Miers tanks ... and there is no doubt she will, Bush will be powerless, and he'll have to nominate someone FURTHER left. This is why Bush blew it. You don't get what you want by compromise. You get what you want by winning from a position of strength.


19 posted on 10/08/2005 10:05:56 AM PDT by VRWC For Truth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Sparky

The bitch, Coulter, has already had to eat a large serving of crow on Chief Justice Roberts. She'll get her second plate full on Miers


20 posted on 10/08/2005 10:06:07 AM PDT by Neville72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mulch

How many times does he "way"?


21 posted on 10/08/2005 10:09:34 AM PDT by dc-zoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator

I found it exceptionally easy to read. Perhaps you should try a larger font?


22 posted on 10/08/2005 10:16:25 AM PDT by jess35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Sparky
I wouldn't vote for this cipher if she did one armed pushups on her fingertips while citing the collective works of Oliver Wendel Holmes and Charles Evans Hughes at the hearing.

Catching George Bush's coat and fetching George Bush's coffee does not a Supreme Court Justice make.

23 posted on 10/08/2005 10:17:08 AM PDT by tbg681
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: AliVeritas

Thanks for posting that. I read it in its entirety when Beldar posted it the other day.

Knowledge is power? Only when you have an open mind. The moonbats on the right who have emnerged from their caves this week, sadly won't listen to such a reasoned argument any more than the DUers would. It's all about what THEY think, so it must be so. They're soooo brilliant, don't you know.


24 posted on 10/08/2005 10:17:44 AM PDT by Neville72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Why don't you stick to the issues instead of associating Bush and vulgarities? Folks like you are leading this discussion down the path of DU.

"Ankle grabbing" is common terminology. It's the battle stance of too many Republicans unless they are facing al qaeda or their conservative base, then they are pretty tough.

25 posted on 10/08/2005 10:18:24 AM PDT by Jim_Curtis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: jstolzen
What do you know of Miers...other than what you've read from other people?

Maybe you'd better hold off on your diagnosis...that is, until you know all the details.

26 posted on 10/08/2005 10:18:50 AM PDT by jess35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Jim_Curtis
"Ankle grabbing" is common terminology. It's the battle stance of too many Republicans unless they are facing al qaeda or their conservative base, then they are pretty tough.

And it's inappropriate. Especially given that Bush has had no problems fighting for his agenda and fighting to get his nominees to date past Dem obstructionists.

27 posted on 10/08/2005 10:19:58 AM PDT by dirtboy (Drool overflowed my buffer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: tbg681

It doesn't matter how YOU would vote. You have no say so in the matter. That simple fact seems to have escaped all of you whining moonbats.


28 posted on 10/08/2005 10:20:40 AM PDT by Neville72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Neville72
The moonbats on the right who have emnerged from their caves this week...

So much name-calling. You should let your points stand on their own, rather than sniping at those who disagree.

29 posted on 10/08/2005 10:22:03 AM PDT by Petronski (I love Cyborg!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Neville72

is she is a decent strong woman? no question.

does she have the intellectual stamina that is required to actually elevate the level of discussion at scotus? clearly not.

yes I am elitist...the scotus by its very existence is elitist...afterall its designed to be a forum for our very brightest to devote all their energies in interpreting the constituion, something which the honorable average citizen is not trained or equipped to do in his daily life. we have the right to say whatever we please, but at the end of the day the scotus is not a popularity club, it is a solemn place of thought and debate... yes she may be confirmed by spineless rinos, but the GOP will regret it, I assure you.


30 posted on 10/08/2005 10:22:56 AM PDT by jabotinsky ("I die with Jabotinsky's name on my lips" - Shlomo b.Yosef, moments before his hanging by Brits)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

All I've heard since Monday is "sniping" from the Miers critics, none of who know the woman from Adam. Let's see. Just in the last few days on my beloved Free Republic, I've heard her called a chair warmer, a Souter, a coffee fetcher, a graduate of a 3rd rate law school, an empty vessel and on and on and on.

Hey if those are the rules of the game, I can play with the best of them and will relish doing so.


31 posted on 10/08/2005 10:29:09 AM PDT by Neville72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Especially given that Bush has had no problems fighting for his agenda and fighting to get his nominees to date past Dem obstructionists.

What about Myers? Boyle? Kavanaugh? Saad? Haynes? What about taking the bully pulpit against the GOP-lead Senate and gang of 14? Why not assert, from time to time, that the Senate is enaging in unconstitutional obstruction of Presidental power when it erects a supermajority hurdle for confirmation?

Where is this "fight?" It isn't. There is no fight. There is capitulation. Resorting to stealth. I don't like it.

32 posted on 10/08/2005 10:29:21 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Neville72

The conservative pundits wanted a big fight, so they could expend oceans of ink in the righteous cause, while making numerous talk show appearances over months of bitter fighting.

What did they get? Roberts and a walk. The pundits barely had their keyboards out. Now Bush gives them Miers and the conservative press is beating them both like stray dogs.

Bork was the pork of conservative punditry. They want Bork!


33 posted on 10/08/2005 10:31:31 AM PDT by claudiustg (Go Bush! Go Sharon!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

Yes Mr. President, great pick. Can someone please pass the Kool-Aid?


34 posted on 10/08/2005 10:33:37 AM PDT by trubluolyguy (Ready, Stop! Hamster Time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jabotinsky
yes I am elitist...

