Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 10/3/2005 9:59:44 AM EDT
Who is this Miss Miers he picked? She has given Democrats money and WAS a democrat for a long period in her life.

Rush, Kristol and many others are NOT pleased. Do you know anything good about her?

Will she be the vote that says the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean what it says?
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 10:12:34 AM EDT
Personally, I think he blew it but I am waiting to hear from her just like the rest of us should.

Part of me thinks that he always does what he thinks is right and doesn't care about polls which I like but then I look at our immigration policy and I know that is driven my more than his own personal beliefs.

He was going to get a fight from the Dems anyway, why not select someone with a proven track record on the issue that conservatives care the most about....a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

Link Posted: 10/3/2005 10:15:33 AM EDT
He blew it. She's never been a judge before, just White House Counsel. This is kinda like appointing your brother as Pope, simply because he goes to church.

Bob
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 10:17:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By anachronism:
He blew it. She's never been a judge before, just White House Counsel. This is kinda like appointing your brother as Pope, simply because he goes to church.

Bob



Actually, there were over 30 SCOTUS judges that have been appointed who never sat on the bench. Ronald Reagan revived appointing sitting judges because he wanted to know their judicial philosophy BEFORE they got to the highest court in the land rather than after
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 10:17:54 AM EDT
Not being a judge means that the Dems don't have any public record decision track record to pick apart.

It makes their job that much more difficult.

I don't think you need to be a judge to become a SCOTUS judge.

You DO need a JD and a lot of experience.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 10:18:13 AM EDT
When Reid is gushing over her and Rush the opposite, enough said. A sellout. I've already called Sen. Sessions
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 10:22:25 AM EDT
Now hold on everybody! Everyone thought he would nominate a Dem. because his last was a Rep. So what did he do? He nominated a Rep. that used to be a Dem. How else was he supposed to get a Rep. in without a big argument. This actually might be a smart move.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 10:25:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By anachronism:
He blew it. She's never been a judge before, just White House Counsel. This is kinda like appointing your brother as Pope, simply because he goes to church.

Bob



Rehnquist had never been on the bench before either.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 10:25:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By afman91201:
Now hold on everybody! Everyone thought he would nominate a Dem. because his last was a Rep. So what did he do? He nominated a Rep. that used to be a Dem. How else was he supposed to get a Rep. in without a big argument. This actually might be a smart move.



what is the big deal about a big argument?
that is part of the "game".
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 10:27:41 AM EDT
The absolute truth is we will not know how good a pick this is until she begins ruling on the constitutionality of laws.

There is a history of maverick jurists in the SCOTUS. Many picks have turned out to be stinkers for either the Right or the Left .

Possibly the most infamous was Chief Justice Earl Warren, nominated by President Eisenhower. As the old folks among us will tell you, Chief Justice Warren was probably one of the MOST liberal jurist to ever sit on the Court.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 10:27:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By hk940:

Originally Posted By afman91201:
Now hold on everybody! Everyone thought he would nominate a Dem. because his last was a Rep. So what did he do? He nominated a Rep. that used to be a Dem. How else was he supposed to get a Rep. in without a big argument. This actually might be a smart move.



what is the big deal about a big argument?
that is part of the "game".



You know what I mean. With all the Katrina hoopla he may just be pulling a fast one to sneak a republican in without a lot of resistance.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 10:28:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/3/2005 10:28:27 AM EDT by Mauser101]
I'm rather suprised he picked a sixty year old. Longevity-wise anyway. Granted she could go all Methusala on us.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 10:28:54 AM EDT
Part of the choice was bad selection criteria. I heard a talking head this morning say, "there's no way he could pick a white male". Given that he didn't select the best available candidate, I'd say he definitely blew it.

She'll almost certainly be confirmed.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 10:29:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By BenDover:

I don't think you need to be a judge to become a SCOTUS judge.

You DO need a JD and a lot of experience.



A JD isn't a requirement, the JD degree wasn't even necessary to be a lawyer until late 19th to mid 20th century.

I'd like to see a SC justice with a Ph.D. in U.S. History who did his/her dissertation on the Constitution.

Jim
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 10:32:21 AM EDT
I don't know why you guys are complaining - Bush is the savior of the 2nd amendment and America, right?

Obviously whatever he picked must be perfect, as he walks on water.

Perhaps in the future, people will abandon these two parties that are the same thing with different names.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 10:32:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By anachronism:
He blew it. She's never been a judge before, just White House Counsel. This is kinda like appointing your brother as Pope, simply because he goes to church.

