Posted on 10/09/2005 9:10:09 AM PDT by Crackingham
So if he is so smart according to you, why don't you trust him? hmmmmm
***
Trust him for WHAT? He hasn't said anything about her conservative credentials or her judicial philosophy.
Now if he came out and said she has the same judicial philosophy as I do, then he would have said something of substance. This is just general thoughts on judicial nominees.
Though it is comforting to know we are in GOOD company, I dare say on the part of most of us, our decision to oppose Miers' nomination has NOTHING to do with the opinions of pundits or politicians.
And if he did come out and say what you think he should have, just what do you think the OLD MEDIA would have done with that. Supreme Court justices do not recommend others. They respond as generally as they can without being accused of making a statement. hello!!!!
There you go. Now, we can all be happy. :-)
RuHe said it wasn't the best pick? Really, not what I heard.
Maybe he thinks it's not the best "conservative pick" but that's not the same thing. He himself said he was remaining "neutral".
So if your argument was stupid and I said it was stupid, then it's my fault for not getting your point? joke
Because she is way cuter looking than Wolf Blitzer.
Which candidates without judge experience would you recommend?
Surely he understands he is helping her cause by speaking out at this time. If he had serious reservations, wouldn't it be better to say "no comment"?
"RuHe said it wasn't the best pick? Really, not what I heard.
Maybe he thinks it's not the best "conservative pick" but that's not the same thing"
You just said he was "neutral", but what hes said this week isn't. You said: "its not the same thing" --Translation: "Im moving the goalposts to fit my prior assertion"
Try again.
"So if your argument was stupid and I said it was stupid, then it's my fault for not getting your point? joke"
The only joke here is your lack of logic.
Move along now, pom-poms in hand.
I'm not a "conservative"...never claimed to be. I'm here because I support President Bush.
So don't mock me for your supposed standards. If someone says they KNOW 100% FOR A FACT that Miers is not of this caliber, they have the burden of proof to prove it. Your trying to shame me is just a loser tactic.
But they aren't nominated, are they?
At any given time, there is ALWAYS somebody MORE qualified for any given job.
I'm sure there is somebody in Pennsyvlania more qualified to be a senator than Arlen Specter, but most of us live in the REAL world and realize you have to deal with who is either in the job or in line for the job.
She's the pick that is going to be approved. Conservative candidates would never be....so your argument is moot.
No, he's pushing forward something thats untrue. Anyone who listened to Rush this week knows he is not really neutral on this. He's not NEAR as forceful as some of the other pundits have been in their opposition, so in that sense I guess you could say he's been "neutral" compared to them. LOL
Now you're just proving to everybody just how dumb and desperate you are.
He is remaing NEUTRAL because that is the way this is handled, unless, of course, you, in your endless pit of wisdom, can provide a link for ANY other Supreme Court justice coming out in SUPPORT of any nominee.
Got one? If not, stop saying stupid stuff like that.
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.