Mystery-Woman Miers (Has Supported ICC, Gay Adoptions, Tax Hikes; Some "Conservative," Huh...?)

World Net Daily ^ | 10/03/2005 | Joseph Farrah

[AmericaUnited]

>>>>>POSTER'S NOTE: historically, this has always meant "marriage" and "adoption," insofar as homosexual advocacy groups are concerned] as non-gay men and women?" Again. That is your note. Not what is said. And it has not always meant marriage or adoption. The date of this application is 1989. Marriage and adoption equating to rights was not in consideration in 1989.

Don't confuse Kent and his fertile imagination. Miers checked that she was not in favor of repealing the law which criminalized homosexual behavior.. Only those who can't think would somehow believe Miers was in favor of gay marriage, but still wanted queer behavior punishable under the law. DUH!

[AmericaUnited]

In other words: you got nada. Gotcha.

I posted a direct link, exposing a blatant lie. You are the lazy fraud here.

[rollo tomasi]

"...I proceed to lay it down as a rule, that one man of discernment is better fitted to analyze and estimate the peculiar qualities adapted to particular offices, than a body of men of equal or perhaps even of superior discernment."

Bush and you guys problem is the advise and consent process started before a nominee was even chosen. Miers was on the "list of surrender to compromise" remember. That is why Reid was pleased (Not that he will vote to confirm). Reid knew Bush consented to the compromise thus confirming what Hamilton and the Founders thought was not the best idea.

If Miers was the best Bush thought then I trust his judgment even less. Plenty of Scalia and Thomas "clones" out there but Bush had to pick someone from the "list" who will be tarred and feathered if any case involving the Bush Administration comes before the court.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Uh-huh. Yeah. "Same civil rights as non-gay men and women"... but NOT marriage or adoption. Right. Sure thing. Yoooooooouuuuuuuu betcha.

Wouldn't it have been a whole lot simnpler for you, in the long run, just to support Kerry directly, outright, and hope like mad for the best...?

[ez]

Bush and you guys problem is the advise and consent process started before a nominee was even chosen.

I don't have a problem. I recognize the President's right to choose the nominee, and I support her, since she doesn't suck.

[Calpernia]

Very interesting.

Your second link is for democracynow.org

That runs off the same data and promotes the same campaign as bushcommission.org.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bushcommission+democracynow&btnG=Google+Search

Bushcommission.org is what I based my post here yesterday on:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1507280/posts
Whose Agenda are you Parrotting When You Do NOT Support Miers?

Bushcommission.org is owned and run by 'Not In Our Name'

They are the ones that launched the anti Miers campaign.

You posting your link from democracynow.org is very telling in my eyes.

And is all that needs to be said.

CIAO!

[AmericaUnited]

Kent, you're an idiot! I post direct rebuttals to this Farah nonsense and all you come back with in response is lame gibberish. As said already, Farah is considered a nut job by the rest of us with brains. Enough... this is a waste.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

You posting your link from democracynow.org is very telling in my eyes.

Not a whole lot of pro-gay advocacy articles on conservative sites, obviously, tot. (Well... not before you and the rest of the Harriet Hallelujah Choir started up, at any rate.) Why: where did you suppose pro-gay advocacy groups were likely to disseminate their stuff...?

CIAO!

Translation: "Busted! Must FLEE -- !" LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!

[ez]

Reid knew Bush consented to the compromise thus confirming what Hamilton and the Founders thought was not the best idea.

The Founders gave the Senate the ability to stop an onerous pick, and I will admit that cronyism was high on their list of undesirables, however, since they did, for the President to make political calculations as to what nature of nominee could be affirmed, is not a problem, but is the smart thing to do.

Demanding prefect adherence to the agenda in the face of staunch political opposition is the stuff of fools or rabid partisans.

Because the Senate did not have the stomach to defeat the judicial filibuster, Bush is left with the political landscape is it is, as much as we don't like it.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

An evangelical/Protestant should replace one of the two vacancies formerly held by Protestant attorneys on the SC.

Perhaps not this evangelical/Protestant.

[Nowhere Man]

So then you agree with Chucky Schumer that we need to know this nominee's judicial philosophy before we can vote to affirm her?

Before you buy a car, you do kick the tires, open the hood, try out all the option before you buy it, don't you? Well, that's the same thing with knowing the philosophy of the judges you put up there on the Supreme Court or any court. They can be there for 20 or 30 years, just look at the damage the Warren Court has done to us and we are still fighting the cancer that thing has caused down to this very day. I have to agree with Chucky Schumer on this one (yuck) but we do have different standards in what we are looking for, but the thing is, we need to subject her to the process much like any job interview and more.

Someone said a while back, maybe President Bush wants to get Souter a date. B-) He's an old goat, she's an old maid, well, maybe we will see sparks fly. B-D Occam's Razor anyone? B-)

Seriously, I think the President shot himself in the foot while driving over a land mine on this one, the best solution is for her to withdraw, which is a possibility but I'm not holding my breath.

[N3WBI3]

He forced me in 2k4. Even though Im not happy about prayer in schools I could not go the libertarians because of Abortion. I knew he would flop um the nominations, though he did so well with Roberts I thought maybe I had been mistaken..

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

As said already, Farah is considered a nut job by the rest of us with brains.

Strictly speaking: you and the voices in your head are not, from a grammatical standpoint, considered an "us."

[rollo tomasi]

Let me elaborate more then.

"Bush and you guys problem with people all upset with the Miers nomination who will stop giving money to the GOP... (Is this better now)

What did Bush run on again? Thats right, it does not matter as long as some compromise was reached.

[Republican Wildcat]

These lies have been posted before and are no more true than they were the first time they were posted. Give it up.

[rollo tomasi]

'Because the Senate did not have the stomach to defeat the judicial filibuster"

Bush is such an effective leader that he lets moderates in his own party walk all over him. Great, I guess Bush likes bending over a lot.

[Nowhere Man]

I said that a few weeks ago, but he looks more like Fredo every day. Rove is Hagan. Cheney is Clemenza, Rumsfeld is Sonny.

It really is the Godfather playing out. I'm just waiting for a Don Vito to step up. What we have now is pathetic.

Anybody for making the next book, "All The President's Men II?" B-) /sarc>

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Give it up.

You're certainly welcome to take a forlorn stab at "debunking" the meat of the accusations, if you like. (Certainly, none of those preceding you on this thread have been terribly successful at it, to date.) :)

[unsycophant]

It's been going on for several weeks now. Most people are choosing to opt out of participating in these sorts of threads for exactly the reason you stated.

Direct rebuttal and irrefutable proof does not compel the critics to stop attacking Miers, who often go as far as to cite lefties and radical lefty organizations as credible sources of "proof".

It is a complete waste of time, and shows a fundamental problem in the GOP for letting these goofballs believe for too many years they had some kind of power in the party.

[ez]

I have to agree with Chucky Schumer on this one (yuck) but we do have different standards in what we are looking for, but the thing is, we need to subject her to the process much like any job interview and more.

You do understand, of course, that until 4 years ago when Chucky said he will now consider the ideology of the nominee, that it was taboo to probe judicial philosophy. So I'm a big boy, I get it, picking Supreme Court justices is now a political exercise. Why shouldn't this tradition of our country be destroyed with all the others?

However, I will submit that, if this a job interview, the President is the interviewer and the hiring agent, and the Senate is the only arbiter of that decision...NOT THE BASE.

If your side wishes this nominee to fail, you should be petitioning your Senator to vote NAY, and NOT engaging in self-destructive calls for her withdrawal.

I'll stick to what I said when the left was filibustering Estrada...The President's nominee deserves an up-or-down vote.