Posted on 10/04/2005 12:05:25 PM PDT by gpapa
If we get some kind of business done on Social Security over the next 3 years that will be the capstone IMO.
You apparently only read Beldar's 11 a.m. post today. I was referring to his 5:54 a.m. post and those preceeding it.
http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/
He gives detail and insight that I'm not reading elsewhere.
At least you are honest and have an open mind.
My assertion is that Miers lacks expertise in constitutional law. The 5:45 post acknowledges this, yet excuses it away by saying that most lawyers are in the same position. The answer to that is, most lawyers are not candidates for the Supreme Court!
The fact that most lawyers have an inadequate grasp of constitutional law, and that Miers is likewise unremarkable in this area, should alarm us. Inexperienced in constitutional law, her judicial philosophy is unknown, possibly even to the President. She is a better candidate for a lower court, where she could be tested before being elevated to a higher position. That Bush would make this gamble indicates he does not take seriously the stakes.
It is painfully obvious that Miers, while a highly successful lawyer, is not the person we can expect to change the tide of the Supreme Court.
I doubt that either attends any church regularly. They certainly not considered Catholics
To be quite candid, I am torn right now.
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.