Bob



Wrong. A lot of the Supreme Court nominees have not been judges previously (including Rehnquist). Its considered a good thing, as it brings fresh views to the court, without the "Judgitis" attitude a lot of sitting judges have.

She has been a high level lawyer for 30+ years, and not "just White house counsel".
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 10:34:29 AM EDT
Let's see, so far Bush has a pretty solid record of appointing conservative minded judges to the federal bench. Please take note of the LARGE number that have driven the libs batty.

He works very closely with Miers. I am pretty certain he has actually spoken with Meis about her judicial philosophy.

Can any of you nay-sayers point to ANY evidence that Meirs does not believe in judicial restraint and original intent? ANYTHING????

I will have to give Bush the benefit of the doubt, until he actually appoints an activist judge, something he has yet to do.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 10:35:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By KS_Physicist:

Originally Posted By BenDover:

I don't think you need to be a judge to become a SCOTUS judge.

You DO need a JD and a lot of experience.



A JD isn't a requirement, the JD degree wasn't even necessary to be a lawyer until late 19th to mid 20th century.

I'd like to see a SC justice with a Ph.D. in U.S. History who did his/her dissertation on the Constitution.

Jim



I'm available.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 10:36:07 AM EDT
Get your papers ready for inspection comrades. Wouldn't want to be out of line?

You know communism was bad. I guess that makes the facists the good guys since they fought communist. Were is Snake Plisskin when you need him?

Our country has two paths. Libtard Peoples Republic, or the kind of government in the Escape From movies, No Smoking, No Swearing, No Red Meat, No Sex, Keep the Sabath Holy kind of thing.

Oh well, I'm just talking out my ass at lunch break.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 10:36:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By alaman:
When Reid is gushing over her and Rush the opposite, enough said. A sellout. I've already called Sen. Sessions



+1...Reid's reaction is what is really scaring me about her at this point. The Democrap thing isn't "that" big of a deal, since guys like Nighthorse Campbell saw the light, but still...
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 10:40:21 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CeramicGod:
I don't know why you guys are complaining - Bush is the savior of the 2nd amendment and America, right?

Obviously whatever he picked must be perfect, as he walks on water.

Perhaps in the future, people will abandon these two parties that are the same thing with different names.



Link Posted: 10/3/2005 10:41:31 AM EDT
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 10:42:56 AM EDT
Alittle nervous myself....Bush lost some stock with me.
Who knows though he might have had a sit down with her and she might be ultra conservitive...then again she might have lied her ass off to him and be hillarys lesbo lover
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 10:43:47 AM EDT
[Chicken Little] THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING [Chicken Little]
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 10:44:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
Let's see, so far Bush has a pretty solid record of appointing conservative minded judges to the federal bench. Please take note of the LARGE number that have driven the libs batty.

He works very closely with Miers. I am pretty certain he has actually spoken with Meis about her judicial philosophy.

Can any of you nay-sayers point to ANY evidence that Meirs does not believe in judicial restraint and original intent? ANYTHING????

I will have to give Bush the benefit of the doubt, until he actually appoints an activist judge, something he has yet to do.



Can you point to any evidence that she does, other than 'so and so says she is'? I mean we have little to go on but what she did as an advocate not as a judge. Are we wrong to want a canidate that is defined and well understood? Are we supposed to jump behind her because the President says so?

My issue is he isn't batting 1000 on campaign pledges lately. I'm sorry but I am less than thrilled about "well lets wait and see". It's not like a field of well understood and qualified people aren't availible out there.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 10:46:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By LonePathfinder:
Our country has two paths. Libtard Peoples Republic, or the kind of government in the Escape From movies, No Smoking, No Swearing, No Red Meat, No Sex, Keep the Sabath Holy kind of thing.

Oh well, I'm just talking out my ass at lunch break.



Yes.

You are.

Grow up.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 10:46:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1:

Originally Posted By LWilde:
The absolute truth is we will not know how good a pick this is until she begins ruling on the constitutionality of laws.



Yup--same as always. We won't know ANYTHING until it is too late. Souter . . .



Comeon man!!

What happened to that TBK1 that I know and love? The one who kept telling me "work to change the party from within" before the election?

Link Posted: 10/3/2005 10:47:39 AM EDT
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 10:50:27 AM EDT
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 10:51:42 AM EDT
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 10:54:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Grunteled:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
Let's see, so far Bush has a pretty solid record of appointing conservative minded judges to the federal bench. Please take note of the LARGE number that have driven the libs batty.

