Posted on 10/14/2005 12:38:54 PM PDT by Theodore R.
She can also reasonably be expected to be a major change.
When President Clinton appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg, it was clear from her paper trail that she was a radical feminist who would surely vote to keep abortion legal. Why do you insult your supporters who expected you to give us a justice who would be the ideological opposite of Ginsburg?
I'm not sure what the attempted connection is here.
In presenting Miers as the most qualified person for this Supreme Court appointment, is there any evidence to convince us that she is more qualified than Judges Edith Jones, Janice Rogers Brown, or Priscilla Owen?
Maybe Mrs. Schafly can call up the Senate and see how many votes those candidates could have gotten and get back to us.
Since many prominent pro-choice officials belong to churches that are anti-abortion, such as John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, and Condoleezza Rice, why should we believe Miers is pro-life because that's the position of the church she attends?
Miers converted to this church and lives by its tenets, as opposed to the likes of Fat Teddy.
Oh, well, at least Schafly isn't asking how a childless unmarried woman can hold a pro-life stance like she did in an earlier column.
That's what's driving me nuts - those opposed to Miers are both clamoring how she is an unknown, and then almost in the same breath say she's gonna be another O'Conner.
Can't have it both ways, folks.
Actually has there been anything printed where Reid is quoted as saying "I support Harriet Miers' appointment to the Supreme Court"?
"Are you more trustworthy than Reagan or your father?"
Read my lips, Harried will never change....again.
Who cares, if President Bush said today the sky is blue, phyllis would be all over the media saying the sky is orange.
I guess Phyllis is upset that Roberts will have the same view on Roe as Rehnquist did. Either that, or she's not thinking very logically.
This is just the point. Will Miers be a rigid constitutionalist? I certainly hope so. If she will be, this is a change from her history in the late 80's and early 90's. But then again, that was a long time ago. It really does boil down to whether you trust Bush to be a true conservative. On many issues and decisions of Bush in the last five years, I have been disappointed.
Phyllis - don't think will get much out of HM during hearings
Phyllis - Partial birth ban will get to SCOTUS - "Will you recuse yourself on the PBA ban case?"
Phyllis - Entitled to know that know, and if she recuses, that oughta kill the nomination
Phyllis - GWB is not demontrably pro-life, and all of the women in his life are NOT
Phyllis - We are not a Bush party. We are a conservative movment
Phyllis - conservative movement needs to assert itself
In general, she holds that it is bad karma to inject Ms. Miers' religion into the calculus. That is more or less irrelevant for evaluating a SCOTUS pick.
If the republicans follow your advice in any measure, they will become a minority for another generation.
Ok, Johnnie.......you have made your point. For the sake of your readers, please stop using so many caps. All caps make for bad reading and they are bad etiquette.
No, but she was on his list of candidates that he said he would approve.
Phyllis thinking logically. That is the definition of an oxymoron.
As usual, the pro-Miers arguments would apply the same had Bush nominated Hillary Clinton.
Actually, a white woman aged 60 in the U.S. has a life expectancy of 23.5 more years...so she has a 50% chance of living to the age of 83 years and 6 months.
Nop. That's a certainty. All he expressed is that he supports the nomination - that's code for "no filibuster."
Excellent point, that the pro-Miers in the administration and on FR will probably ignore. This is the best Miers opinion piece I have seen.
Typical presumption from the Antis. The President does not have to answer ANY questions about this nomination and shouldn't. Now it goes to the Senate for disposal one way or another. There will be NO poll to see if we like it or not.
There is no requirement that nominations be popular with all or acceptable to all or even to any except 100 people deciding to accept or reject. And THAT is how it was designed by the Founders who wanted to keep the voters out of this completely.
Excuse me, but this is an outrageous comment. And BTW, the rate of illegal immigration has increased dramatically under Bush relative to Clinton.
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.