[dighton]

As one who hasn't joined the uproar to can Miers, I find this less than helpful. Guilt by association, flamebait, and all that.

[Junior_G]

On any issue, you can find unsavory characters on either side of it. Your point is silly.

[N3WBI3]

Whose Agenda are you Parrotting When You Do NOT Support Miers?

My own! Why must a conservative who disagrees with Meirs be 'Parrotting' someone elses view point...

[DocH]

All you need to do is see who has supported her from DAY ONE - "Dingy" Harry Reid, the liberal demonRAT scumbag.

Even if we didn't know as much about her as we do now, THAT fact ALONE would be enough reason NOT to support her.

[RFEngineer]

In politics as in life, one must decide one's bedrock principles and then you make your decisions with those principles in mind.

For you to state that opposition on judicial appointments on reasonable grounds (even the most strident PRO Harriet Miers folks can't seriously believe there are NO reasonable grounds from which to oppose her) confers some heretical characteristics upon the opposer is patently absurd.

I can use your (faulty) logic to state that your blind support for GWB means you are anti-Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton - because all of these men accepted that the federal government role must be limited, and GWB has grown gov't faster than anyone.

So what do you think? Are there NO grounds for reasonable men and women to hold opposition to Harriet Miers' nomination to the supreme court?

This is, of course, is a rhetorical question, because there is only one intellectually honest answer.

[Willie Green]

For those of you promoting the agenda of NOT supporting Harriet Miers, take a look at where you are siding.

Guilt by association, also known as the "bad company fallacy" or the "company that you keep fallacy," is the logical fallacy of claiming that something must be false because of the people or organizations who support it.

[smoothsailing]

I support the President's choice of Harriet Miers. I look forward to the hearings.After that, her nomination should be sent to the floor (with or without recommendation) for an up or down vote.

Gotta go, have a wonderful weekend, Calpernia!

[tomakaze]

re:For those of you promoting the agenda of NOT supporting Harriet Miers, take a look at where you are siding.
 
While not the absolute dumbest, lamest, weakest, feeblest thing I've seen posted on here in the past few years, this is definately in the top 10.

[Lurker]

Mine.

L

[writmeister]

I oppose the nomination of Harriet Miers for two reasons:

(1) Nothing in her professional background shows any deep consideration of constitutional issues. When I speak of constitutional issues, I mean issues besides abortion. As an attorney, did Ms. Miers ever work on cases involving constitutional criminal law issues, capital punishment, federalism, the role of religion in society, or the consideration of international law. I have seen nothing to show that she practiced anything other than commercial litigation. While Ms. Miers was clearly successful in her chosen practice area, it is not one that is heavily based on constitutional law.

(2) As a Texas attorney, I had the opportunity to witness her involvement as State Bar President. Putting aside the fact that the Texas state bar is dominated by liberals, Ms. Miers' tenure seemed to focused on enforced diversity and IOLTA. Plus, she seemed to be a believer in "root causes" for problems rather than personal responsibility. I thought it was quite reprehensible when she injected the issue of "root causes" in her article on the Tarrant County Courthouse shooting in 1992. Everything about her tenure as state bar president suggests to me that Ms. Miers is not a conservative.

I have been a consistent Bush-bot for more than a decade; however, I think this nomination is a mistake. My opposition has nothing to do with anything produced by the MSM or other left-wing groups. It is based on my experience as a Texas attorney.

[John Lenin]

DU troll thread bump

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

I like M&Ms too.

[Ohioan]

Your guilt by association tactic is pathetic. You obviously have no articulable reason to support the lady, so you try to disparage those who don't support the lady.

Enough is enough. Can the demagoguery, where the American future is at stake.

[ladyinred]

Some of us have been saying that those making such a fuss are doing the job the liberals usually do. In fact, they can just sit back and smile and let the republicans destroy themselves on this one. I am appalled by this all, and shocked to be honest.

[counterpunch]

Wow. Totally pathetic.
You use the same logic as the communists you accuse us of siding with.
Remember: America is a terrorist nation because we shared a common goal with Bin Laden when we fought the Soviet Union in Afghanistan?

Or what about this:
You are promoting the Democrats' agenda when you support Harry Reid's personal pick for the Supreme Court.

[Revolting cat!]

Oh great, Calhernia, so now we're communists in addition to being sexist elitists! I luv accumulating these titles by correspondence. Bushbotism is now like Universal Life Church. Do you by any chance offer printed, framed diplomas that we can hang on the walls of our offices?

[Inkie]

Anyone who has to "bone up" on the Constitution doesn't belong on the Supreme Court.

[Washi]

Guess who breaths oxygen: you may be surprised...

Adolf Hitler (breathed oxygen for most of his life)
Pol Pot (yup, he breathed it too)
Bill Clinton (that depends on what the meaning of 'breath' is)
Hillary Clinton
Rasputin (he may not have got as much as anyone else, but he breathed it.)

Pretty lame post. Maybe you'll do better next time.

[Lazamataz]

Yes, yes, I know: Every time I criticize anything Bush does, G-d kills a kitten.

[Flux Capacitor]

Well, I think this post does it.... the pro-Miers crowd has officially lost the argument. They twist themselves into pretzels finding ways to discredit every last conservative who opposes this joke of a nominee (and that's a long list), while the "trust me" line is the only thing they can come up with as a rationale for putting on the Supreme Court a lady who thinks a strong Constitution is what you get from eating your Wheaties each morning.

Joke's over, George!

-Dan