Posted on 10/23/2005 5:34:36 AM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
As more facts available, I'm getting disillusioned.
You mean like Bush didn't have the votes for the Medi-care pill bill?
So it was held open for over three hours. That kind of "we don't have the votes"?
you could try answering his question.
You are another in a growing list who are eager to prove they aren't worth the trouble of responding to. You automatically lose when you reframe the facts to suit your needs. Next!
The "article" by Mr. NutDaily, is based on old details that have been debunked in thread after thread at FR for weeks. But here's Farah repeating them anyway, again.
His sanity and ethics most certainly ARE relevant to this thread since the commentary is based on inaccurate information. The old "you need meds" bit is tired and worn out, and not very mature. But I will respond as if I'm in Rome, so:
Maybe you should ring for the nurse and have your diaper changed!
Hopa dis hepps.
From http://www.committeeforjustice.org/cgi-data/press/files/34.shtml
CFJ Clarifies Harriet Miers's Record
October 18, 2005
WASHINGTON, DC - The Committee for Justice, which promotes constitutionalist judicial nominees, today corrected prevailing myths about Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers s record.
MYTH: Harriet Miers supported gay adoption.
TRUTH: Miers was on a Select Committee of the American Bar Association s House of Delegates that organized an annual meeting in 1999. Her committee was nothing more than a mailman; it circulated the upcoming meeting s agenda. Her committee did NOT discuss, prepare, draft, endorse, or opine on any substantive issue. Though gay adoption was a topic at the general annual meeting, Miers was not involved in that discussion in any way. In fact, in 1989, in answer to a Lesbian/Gay Political Coalition of Dallas questionnaire on whether she supported repeal of Texas anti-sodomy law, Ms. Miers responded with a simple, No, putting her to the right of Justice Clarence Thomas on that issue. Furthermore, she made clear she was not looking for the group s endorsement. The AP reported that a coalition leader recalled, We weren t really pleased with her responses.
MYTH: Harriet Miers supported U.S. involvement in the International Criminal Court (ICC).
TRUTH: The source of this charge is the same as the previous item. Again, the ABA select committee on which Miers s sat did NOT prepare, draft, endorse, or opine on any substantive issue in any way. Miers has been an integral member of an administration that consistently opposes U.S. participation in the ICC. There is no evidence that Miers s position on the ICC differs from the President s.
MYTH: Harriet Miers supported women in combat and the military's "don't-ask-don't-tell" policy regarding homosexuals in the military.
TRUTH: These allegations are a mischaracterization of remarks made by Elaine Donnelly, the president of the Center for Military Readiness. As can be seen from Ms. Donnelly's article, she does not claim that Harriet Miers supports either women in combat or the "don't-ask-don't-tell" rules. More generally, it is unknown whether Miers has taken any position on these issues.
MYTH: Harriet Miers s pro bono work supported illegal immigration.
TRUTH: Working with Catholic Charities of Dallas, Miers defended an African woman who feared she and her child would be murdered by her tribe if she were returned home because the baby was born out of wedlock. Miers overcame the presumptions against her client and brilliantly presented the case before the court. Her victory was so convincing that the government decided not to appeal the case in federal court.
I asked you specific questions. Any answer to them??? Mind you, they were not vitriolic or personal, but to me are very real reasons for concern.
I agree everyone should have a chance to discuss this nomination, but somehow everyone cannot have their own facts.
Again, thanks for the post.
You forgot she was an education major (until she switched to math) at SMU along with Laura Bush, and that she pushed for the creation of an endowed lecture series in women’s studies, gave money and solicited donations to help get it off the ground.
In 1998, Gloria Steinem delivered the series’s first lecture. In 1999, the speaker was Patricia S. Schroeder, the former Democratic congresswoman. In 2000, the speaker was Susan Faludi. Former Texas governor Ann W. Richards was the speaker in 2003. Other speakers include Gwen Ifill, of Washington Week in Review and The News Hour With Jim Lehrer fame.
In thirty years, she argued three cases before the Fifth Court of Appeals. Her record? 0-3. If someone cares to use Lexis/Nexis (I don't have it) might be able to document that.
i too have supported the above--and more--in my lifetime... i've even campaigned for politicians such as Walter Mondale and Mike Dukakis... and today i am quite the conservative...
LO... ah, you mean like you're doing?
The "article" by Mr. NutDaily, is based on old details that have been debunked in thread after thread at FR for weeks. But here's Farah repeating them anyway, again.
You mean like you're doing with this having been "debunked" schtick ,but never managing to get around to saying specifically how?
His sanity and ethics most certainly ARE relevant to this thread since the commentary is based on inaccurate information.
Right, when you can't support your claims that the information is inaccurate, trash the source. Sorry, won't work. :)
The old "you need meds" bit is tired and worn out, and not very mature.
In your case, methinks it is: either you're a DU plant or not to be let out by yourself. Either way, it doesn't matter much since your opinion, at this point, isn't shared by many people.
But I will respond as if I'm in Rome, so: Maybe you should ring for the nurse and have your diaper changed!
Translation: you're a baby because you won't let me convince you that I'm right.
Observation: have you noticed that you seem to project a lot?
It's really not surprising why other more popular people on the President's list didn't want to go through this.
Somebody said the nomination should be pulled, and Senator Santorum should be nominated. That way the Democrats get a PA Senate seat EARLY. But Santorum would be more likely to follow constitutional principles on the court, wouldn't he?
George W. Bush is just a man, a man who temporarily holds the office of President. In 3 years, 2 months and 3 weeks he will no longer be such. But a Justice Miers would reign for decades after Bush is gone and forgotten. We're sorry Mr. President. This decision is just too damn important for us to just "trust" you. We need proof. And so far, the preponderance of the evidence does not support your side.
Not possible; facts are "stubborn things," and they are always correct. The alternative is either a lie or wishful thinking.
John McLaughlin said on his "Group" program that there is a 4/5 chance that Miss Miers will never sit on the high court.
Yes, and the opposite was true of Roberts. The more we learned about him, the better he looked, but I was also fearful about Roberts at the start of the process. I have no faith in this current selection.
I can't tolerate Schumer either. But I have to admit that he stand up far more firmly for his side than do our Republican senators. Ours seem like the ground hog on Feb. 2, afraid of their own shadows.
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.