He works very closely with Miers. I am pretty certain he has actually spoken with Meis about her judicial philosophy.

Can any of you nay-sayers point to ANY evidence that Meirs does not believe in judicial restraint and original intent? ANYTHING????

I will have to give Bush the benefit of the doubt, until he actually appoints an activist judge, something he has yet to do.



Can you point to any evidence that she does, other than 'so and so says she is'? I mean we have little to go on but what she did as an advocate not as a judge. Are we wrong to want a canidate that is defined and well understood? Are we supposed to jump behind her because the President says so?

My issue is he isn't batting 1000 on campaign pledges lately. I'm sorry but I am less than thrilled about "well lets wait and see". It's not like a field of well understood and qualified people aren't availible out there.



My issue is that so far Bush has a 100% record of appointing strict constructionists to the Federal bench. He works with Meirs on a daily basis. He has known and worked with her for over a decade. In the absence of proof that Meirs is an activist, I will have to assume she conforms to Bush's standards for judges, with which I agree.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 10:54:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1:

Originally Posted By LWilde:
The absolute truth is we will not know how good a pick this is until she begins ruling on the constitutionality of laws.



Yup--same as always. We won't know ANYTHING until it is too late. Souter . . .



Possibly...but I doubt it. My guess is that she is going to upset the Libtards a LOT more than us.

Keep the faith...good things are going to come from this court for many years...and who knows...Ol' Dubya just might get another pick too! Wouldn't THAT be a fun time for the Looney Left!

Link Posted: 10/3/2005 10:58:41 AM EDT
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 11:01:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1:


Um, with the specter of a certain fillibuster for anyone we would approve of, this may be a necessary strategy in order to get ANYONE approved.



I'm sorry...but that is a cop out. If that would happen, then put someone up even more conservative than the conservative that was fillibustered. Giving in to the Dems is about as stupid as a President never vetoing a spending bill. Wait, bad example...
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 11:04:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1:

Originally Posted By LWilde:
Keep the faith...good things are going to come from this court for many years...and who knows...Ol' Dubya just might get another pick too! Wouldn't THAT be a fun time for the Looney Left!


That is precisely what caused the weeping and gnashing of teeth on election night last November. Even the lib-idiots could barely stomach SKerry, but they knew he could be counted on to nominate another Darth Vader-Ginsburg. <shudder>

And we KNOW another "Darth Vader-Ginsberg" would be nominated and confirmed if Kerry were president.

We KNOW Kerry would nominated far-left nominees one-after-another and ram them through the Senate.

Because Kerry is a committed lefty himself and would fight for his leftwing imprint on the Court.

But GWBush............ ????

What this nomination shows is that GWBush is NOT a "conservative" and will NOT fight to stamp an openly-conservative imprint on the Court.


I see absolutely NOTHING to be hopeful about with this nominee. We've had enough "blank slates". Where are the unashamed and openly-conservative nominees???


Link Posted: 10/3/2005 11:06:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1:

Originally Posted By LWilde:
Keep the faith...good things are going to come from this court for many years...and who knows...Ol' Dubya just might get another pick too! Wouldn't THAT be a fun time for the Looney Left!


That is precisely what caused the weeping and gnashing of teeth on election night last November. Even the lib-idiots could barely stomach SKerry, but they knew he could be counted on to nominate another Darth Vader-Ginsburg. <shudder>

And we KNOW another "Darth Vader-Ginsberg" would be nominated and confirmed if Kerry were president.

We KNOW Kerry would nominated far-left nominees one-after-another and ram them through the Senate.

Because Kerry is a committed lefty himself and would fight for his leftwing imprint on the Court.

But GWBush............ ????

What this nomination shows is that GWBush is NOT a "conservative" and will NOT fight to stamp an openly-conservative imprint on the Court.


I see absolutely NOTHING to be hopeful about with this nominee. We've had enough "blank slates". Where are the unashamed and openly-conservative nominees???





Knee-jerk pessimism is your stock in trade. It really is quite sad.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 11:08:02 AM EDT
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 11:08:52 AM EDT
She is Pro-Life. Destined to fail confirmation.


As president of the Texas State Bar in 1993, Harriet Miers urged the national American Bar Association to put the abortion issue to a referendum of the group's full membership. She questioned at the time whether the ABA should "be trying to speak for the entire legal community" on an issue that she said "has brought on tremendous divisiveness" within the ABA.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 11:08:55 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/3/2005 11:09:10 AM EDT by GonzoAR15-1]
The only way this could possibly have been a good move would be a scenario something like this:

[GWB] Well, Ms. Meirs, what's your judicial philosophy going to be like?