Fine, then you shouldn't have a problem with Miers. She's one of the legal profession's elite -- rated one of the top 100 lawyers in America, on several lists. Very bright and successful, an attorney for Fortune 500 companies. If that's not "elite," then the word has no meaning.

35 posted on 10/08/2005 10:35:11 AM PDT by freedomdefender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: claudiustg

And she knows that judges should have a restrained and modest role in our constitutional democracy---





="trust me"


36 posted on 10/08/2005 10:36:33 AM PDT by trubluolyguy (Ready, Stop! Hamster Time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Republican Wildcat
Interesting choice of justices he picked to compare her to - the dissenting justices in Roe.

As opposed to Miers' favorite justice, Warren Burger who voted FOR Roe.

37 posted on 10/08/2005 10:41:11 AM PDT by JohnnyZ ("I believe abortion should be safe and legal in this country" -- Mitt Romney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: trubluolyguy

38 posted on 10/08/2005 10:42:18 AM PDT by JohnnyZ ("I believe abortion should be safe and legal in this country" -- Mitt Romney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

So much name-calling. You should let your points stand on their own, rather than sniping at those who disagree




I find it odd that the first thing the "defenders of the faith"(Bush) do is resort to abusive name-calling. It proves a point that I have had for some time...you are not ever to, at any time, over any issue, disagree with the President. If you do, you are a troll, a closet DUer or a twisted Buchanonite.

To think, a great many of us would just like him to have been a conservative. Not just the "most conservative choice" in a race between a moderate and a socialist.


39 posted on 10/08/2005 10:43:48 AM PDT by trubluolyguy (Ready, Stop! Hamster Time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: trubluolyguy

Go look at the new thread on Rassmussen's poll just posted, nattering nabob.

51% approval rating among all likely voters for Bush. 81% approval among Republicans.

Who's out of touch here? Hmmmm?


40 posted on 10/08/2005 10:48:18 AM PDT by Neville72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyZ

Thank you, mmmmm, good Kool aid!

Bush can do no wrong! There is no problem on the borders!

Spending is at perfectly acceptable levels!

CFR was supposed to be a deal! That damned Supreme Court was supposed to overturn it!

There, I think the kool aid is working now.


41 posted on 10/08/2005 10:49:35 AM PDT by trubluolyguy (Ready, Stop! Hamster Time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Neville72

I believe that's called "sinking to their level."


42 posted on 10/08/2005 10:52:52 AM PDT by Petronski (I love Cyborg!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Neville72

Who's out of touch here? Hmmmm?




And how many times have we heard that "polls don't matter?"

I guess they do if you like the results, huh?


Nattering Nabob? Oh, cool, a new name in the name calling hall of fame! Uh-oh, wait a minute. What's all this dust everywhere?

Next thing you know you'll be calling someone a hippy!


43 posted on 10/08/2005 10:53:12 AM PDT by trubluolyguy (Ready, Stop! Hamster Time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: trubluolyguy

---And she knows that judges should have a restrained and modest role in our constitutional democracy---




="trust me"---

Do you have anything of substance to say? Or even anything that makes sense?


44 posted on 10/08/2005 11:00:27 AM PDT by claudiustg (Go Bush! Go Sharon!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: claudiustg

Do you have anything of substance to say? Or even anything that makes sense?




Now what fun would that be?

No really, if after the border situation, the out of conrol spending and signing CFR after swearing to veto it, you still trust him, you are a better person than I.


45 posted on 10/08/2005 11:04:18 AM PDT by trubluolyguy (Ready, Stop! Hamster Time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Sparky
Mark Levin and Ann Coulter are as or more qualified to be on the Supreme Court.

But Bush would never pick them because they are ill-mannered loudmouths.

Bush does not include in his social or professional circle a bimbo who refers to Harriett Miers as a "cleaning lady," nor would he hang with a squatty Northeasterner who thinks she is nothing more than a paper stapler.

46 posted on 10/08/2005 11:04:37 AM PDT by sinkspur (American Staffordshire Terriers should be bred out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: AliVeritas

Nice work, Ali!


47 posted on 10/08/2005 11:15:09 AM PDT by I8NY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jstolzen

"No nominee has exceeded HM's range of experience"?

Hey, you never know. What is it that Dobson can't tell us about? ;-)


48 posted on 10/08/2005 11:17:33 AM PDT by I8NY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: AliVeritas
Thanks for posting this. I would agree that the fact that a person had never argued before the Supreme Court could be explained by having successfully argued at the appeals court level and succeeding at having cert denied. Although, with a sufficient number of cases, eventually a case would be accepted.

I am not convinced that the pro-bono work reflects well on Miers. Challenging a negative decision on entitlement and then having every legal review uphold the decision means that Miers was out of touch with the legal reasoning that was required for this case. Presumably, Miers had some role in deciding whether to take that case or some other deserving case. If so, she chose a case with no legal basis. The dire circumstances of the client do not make up for having no grounds for appeal. Are we to believe that there was no other indigent and ill client whose case could be successfully pursued?

It is impressive, I think, that the President could state, "Beginning in the 1990s, Harriet Miers was regularly rated one of the top 100 lawyers in America".

49 posted on 10/08/2005 11:29:31 AM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

There would not be all this fear and whining if the Supreme Court judges were not nominated for lifetime positions. We need to work on term limits for these clowns.


50 posted on 10/08/2005 11:30:04 AM PDT by my_pointy_head_is_sharp (We're living in the Dark Ages.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-117 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