Tag, as this is written on my paper here as things to research today.

+1 tag

Bitch owes me $5.

.

Yet another unknown SC nominee...

Remind me again why I voted twice for GWB?

Yeah, she gave to clinton and gore campaigns.

Quoted: Yeah, she gave to clinton and gore campaigns.

No, she did not.

Quoted: Bitch owes me $5.

You too huh! She took me for tree fidy!

I applaud GWB's smarts about picking people off the radar and making the dems/ libs (like McCain) have to work harder to find reasons to say 'no'.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yeah, she gave to clinton and gore campaigns. No, she did not. I read somewhere else that she gave to Gore.

She donated $1000 to Gore's *1988* campaign.  He was running as a conservative at the time.

Quoted: Yeah, she gave to clinton and gore campaigns.

Link?  Circumstances?  Hell I mark to have 3 bucks given to the Presidential Campaign on my income taxes.  I most likly have contributed to each as well.

Patty

Quoted: Quoted: Yeah, she gave to clinton and gore campaigns. No, she did not.

Yes, she did. Go to Freep, someone found the campaign donations.

Why did the President walk past all those great conservative judges? What in the hell is he thinkng? Is he trying to stealth another appointee? I hope I am wrong about this, but this is the first time I am really upset about his actions. He should have just went with a KNOWN freaking conservative. I think he just took a piss on the base. And if he did, we will lose the house in '06...and he will be a lame duck next week. No base, no support. No support, your Presidency will wane.

Here ya' go...

and another

Quoted: Quoted: Yeah, she gave to clinton and gore campaigns. No, she did not.

Apparently she _did_ give to Gore.
www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46632

Also, this doesn't look good:
www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46630
According to AP, she was pre-approved by the Democratic leadership.

Quoted: Quoted: Yeah, she gave to clinton and gore campaigns. Link?  Circumstances?

He can't give you a link because she never donated to Clinton's presidential campaign.  And the only donation she made to Gore was in 88.  She became a Republican in 1990 and, given the fact that Gore was running a conservative campaign in 88, her donation to him makes sense as she was a conservative Texas Democrat.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yeah, she gave to clinton and gore campaigns. No, she did not. Yes, she did. Go to Freep, someone found the campaign donations.

No, she did NOT.  She never donated to Clinton.

http:/www.brt.com/wsF2005/10/03/D8D0KLSG6.html

I thought there was something about a Clinton donaon as well. Maybe she st accepted a clinton donation.

Quoted: [I thought there was something about a Clinton nation as well. Maybe e just accepted a clinton donation

Or maybe you just made it up.  Wouldn't be the first time.

Total crap

Go look her up here: opensecrets.org/

Staunch conservative politics...

Here is an unflattering portrait.

Quoted: Here is an unflattering portrait.

Unflattering how?

She looks like an evil alien, which of course has nothing to do with her competency.  I must say the President has disappointed me by his selection.

Quoted: I applaud GWB's smarts about picking people off the radar and making the dems/ libs (like McCain) have to work harder to find reasons to say 'no'.

You must be a big fan of how Souter turned out then

Quoted: She looks like an evil alien, which of course has nothing to do with her competency.  I must say the President has disappointed me by his selection.

And what selection that would actually make it through the senate would NOT disappoint you?

George Will states the case against Meiers better than I ever could.

Senators beginning what ought to be a protracted and exacting scrutiny of Harriet Miers should be guided by three rules. First, it is not important that she be confirmed. Second, it might be very important that she not be. Third, the presumption — perhaps rebuttable but certainly in need of rebutting — should be that her nomination is not a defensible exercise of presidential deference to which senatorial discretion is due. It is not important that she be confirmed because there is no evidence that she is among the leading lights of American jurisprudence, or that she possesses talents commensurate with the Supreme Court’s tasks. The president’s ‘‘argument’’ for her amounts to: Trust me. There is no reason to, for several reasons.

He has neither the inclination nor the ability to make sophisticated judgments about competing approaches to construing the Constitution. Few presidents acquire such abilities in the course of their prepresidential careers, and this president, particularly, is not disposed to such reflections.

Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that Miers’ nomination resulted from the president’s careful consultation with people capable of such judgments. If 100 such people had been asked to list 100 individuals who have given evidence of the reflectiveness and excellence requisite in a justice, Miers’ name probably would not have appeared in any of the 10,000 places on those lists.

In addition, the president has forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution. The forfeiture occurred March 27, 2002, when, in a private act betokening an uneasy conscience, he signed the McCain-Feingold law expanding government regulation of the timing, quantity and content of political speech. The day before the 2000 Iowa caucuses he was asked in advance — to insure a considered response from him — whether McCain-Feingold’s core purposes are unconstitutional. He unhesitatingly said, ‘‘I agree.’’ Asked if he thought presidents have a duty, pursuant to their oath to defend the Constitution, to make an independent judgment about the constitutionality of bills and to veto those he thinks unconstitutional, he briskly said, ‘‘I do.’’

It is important that Miers not be confirmed unless, in her 61st year, she suddenly and unexpectedly is found to have hitherto undisclosed interests and talents pertinent to the court’s role. Otherwise the sound principle of substantial deference to a president’s choice of judicial nominees will dissolve into a rationalization for senatorial abdication of the duty to hold presidents to some standards of seriousness that will prevent them from reducing the Supreme Court to a private plaything useful for fulfilling whims on behalf of friends.

The wisdom of presumptive opposition to Miers’ confirmation flows from the fact that constitutional reasoning is a talent — a skill acquired, as intellectual skills are, by years of practice sustained by intense interest. It is not usually acquired in the normal course of even a fine lawyer’s career. The burden is on Miers to demonstrate such talents, and on senators to compel such a demonstration or reject the nomination.

Under the rubric of ‘‘diversity’’ — nowadays, the first refuge of intellectually disreputable impulses — the president announced, surely without fathoming the implications, his belief in identity politics and its tawdry corollary, the idea of categorical representation. Identity politics holds that one’s essential attributes are genetic, biological, ethnic or chromosomal — that one’s nature and understanding are decisively shaped by race, ethnicity or gender. Categorical representation holds that the interests of a group can only be understood, empathized with and represented by a member of that group.

The crowning absurdity of the president’s wallowing in such nonsense is the obvious assumption that the Supreme Court is, like a legislature, an institution of representation. This from a president who, introducing Miers, deplored judges who ‘‘legislate from the bench.’’ Minutes after the president announced the nomination of his friend from Texas, another Texas friend, Robert Jordan, former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, was on Fox News proclaiming what he and, no doubt, the White House that probably enlisted him for advocacy, considered glad and relevant tidings: Miers, said Jordan, has been a victim. She has been, he said contentedly, ‘‘discriminated against’’ because of her gender. Her victimization was not so severe that it prevented her from becoming the first female president of a Texas law firm as large as hers, president of the State Bar of Texas and a senior White House official. Still, playing the victim card clarified, as much as anything has so far done, her credentials, which are her chromosomes and their supposedly painful consequences. For this we need a conservative president?

http://www.confirmthem.com/?p=1455