Posted on 10/22/2005 9:19:11 AM PDT by Calpernia
To little too late for me.
Well said Nic!
And let add something else here. I DO HOPE that something stops her nomination... I pray she withdraws!... but if she doesn't, W should get the message loud and clear! that we were NOT please with his pick. He must have us in mind the next time around, because I have the feeling there will be another vacancy during his presidency. 3 years is a LONG TIME...And would not that be FANTASTIC? Yes, it would, but only if he were to choose the right person this time?... and he better understand this now.
I am really fearful this woman is a "try to get along" type... and that is definitely NOT what we need in the SC. We need someone very clear on his philosophy (conservative hopefully) and be ready to battle for those ideas.
No. My original post is to show who launched the campaign against Miers.
My post is for research to see if the talking points in making a decision is from own beliefs or from spoon feed nonesense launched by Not In Our Name.
And for the record, FairOpinion is the ONLY one I've seen make a logical statement to NOT support Miers. And F.O.'s words have not come from any left material I've read.
I am not supporting her because of any information, there is none. Bush nominated as blank page as any 60 year old could be. I do not support her because of my intuition and life experience. I think she is in way over her head, but I could be wrong, she will have a chance prove herself in the hearings. And if she fails, it will not be because of her positions, but because she unable to convince people that she was up to the job. Or to paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen. She is no John Roberts, she is no Clarence Thomas, she is no Sandra Day O'Connor, she is not even a conservative version of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
"You mean to tell me that hiring to fill a quota would best serve the company's needs when what that company needs is a human being who's savvy with computers and accounting practices?"
First of all, my father's advance in management at a very large company was stopped because even though he had the very highest ratings he was told there would be no open slots for white men for 10 years unless they were selected for the very highest levels of management so I am personally as well as theoretically opposed to quotas.
But I am not ready to condemn Miers for suggesting as a private citizen that law firms try to diversify ad to set measurable targets.
And from what do we know in what way Miers supports the interpretation of the constitution? Conservatives are concerned about her interpretation and for those case laws upon which she will become a part become law of the land.
Agreed. Bush could've nominated a half dozen better qualified individuals, period. I'm not going to be in locked step with George when he's wrong; he's wrong on this matter and he's wrong on out of control government spending. He's insulting any and all conservatives who've supported him in the past. George, get back on track while there's still time, please.
Really? Where did you get that?
The left and the right oppose this nomination mostly for entirely different reasons. Therefore, the fact both sides oppose it means nothing.
There is no way there will be a Republic in five years if we don't get a real conservative majority on the court.
In Bush's two terms the shredding of the Constitution has accelerated to warp speed.
It's that simple.
Well, this is certainly today's stupidest post.
But these "measurable targets" are adjusted, usually down, according to a person's skin color, gender, or even age, in order to achieve disversity. How is that good business practice for a successful business? I think it isn't. And I also believe it's counterproductive for the existing employees to excel, knowing they have no chance to advance because of their gender, skin color, or age. In the long run, it's bad business practice.
Revisiting the Ginsberg nomination reminds me how useless the GOP is at advancing traditional Constitutional practice. "Talk is cheap."
A Senator who truly believes in traditional, Constitutional jurisprudence would -NEVER- vote to confirm a Ginsberg. The fact that she got as many votes as she did is another example of the "fighting spirit" and "worth" of the GOP.
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.