----I say let's have hearings like it says in the CONSTITUTION!----
The Constitution doesn't say a word about Senate hearings for Supreme Court nominees.
-Dan
Posted on 10/12/2005 5:26:46 PM PDT by StatenIsland
WE ARE REPUBLICANS AND CONSERVATIVES who supported the election of George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. Today, we respectfully urge that the nomination of Harriet Miers to the United States Supreme Court be withdrawn.
The next justice of the Supreme Court should be a person of clear, consistent, and unashamed conservative judicial philosophy.
The next justice should be a person of unquestioned personal and political independence.
The next justice should be someone who has demonstrated a deep engagement in the constitutional issues that regularly come before the Supreme Court — and an appreciation of the originalist perspective on those issues.
The next justice should be a person of the highest standard of intellectual and legal excellence.
For all Harriet Miers. many fine qualities and genuine achievements, we the undersigned believe that she is not that person. An attempt to push her nomination through the Senate will only split the Republican party, damage the Bush presidency, and cast doubts upon the Court itself.
Sometimes Americans elect Republican presidents, sometimes we elect Democratic presidents. Whatever the differences between the parties, surely we can at least agree on this: Each party owes America its best. There is a wide range of truly outstanding legal talents who share the president’s judicial philosophy. We believe that on second thought President Bush can do better — for conservatism, for the Supreme Court, for America.
Yes.
Too bad YOU don't get to pick. Please indicate to me which section of the Consitution makes this a requirement?
a few years, when Miers has acquired a constitutional philosophy and demonstarted her commitment to strict constructionism,
Or are we just throwing over the argument we have made over the last decades against imposing litmus tests for Judges? Sorry YOU all have to make the case against her. You are failing at it. Just cause she is NOT your personal choice means nothing.
And your proof that this is so in Miers case is???? That's an assumption. Funny how all these Miers critics assume their is some magic super Conservative hero being overlooked that can get pass the Senate if Bush just pulls Meirs. All the critics are saying "trust us, this is a bad idea" OH? Prove it. Sorry but I can look at Bush's Judicial picks. Point for HIM. Why should I trust the critics judgment?
---I'll try to be NICER, if you will try to be SMARTER!.......---
Good tagline!
I thought Frum was Canadian. When did he become a citizen?
Do these things ever work?
Professional Information (Optional, but Appreciated)
Please select one: Legal Practitioner Law Professor Law Student Retired Legal Practitioner Non-Legal Practitioner State of Practice: Daytime Phone Number:
you're still just as good as you always were.....;)
That's right, got to have the lynching before the trial cause you all know you are going to lose the trial. Be nice if ONE of you made the case why you are speaking up that doesn't boil down to "She is NOT our choice." So far that is ALL we are hearing from the Anti-Miers. Funny how you all want to play the Dems game and find a nominee who will promise to vote the way YOU want.
Prove that statement. You mean "up to the job" like Beyer, Souter, Kennedy, Ginzburg and O'Conner? That is the whole problem here. NICE you have opinions, they are NOT facts. Sorry she is NOT who you want but NONE of you have made even the beginning of the case that she "isn't up to the job". Amazing how supposed "Conservatives" now want an Ivy League school degree and a rabid following among the Legal guild as a qualification for the SC. YOU did hear both Scalia and Pickering DO NOT agree with this opinion of Miers didn't you?
So you want to argue that Conservative Judges only follows their principals and the Law in order to draw favorable attention for the Establishment? Sorry but a judge who would ignore the law and rule based on how they think it will effect their career down the road is EXACTLY the kind of judge MOST unqualified for the SC. Basically you are arguing we must bribe future judges to get them to follow principals.
Sorry you are mad. However, that does NOT make her unqualified. Funny how you all forget that Souter was NOT known to Bush Sr and was the Establishment pick. Gee that really worked out well for us didn't it?
Sorry not proof of anything. Care to make a case why she is unqualified to be on SC other then "She is Bush's pick and I am mad at Bush"? Guess you all have not been listening to people like Scalia and Pickering on this.
That's right got to have the lynching first then the trial. The critics know the facts do NOT support them and that they went off with NO reason on their side. They know they are going to lose the trial. God knows they would rather shatter the Conservative Movement then actually find out ANYTHING factual that may prove them wrong about Miers. They would rather be wrong then lose
"There isn't any shortage of natural gas, it's just that it's going to cost a lot more..."
What the hell's wrong with that picture? I mean, is the so-called law of supply and demand supposed to actually exist or something like that?
Probably a combination of increased cost of production while capacity is strained (sort of like "working more OT but having fewer workers), and increased cost of "maintenance" to fix damage caused to infrastructure by the storms. Somebody has to pay for it.
And the proof that she isn't is? Funny how neither the Executive VP of the Federalist Society, nor Conservative Judge Pickering agree with the critics opinions of Miers. But that is right, that doesn't matter because 79 unknown individual blogger don't like her because they do not know her so the experts opinions can be ignored just cause it contradicts the critics feelings.
Hey chickie, I am soooo glad you are okay!
How does the Senate "Advise and Consent" then? Just on how they feel? Party Loyalty? What the activists tell them? Don't understand why the Anti-Miers are so afraid of actually FINDING out anything about Miers.
The Constitution doesn't say a word about Senate hearings for Supreme Court nominees.
-Dan
Hearings are the format that the Senate's role has taken. It has been this way for some time. Let's not be disingenuous about this.
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.