[Meirs] I plan to vote exactly like Scalia whenever there's any doubt.

[GWB] Promise!?

[Meirs] Promise.

[GWB] OK.

Talk about a hell of a bet to make with the farm.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 11:11:52 AM EDT
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 11:13:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
Knee-jerk pessimism is your stock in trade. It really is quite sad.


She's at best a blank slate.

That's not good.


Link Posted: 10/3/2005 11:15:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/3/2005 11:15:34 AM EDT by Fourays2]

Originally Posted By LWilde:

Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1:

Originally Posted By LWilde:
The absolute truth is we will not know how good a pick this is until she begins ruling on the constitutionality of laws.



Yup--same as always. We won't know ANYTHING until it is too late. Souter . . .



Possibly...but I doubt it. My guess is that she is going to upset the Libtards a LOT more than us.

Keep the faith drinking the koolaid...good things are going to come from this court for many years...and who knows...Ol' Dubya just might get another pick too! Wouldn't THAT be a fun time for the Looney Left!





fixed it for ya. Jorge should have shoved another scalia up the dems asses. that's the only reason I voted for him.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 11:15:42 AM EDT
GWB isn't going to make this suggestion without the help of Karl Rove, who is the arch-nemesis and architect of the liberal's most vivid, bed-crapping nightmares.

I'll adopt a wait-and-see mindset on this one. I can't see getting worked up about someone we know nothing about. There had to be something behind this pick. It's either Rove or ... A behind-the-scenes deal was cut to get John Roberts on the Court.

Then again, what do I know.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 11:16:46 AM EDT
Mark my words.

No one said this yet? She is sacraficial. GWB KNOWS that they will NOT approve the next nominee. she is NOT a judge and I can see Kennedy yelling "YOU HAVE NO TRIAL EXPERIENCE"

She will NOT be confirmed. The judicial committee HAD to approve Roberts ... push came to shove. O'Connor is retiring so time is on their side.

She will NOT be confirmed.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 11:17:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:
Knee-jerk pessimism is your stock in trade. It really is quite sad.


She's at best a blank slate.

That's not good.





Meirs is NOT David Souter. Souter was a total unkonwn to anyone in the Bush 41 Whitehouse. Meirs, on the other hand, has a close, daily, personal relationship with the President. Her judicial philosophy may be a blank slate to YOU, but I have a strong hunch it is not for Bush.

And again, until Bush actually nominates a judicial activist, I will continue to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 11:18:00 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/3/2005 11:18:47 AM EDT by TheCommissioner]
I haven't seen this mentioned yet, so I will break the ice. Did anyone notice she was wearing a cross on a necklace this morning? Do you think that choice of adornment is a finger in the face of liberal Jews, agnostics, and atheists in the intelligentsia who will be either voting on her or passing judgement in the media? Or was it a sign of reassurance for Bush's conservative Christian base?
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 11:19:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By macman37:
.......Karl Rove, who is the arch-nemesis and architect of the liberal's most vivid, bed-crapping nightmares.



I like that comment.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 11:22:14 AM EDT
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 11:22:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Fourays2:

Originally Posted By LWilde:

Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1:

Originally Posted By LWilde:
The absolute truth is we will not know how good a pick this is until she begins ruling on the constitutionality of laws.



Yup--same as always. We won't know ANYTHING until it is too late. Souter . . .



Possibly...but I doubt it. My guess is that she is going to upset the Libtards a LOT more than us.

Keep the faith drinking the koolaid...good things are going to come from this court for many years...and who knows...Ol' Dubya just might get another pick too! Wouldn't THAT be a fun time for the Looney Left!





fixed it for ya. Jorge should have shoved another scalia up the dems asses. that's the only reason I voted for him.



Scalia's judicial philosophy was so unkown, or its latency so unrecognized, that he was approved by a 98-0 vote in the Senate in 1986.

I imagine if many of you were around then you would have been screaming "Scalia is an unknown. The Dems like him. That can't be good for us..."
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 11:25:16 AM EDT

As president of the Texas State Bar in 1993, Harriet Miers urged the national American Bar Association to put the abortion issue to a referendum of the group's full membership. She questioned at the time whether the ABA should "be trying to speak for the entire legal community" on an issue that she said "has brought on tremendous divisiveness" within the ABA.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 11:25:22 AM EDT
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top