[processing please hold]

I've trusted Bush's pick on her since about the 4th or 5th day of his announcement. I will continue to trust his judgement on her pick.

[Calpernia]

Info ping. New left agenda domain .

[EggsAckley]

Personally I am so very tired of ALL the nattering nabobs and their rhetoric that I've just been tuning it out.

~</;o)

[muawiyah]

Must be the reason why National Review is against her ~ these guys were undoubtedly William F. Buckley's MJ dealers ~ probably still are, eh?!

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Yep, you got me. I'm a Commie.

Oh, by the way, did you support the defeat of Nazi Germany in WWII?

What? You did? Guess what? You're a Commie too, since the Soviet Union was our ally!

Welcome to the Commie club, comrade!

[.cnI redruM]

No one except my own. If Harriet Miers believed The Texas State bar should mirror society, she's wrong. No organization should attempt to mirror society. Society includes pimps, whores, winos, perverts and thieves. I wonder how many from each of these categories she inducted on to the state bar in questing for her goal.

Her practice of Affirmative action makes her an unqualified candidate from a conservative perspective.

[NatsFan]

Hey you know what, I bet some of those organizations support breathing as well. Better hold our breath.

It seems there is good indication she is pro-life. But we have absolutely no idea how she would vote on gun rights, property rights(overturning Kelo vs. New London), affirmative action, State's rights, or any number off issues that are important to conservatives. After how hard we worked to elect Republicans in 2004, we deserve better then this.

[John Jorsett]

Applying that logic, Hitler was a vegetarian, therefore vegetarians are Nazis.

Just because some people oppose Miers doesn't mean they're allied with the Forces of Darkness like MoveOn.org or the other fringies. It means they oppose Miers, and probably for entirely different reasons than those groups.

[thoughtomator]

Don't forget the evil Robert Bork!

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Who's Agenda are you Parrotting When You Do NOT Support Miers?

"Who's"?

I see you're a proud graduate of the Harriet Miers School of Spelling and Punctuation.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

If she's pro affirmative action then she doesn't belong on the court, period.

You disgrace yourself with this nonsense.

[Inyokern]

If this is the best defense that the pro-Miers side can come up with then they have surely lost.

[conservativecorner]

We are siding with our conservative principles. Everything else is "background noise", and should be ignored. It's called character, and my conservative beliefs eclipse my belief in President Bush. He's just a frail fallible human just like the rest of us by the way, and the conservative movement is larger than this President. We have to struggle on while he plans his library in a few years.

[SFinmate]

Who cares? The woman is unqualified for the position and her nomination is an insult to conservatives.

[Ol' Sparky]

One that opposes Harry Reid's agenda? And, Gloria Steinem's? One that opposes quotas and preferrential treatment?

This has to be the dumbest post at FR in a long time. Most liberal groups opposed David Souter when he was nominated, too.

[Mr Rogers]

Even Harriet Miers wouldn't be convinced by this arguement!

[conservativecorner]

"Miers Backed Race, Sex Set-Asides. She Made Diversity A Texas Bar Goal
Washington Post ^ | Saturday, October 22, 2005; Page A01 | By Jo Becker and Sylvia Moreno


Posted on 10/22/2005 8:38:48 AM PDT by .cnI redruM


As president of the State Bar of Texas, Harriet Miers wrote that "our legal community must reflect our population as a whole," and under her leadership the organization embraced racial and gender set-asides and set numerical targets to achieve that goal.

The Supreme Court nominee's words and actions from the early 1990s, when she held key leadership positions as president-elect and president of the state bar, provide the first window into her personal views on affirmative action, an area in which the Supreme Court is closely divided and where Miers could tip the court's balance.


(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ..."

Who do you think you are siding with regarding these facts? It's not the Heritage Foundation I can assure you.

[al_again]

Do you realize that all the tactics of the left are now being used by supporters of Miers (I know - not all but enough).

Let's see, we have:
1) Attack the messenger, not the message
2) Guilt by association
3) Guilt by non-association
4) Use emotional arguments rather than arguing substance

This is not DU - pls use relevant arguments rather than this type of BS.

[gondramB]

Correct me if I am misunderstanding you but I think that you are arguing that rather than evaluating Harriet Miers on her merits we instead let Moveon.org decide for us by doing the opposite of whatever they do. I can't do that.

[FairOpinion]

Well, I was leery, but on the fence.

But did you know she supports NUMERICAL QUOTAS?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1507258/posts?page=54#54