Posted on 10/23/2005 5:34:36 AM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
You're just as stupid as the other two. Such is life at FR.
Your tag name is an oxymoron on this issue. Please answer me one question honestly:
Do you think the President was telling the truth when he stated Meirs was the BEST QUALIFIED person he could find for the court?
Well I never had any respect for independents. They are roadkill that tried to stay in the middle of the road.
That's not an attack on her person (I will allow that she is a lovely human being). That is a frank comment on her qualifications, or, rather, lack thereof.
It should have been clear that I wasn't referring specifically to the nominee, but making the point that many people would rather not start passing laws regarding what you do in your house, and that those same people would also find attempts to legislate acceptance of deviant behavior unacceptable.
I'm aware of several definitions of tart... what's a retart?
First, his name is Farah, nor Farrah.
Second what matters about this piece are the facts in it. That's all. Farah's motives don't matter so long as the piece is accurate. Whether Farah likes or dislikes Miers doesn't matter. Whether Farah is speaking for himself or for conservatives or for the Punjab of Pakistan doesn't matter.
The notion that all these pundits oppose Miers primarily or even partially because they weren't consulted in the selection process is a gratuitous assertion -- it is your fantasy presented as fact. It implies that there are no legitimate reasons to oppose Miers, when there are plenty.
...a strong feeling that some ignorant, knuckle dragging, Neanderthal Jesus freak does not belong on SCOTUS.
These are your words, not the words of any of the pundits you mention. The consensus seems to be that she is a good lawyer but not good enough for the Supreme Court.
This thread should get back on a more relevant and informative topic, which is whether Joe Farah is a liar and a nut.
If there is another "Perot" in 2008, the GOP is toast for the reasons you stated. Can anyone say they have earned their keep?
All we get are more excuses and explanations. We need 60 senators. No we need 90 senators. And on and on.
At this point, it seems most people I know are just disgusted all around between "illegals gone wild" at every mall, spending liek there is no tommorow, and so on and so on.
This Meirs thing just shows how incompetence and mediocrity are applauded and rewarded in D.C.
Do you think a guy who didn't vote in 2000 and wasn't going to vote in 2004, is a good source of commentary?
Actually, Farah is just catching up with details that most of us have been familiar with for some time. But these are certainly some of the reasons why I think she is a disastrous pick for the court. She is on the wrong side of numerous social engineering issues.
As for allegation that we hate her because she is an Evangelical, that's the stupidest insult I've heard yet. Sure, the liberals are highly suspicious of her Evangelical connections. The conservatives who oppose her nomination here in the forum are mostly people who are sympathetic to religious commitment. I certainly am, and so are many others.
The ONLY doubt I have heard conservtive critics express about her religion is that just because she is Evangelical does not guarantee that she is conservative on the major social issues. I personally know a lot of sincere, prayerful Evangelicals who are not. And we have all heard of Evangelicals like Jimmy Carter, who manage to square their religion with flaming leftist ideologies.
Trusting politicians is for the feebleminded and Russians.
LOL... why thank you! I appreciate the thought, but I'm really not in Kent's class since I deal primarily in logic and not language."
"...and the voices in your head..."
I'm still laughing from that one... going to have to make a copy and post it up :-)
But let's test that proposition. Miers has a BS in Mathematics, a JD and has been hired by many high powered corporations in private industry to argue their cases.
Your qualifications?
You're welcome. Stop by any time.
Translation: our defense of President Bush's incredibly poor nominee for SCOTUS isn't working and we'd like to change the subject.
Farah's mental condition isn't relevant, and contrary to all the shrill claims, no-one has as yet demonstrated that there are any "lies" in the article.
Your entire argument is that everyone is being mean and lying about the nominee.
Generally when people start thinking like this, it's considered reason for pharmaceutical intervention.
I could care less. Here is what I know and why I am against this pick. Please correct me where I am wrong.
1. She is 60 y/o and does not look physically that healthy. Would it not have been better to pick someone in their late 40's or early 50's?
