Posted on 10/11/2005 12:49:28 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite
NRO comment on the sexist charge:
Okay, we confess. We don't like Harriet Miers because she's a woman. We also don't like Condi Rice because she's a woman. We don't like Margaret Thatcher because she's a woman. We don't like K-Lo because she's a woman. We don't like Mary Ann Glendon because she's a woman. We don't like Michelle Malkin because she's a woman. We don't like Lucianne Goldberg because she's a woman. We don't like Noemie Emery because she's a woman. We don't like Gertrude Himmelfarb because she's a woman. We don't like Limor Livnat because she's a woman. We don't like Linda Chavez because she's a woman. We don't like Midge Decter (had to slip that one in there) because she's a woman. We don't like Jane Austen because she was a woman. We don't like George Eliot because she was a woman. We don't like Sarah, Rachel, Rebecca and Leah because they were women....
We gave them open borders. We gave them medicare prescription drugs. We gave them campaign finance reform. We even conceded the need for 25,000 federal agents crawling up our backsides every day in the airports of America.
The only thing we asked for, and the one thing that was promised us, was a strict constructionist court. We never waivered in our support for this president. Now that he is a lame duck, the wife feels free to call us "sexists". Go figure.
Do you have a source for that? It is my understanding that Gonzalez chose thost nominees.
Regarding the TV interview of the President and Mrs. Bush this morning, I found the following comment of interest:
Q A lot of criticism coming for your nominee to the Supreme Court, Harriet Miers, from conservatives - people like Trent Lott and Pat Buchanan and George Will and Bill Kristol. Were you taken off-guard a little bit, caught by surprise by the amount of criticism you're getting for Judge Miers?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you know, I made a decision to put somebody on the Court who hadn't been a part of what they call the judicial monastery. In other words -- I listened, by the way, to people in the Senate who suggested, why don't you get somebody from the outside. And I figured that people are going to kind of question whether or not it made sense to bring somebody from outside the Court.
What did Bush mean by wanting to put someone on the Court "who hadn't been a part of what they call the judicial monastery."
Was Roberts part of the judicial monastery? Is Bush speaking in tongues?
Hello everybody!
but not a judge.
Good chief executives are, in my opinion, generally highly qualified to serve as judges. They have demonstrated the ability to analyze a case, listen to conflicting arguments and, in the end, exercised good judgment.
How is a good chief executive NOT qualified to be a judge?
Since I arrived in Washington four years ago, he has served with skill and integrity in the White House as Counsel to the President. I have counted on Al Gonzales to help select the best nominees for the federal courts, one of the President's most important responsibilities.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/11/20041110-8.html
I see you two have your routine down pat.
Yes. Harvard is an elite school that turns out elite judges.
Roberts is an elite intellectual. The "common man" he is not.
Laura Bush is not a politician, she is never going to be running for anything like Hillary Clinton.
All this attention to what she says is nonsense.
She didn't bring it up Matt Lauer brought it up.
She was in a no win situation if she said no the media would criticize her for not defending women.
Also to say republicans gave this country open borders is a joke. The borders were open all the way during the Clinton administration.
The only way to stop illegals is a fence and the dems are blocking a proposal by republican duncan hunter for a fence on all of california southern border.
I'm also so tired of republicans getting bashed for spending. Republicans in congress are making Louisiana pay loans while the dems want to throw 250 billion at Louisiana.
If we beat up on our own enough we will get something ten times even worse.
Gonzales was also on the research committee for selecting conservative federal judges.
"Tell me why I should."
Um....ok...hold on....(sound of crickets)...
OH..OK I GOT IT!
Because you should trust GWB.
And..and..because you suck!
And you are a DU troll!
Um...I can think of others...just give me a few minutes....
Heheh. You're dead.
How do you square that with
nominating only judges who have demonstrated respect for the Constitution and the democratic processes of our republic or demonstrated that they share his conservative beliefs and respect the Constitution.
The key word, demonstrated.
She may well turn out to be a good justice, but shes a lousy nomination because GWB turned his back on the very requirement, demonstrated respect for the Constitution which he campaigned on twice.
..
Main Entry: demonstrate
Pronunciation: 'de-m&n-"strAt
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -strated; -strating
Etymology: Latin demonstratus, past participle of demonstrare, from de- + monstrare to show -- more at MUSTER transitive senses
1 : to show clearly
2 a : to prove or make clear by reasoning or evidence b : to illustrate and explain especially with many examples
3 : to show or prove the value or efficiency of to a prospective buyer
"CQ, with little effort on their own part, could easily research to find that Miers picked Judges Janice Rogers Brown, Bill Pryor, Owen, and other staunch right-wingers for the federal bench. She led the President's research committee for those judicial openings."
No, she did not pick them. She was just in her position recently. She can be given credit for helping with Roberts, but that's about it.
What riles me more is that Bush says she won't change.
__________________________________________________________
She has changed quite often. She was a democrat, then became a republican. She voted for Gore, then voted for Bush. She donated to Hillary, then donated to republicans.
Her past history show she does change, quite often.
You said it not me!
It's disheartening to see even Laura Bush under fire for a quite innocent response to a Matt Lauer question. By sundown tonight the country will believe Laura actually called conservatives "sexists". She did no such thing.
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.