Posted on 10/12/2005 10:30:40 PM PDT by indianrightwinger
You need to be on the President's speed dial? He doesn't need to prove her qualifications to you or anyone else. It's up to your senators to do their homework.
You need to be on the President's speed dial? He doesn't need to prove her qualifications to you or anyone else. It's up to your senators to do their homework.
You need to be on the President's speed dial? He doesn't need to prove her qualifications to you or anyone else. It's up to your senators to do their homework.
Yes, it is the textbook definition of cronyism. And, the whole "top 50 lawyers" thing is a complete farce....ask any lawyer in the country. Besides, I believe she was one of the top 50 "influental" lawyers, a big difference.
no experience (I guess they haven't bothered to look),
As more is revealed, it is clear that her "trial" experience, so highly touted, is rather limited for a person of her stature. This is understandable, given her role in the various Bar Associations (when you make it to those levels in the Bas Ass'ns, you don't have time to actually practice law.)
others are "more qualified" (problem remains with more confirmations if you have to re-fill a spot it took 2 years to pass confirmation),
Others are much more qualified than her. She was not the most qualified candidate, and was apparently an affirmative action appointee. Now we see that Laura Bush had a rather active role in pushing her name.
"stealth" nominee (just because the pundits don't know about her record, that doesn't make it invisible),
We would all love to see her record...but every person who knows her...even former fiance who has known her for 30 years... are unable to articulate her position on any issue. This is extemely troubling.
avoiding a fight (why pick a fight when the other side already has a white flag ready to go).
Sometimes it is necessaty to break some eggs to assure that you are cooking the very best omlete.
It is interesting who was on the President's speed dial...
And yes, he does need to establish her qualifications. She may be Bush's appointment, but she is OUR justice....or has Bush become King and we his loyal servants?
Ah, I rest my case.
You HAVE NO "record" of hers to point to, because there IS NONE!
I think your arguments would be more suited for your buds over at DU or the Kos kids. Rather than spend your time on this forum bashing the President, try looking up her record if your so concerned about it. Rather lazy on your part to expect her record to drop from the sky and insisting that the President get your approval before he makes a nomination is really getting old. He doesn't owe you squat, and was elected to make appointments and nominations that you may or may not agree with. Get over it.
Do your own research....rather than spend your time here bashing someone you know sqat about because you are too ignorant or lazy to look.
If calling me a DU'er is the extent of your argument, then you have no substance to argue...very well.
Besides, this is the second direct challenge I have made to post evidence of her "record". If she has one, lets see it...and lets hear the WH tout it.
The silence is deafening.
You want a record....as I stated in the first post you chose to reply to, check out the Beldar Blog...there's some there. The WH shouldn't have to come on every day telling malcontents what her record is, that's why they have senate hearings. Besides, you may have trouble reading it....it uses BIG words you may not understand.
Agreed...there's no reason that the President or anyone in the WH should have spend lengthy periods of time every day to defend their decision.
The Judiciary Comm and the Senate will do what is necessary to make sure the best decision is made...but clearly the President and WH believe that is Miers.
I didn't hear these same objectors or detractors when Ginsburg was Clinton's nominee. Not a word about it.
Good luck convincing Senators that adopting your view is more important than remaining in power.
Well, inasmuch as "my view" is to adhere to the simple majority up or down vote that the Constitution prescribes, and to provide nominees with a transparent judicial philosopy; if the Senator's don't want to advocate that, then I will fight to have them lose.
And their badmouthing me, or failing to actualy TAKE a principled stand on those two simple and reasonable points will energize me like you can't believe.
Well, same can be said for Miers.
So, the only thing I can hope for is that she will rule on cases like Thomas. That would be sweet.
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.