Posted on 10/13/2005 6:53:22 AM PDT by jveritas
So the key word is "unreasonable"? Fine. What's a reasonable search and seizure, as opposed to an unreasonable search and seizure (one of my original questions, btw)? Whatever you (or a judge) decides after the fact?
Whether he cares about politics or not, he has started a political whirlwind. He has disappointed many of the conservatives that supported him, in a matter of essential, absolute, the-line-is-here principle.
My concern with Ms. Miers' professional background is that there is nothing to suggest that she has considered and addressed weighty constitutional issues. Her background is primarily in commercial litigation -- an area based on contract laws and statutes and not heavily constitutional.
Furthermore, there are other constitutional issues besides abortion. Has Ms. Miers' expressed any view on other issues such as Church-State, federalism, criminal procedure, use of international law, etc.
And what is this site where the poll was taken? I look at at FR poll first.
The President knows her stand on these issues and I hope she will not publicly discuss it before she is confirmed because she should not do so. I trust my President Bush judgment, he has given us a lot of conservatives judges so far.
And the term of art "particularly describing" (and the words following) have more room for interpretation than a quick read seems to indicate.
You're about as incoherent as your screename.
Hadn't seen that before. I like to point people to FedSoc's ABA Bar Watch.
The jig is up on this nominee, and GWB will (rightly) be fingered as responsible for the ensuing political carnage.
And this is important, why?
The issue with Miers is lack of conservative credentials, and lack of "seniority," not lack of judicial experience.
But, she has NO track record. There is NO evidence of any judicial philosophy whatsoever. Miers is one in a long line of stealth candidates put forth by Republican Presidents, most of which have ended up being lefists on the Supreme Court.
One has to be a fool not to demand this nomination be withdrawn and a known originalist with a proven record replace her. It's not possible to win the battle until that starts happening.
People supporting Miers are doing more damage to the conservative movement than liberals and Democrats are. The stupidity of supporting this nominee is astounding. And, if she gets on the court and doesn't work out, those doing so are accountable for the damage done.
My fervent hope is that you are right and that President Bush has accurately assessed Ms. Miers' nomination.
And the same people, me included, may be attacking Roberts, depending on how he impelements his sense of Constitutional interpretation. In other words, the jury is still out on that one - and many of us have had our fill of "stealth conservatism."
And in the case of Miers' nomination, the "covers" of "qualified" and "not crony" are getting blown too.
Absolutely not! It IS whatever the LAW, as it has evolved on the issue CURRENTLY says it is and although I do not know, off the top of my head, what that is it IS written down somewhere and I could find it IF I were inclined to do so which I am not!
But by golly, they sure are defending the GOP. Bless their hearts.
...Pssst...wanna know a dirty little secret? Bill Rehnquist spent a year or two as Robert Jackson's law clerk in the early Fifties, and the first couple of years of the Nixon administration as John Mitchell's general counsel at the Justice Department. But from 1953 to 1969, he was...no, not a professor. Not a public-interest lawyer. Certainly not in government (definitely not in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations). No, he was in private practice. In that throbbing, thrumming, pulsating hub of constitutional law litigation...Phoenix, Arizona. That and he was a GOP activist (most notably a lawyer for the Goldwater campaign). Seriously, with all due respect to the late Chief Justice, if you think he was spending all or even most of his time in Phoenix on con law matters, I have a bridge over Lake Havasu I'd like to sell you.
And the term of art "particularly describing" (and the words following) have more room for interpretation than a quick read seems to indicate.
Yes! Thank your for pointing that out to me!
I suppose that is why we HAVE judges! Their JUDGMENT to be rendered, after looking at current U. S. law, existing precedent, and exercising due diligence to find out what the founders intended those words and phrases to mean!
The two are not mutually exclusive. I suspect a lot of it is "sour grapes syndrome." Of course to all the naysayers, I say run for President yourself and when you're elected you can appoint whomever you please (or whomever you can get through confirmation).
I suspect Bush knows he won't face any more elections, so political support may not mean that much to him. A couple of years down the road, probably even less, this will be forgotten, especially if Miers is confirmed and turns out to be as conservative as Bush seems to think she is. We certainly won't hear any pundits acknowledging their error-- they never do.
From Drudge:
The DRUDGE REPORT can now reveal that not only did Harriet Miers testify that she would not join the “politically charged” Federalist Society, she testified that she had joined a liberal organization – the Democratic Progressive Voters League.
Given that, anyone promoting this nomination from here on, in my estimation, is not a conservative. No true conservative would support a nominee whose only paper trial likes Miers politically to left-wing organizations.
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.