2. She has no written history with which we can ascertain any philophsy whatsoever. In fact, her writings are terrible and I cannot fathom how she would be able to write decisions as is required for the job. Why take the chance when there are so many more obviously more qualified people?
3. She has backed causes and ideals that are simply not conservative by anyone's definition. If that is ok with you, fine, its not with me considering what we were promised and what many of us volunteered for.
4. Roberts was originally picked to replace O'Connor. That was a good move since he was moving the court to the right. When Renhquist died, and GWB replaced him with Roberts, we got the status quo. Now that Meirs is replacing O'Connor, We have at best the status quo on the court, if not a move to the left. Have you considered this fact?????? It is even more disturbing considering we had two picks, not one.
5. The argument "Trust Me" is insulting to Americans. A justice for the SC should have a record that stands on its own like Roberts did. This is a lifetime appointment and cannot be corrected if a mistake is made. Although many of us have trusted GWB in the past, I simply don't think he has the credibility to ask anyone to take him on blind faith. He is not a king and deserves not to be treated as one either.
6. The hearings will show us nothing about her. If she employs the Ginsburg rule about questions, what can you honestly say you will have learned about her? Is this how you want "our side" to do things considering the number of highly qualified people we have already?
Please correct me where I am wrong.
I could sense from the git-go that he wasn't 'gonna give it to Rogers Brown or Owen... I was thinking Luttig. When he picked Miers, my jaw hit the floor.
To me... nothing would have solidified the party like a bloody fight for a real, conservative Justice. Bush walked away from a truly meaningful fight with Democrats... to fight his own party. It's not only sad... but stupid.
I remember when they floated her names a few weeks back and we were all like "This is a joke right???"
I would like to see if we could go back in FR archives to see what the response was then from some of these people ready to fall on their swords for this abomination.
Its truly incredible that someone who calls themselves a conservative (GWB) would choose mediocrity or excellence.
Agreed, and precisely where this is headed. If Bush were running again in 2008, I couldn't vote for him again let alone donate again.
Whether he is right on Miers or not is not relevant.
The President being a "brick wall" is not relevant.
If Miers were the person whom some would like to believe, she would have withdrawn her name by now.
If Bush were interested in the Republican party, he would have withdrawn her name by now.
If Bush43 didn't learn anything from Bush41's "read my lips" moment, one would think that others interested in keeping their jobs would.
Any Republican up for election in 2006 and 2008 who doesn't support the people who elected them shouldn't expect any support in return.
Please quote the statement I made (within the proper context please) where my comments were "wrong." I've stated that I don't object to hearings, but unlike you, I don't object to discussion prior to the hearings as you apparently do, and I pointed out why.
The Constitution gives the President the right to nominate and the Senate the right to advise and consent.
Yes, we know. You keep repeating it. They have not only the right, but the obligation. But the process doesn't end or necessarily begin there. This is what you are missing in your criticism of discussion.
The constitution certainly doesn't forbid us from discussing the nomination before the hearings take place, as your attitude almost seems to suggest.
Giving Miers a Hearing seems Constitutional to me in spite of all the discussion she will not uphold "original intent."
Discussing Miers before the Hearing is not unsconstituional. Nor is putting pressure on Bush to withdraw the nomination. If Bush decides to withdraw the nomination due to pressure from his constituents, that is not unconstitutional either. Or am I missing something? Your desire to end discussion and analysis on this basis is weak and disengenuous.
Bet that she has a Hearing. Odds are better than even she will be confirmed.
There it is. You've exposed your real purpose, and it is a petty one. To you, this is apparently about simply winning, consequences be damned.
You have no interest in the Supreme Court, the judicial philosophy of the justices or the impact that an appointment will have on you, or anybody, in the future.
It appears that you are only interested in the politics of it all - in "winning" for winning's sake. If Miers "wins," you "win." Is the political contest itself all that matters to you?
shrinkermd, once you lose site of the purpose of the game and the end result, and care only about the game itself, you have become no better than powerhungry Dems.
I've withheld commentary on Miers myself. I don't know enough to comment on her. However, unlike you, I don't bristle when people question the nomination or when they refuse to provide blind support to any and everything the President proposes.
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.