Posted on 10/10/2005 5:23:26 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite
Edited on 10/11/2005 7:18:10 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
In nominating Miers to the high court, Bush not only ducked a fight - he insulted the institution.
When in 1962 Edward Moore Kennedy ran for his brother's seat in the Senate, his opponent famously said that if Kennedy's name had been Edward Moore, his candidacy would have been a joke. If Harriet Miers were not a crony of the President of the United States, her nomination to the Supreme Court would be a joke, as it would have occurred to no one else to nominate her.
(Excerpt) Read more at philly.com ...
ping
"By choosing a nominee suggested by Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid and well known only to George Bush, the President has ducked a fight on the most important domestic question dividing liberals from conservatives: the principles by which one should read and interpret the Constitution. For a man whose presidency is marked by a courageous willingness to think and do big things, this nomination is a sorry retreat into smallness."
That for me is the gist of the matter.
How did we ever survive before they started Senate confirmation hearings on a President's appointment?
Better Harriet Miers than justices Souter, Kennedy or O'Connor. Miers won't look to European opinion or the NY Times editorials for guidance. She will let the Consitution guide her.
Just joined? Welcome to FR.
"There are 1,084,504 lawyers in the United States. "
Actually, if any one wants to be 'cool' in the deepest part of their hearts, they are a 'lawyer' too.
So, I think there is far FAR more Lawyers than he estimates. Funny, however. Clearly he is not cool w/ Harriet.
Sounds like Chuck thinks this Whitehouse is just crawling with cronies and perps. Just who can we depend on?
did you get a free crystal ball with your signup?
lol
>
"By choosing a nominee suggested by Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid and well known only to George Bush, the President has ducked a fight on the most important domestic question dividing liberals from conservatives: the principles by which one should read and interpret the Constitution. For a man whose presidency is marked by a courageous willingness to think and do big things, this nomination is a sorry retreat into smallness."
That for me is the gist of the matter.
>
No, it's not. The gist of the matter is these folks who want to enshroud the USSC in some kind of aura of superiority to the common man seem unable to do two things:
1) Read the US Constitution and see that nominees are not even constrained to be lawyers. In fact, non lawyers have served.
2) Count and understand what a vote is. It does not matter what language this woman uses when she votes. It only matters that she votes. Justices don't persuade each other of anything. They evaluate the facts as they choose and issue 6-3 rulings or 7-2 rulings or whatever. If she has a chance to vote down Roe, do you really need any more language from her beyond "It's murder"?
"I would much rather have someone like Walter E. Williams on the bench - no elitist and not even a lawyer - because his stance on the constitution is well known, and he has spent his life defending it."
I would definitely pick Williams over Miers. He is definitely a known quantity. Miers is a piece of film that refuses to develop.
Is this a new piece, or a regurgitation of the old? I could swear this was already posted a few days ago. Or it's all just starting to appear repetitive.
LOL, we're still waiting for answers and all we get is a dead phone line.
"If she has a chance to vote down Roe, do you really need any more language from her beyond "It's murder"?"
Yes. I want that person to say "This is beyond the scope of the constitution - it is a state issue."
That would show they understand the limits of the federal government. THAT is what I want in a supreme court justice.
It seems that Miers' worst "crime" is having no paper trail. However, when there is a paper trail, libDems filibuster, and the 7 sell-out RINOs won't allow a filibuster BUSTER nuke.
"Experience needed? The long history of nonjudge justices.
Nearly half of justices had no prior experience on the bench.
By Warren Richey | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON – John Marshall is widely revered as "the great Chief Justice," but before joining the Supreme Court in 1801 he had never served a day in judicial robes and lost the only case he argued at the high court.
Earl Warren had worked for 18 years as a prosecutor and was three times elected governor of California. But he had no prior judicial experience. Nor did William Rehnquist, Felix Frankfurter, and Louis Brandeis..."
SOURCE===>http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1007/p01s03-usju.html
Agreed. And Bush ain't no "stupid", "small", "drunk", either. He's been doing graeat with what and who he's got to work with except for immigration.
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.