» OLD MESSAGE ARCHIVES «
The Pop Culture Information Society...
Messageboard Archive Index, In The 00s - The Pop Culture Information Society
Welcome to the archived messages from In The 00s. This archive stretches back to 1998 in some instances, and contains a nearly complete record of all the messages posted to inthe00s.com. You will also find an archive of the messages from inthe70s.com, inthe80s.com, inthe90s.com and amiright.com before they were combined to form the inthe00s.com messageboard.
If you are looking for the active messages, please click here. Otherwise, use the links below or on the right hand side of the page to navigate the archives.
Custom Search
This is a topic from the Current Politics and Religious Topics forum on inthe00s.
Subject: Bush nominates new supreme court justice.
Written By: Dagwood on 10/03/05 at 7:11 am
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051003/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_scotus
WASHINGTON - President Bush on Monday nominated White House counsel Harriet Miers to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court, reaching into his loyal inner circle for a pick that could reshape the nation's judiciary for years to come.
"She has devoted her life to the rule of law and the cause of justice," Bush said, announcing his choice from the Oval Office with Miers at his side. "She will be an outstanding addition to the Supreme Court of the United States."
If confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate, Miers, 60, would join Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the second woman on the nation's highest court and the third to serve there. Miers, who has never been a judge, was the first woman to serve as president of the Texas State Bar and the Dallas Bar Association.
Subject: Re: Bush nominates new supreme court justice.
Written By: danootaandme on 10/03/05 at 4:36 pm
She has all the qualifications of ..well... ???
Subject: Re: Bush nominates new supreme court justice.
Written By: Rice_Cube on 10/03/05 at 6:12 pm
She has all the qualifications of ..well...  ???
...a lawyer?
Subject: Re: Bush nominates new supreme court justice.
Written By: danootaandme on 10/03/05 at 6:31 pm
...a lawyer?
Who has never sat on the bench, never argued before the court. I would like to see experience on the bench in a Supreme Court Justice.
Subject: Re: Bush nominates new supreme court justice.
Written By: Rice_Cube on 10/03/05 at 6:37 pm
Who has never sat on the bench, never argued before the court. I would like to see experience on the bench in a Supreme Court Justice.
Yeah, I was being sarcastic ;) I have no idea what the hell W was thinking with this one, the only motive I can think of is that she is a token white woman candidate. This is not meant to be offensive, it's just an observation that in these "progressive" times, we need more women and minorities on the Supreme Court and this pick seems to be a weird attempt to satisfy that quota.
Of course, maybe the woman has some qualities that the media hasn't divulged yet. Wait and see, I guess. If they do need a minority candidate, I'm thinking the Attorney General or Miguel Estrada would be way more competent and experienced, but not necessarily ingratiate the liberals ;)
Subject: Re: Bush nominates new supreme court justice.
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 10/03/05 at 11:29 pm
Who has never sat on the bench, never argued before the court. I would like to see experience on the bench in a Supreme Court Justice.
So, Tom DeLay was a pest-control guy who got fed up with obeying regulations...so he went into public office. Hhhhmmmmm....
http://g.myspace.com/00038/55/88/38158855_s.jpg
And you were expecting what from Bush? I good idea?
:D
Subject: Re: Bush nominates new supreme court justice.
Written By: Ophrah on 10/04/05 at 10:39 am
I don't quite get it -- there must be a slew of brilliant, experienced females on the bench who are moderate enough to get through confirmation without a problem. Bush must be counting on the idea that her personal connection with him will lead her to rule the way he would want.
I really don't get how politicized the whole SC nomination process is anyway. It's almost like everyone on all sides is basically admitting that the whole idea of impartial interpretation of the Constitution is nothing but hooey. I don't understand why the founders original intent is taken as sacred anyway -- obviously they lived by some basic principles that we no longer accept, so it doesn't make sense to me that we would continue to look at everything based on their specific views.
Subject: Re: Bush nominates new supreme court justice.
Written By: Tanya1976 on 10/04/05 at 11:15 am
I don't understand it. I hope she doesn't get in. Hasn't he learned from the FEMA fiasco and Brown?
Subject: Re: Bush nominates new supreme court justice.
Written By: CatwomanofV on 10/04/05 at 11:40 am
I doubt she will get in. I think even the Rep. are upset with this nomination. The fact that she is from his "inner circle" will be her downfall-not to mention the fact that I don't think she is qualified for the job.
Cat
Subject: Re: Bush nominates new supreme court justice.
Written By: danootaandme on 10/04/05 at 5:40 pm
Yeah, I was being sarcastic ;) I have no idea what the hell W was thinking with this one, the only motive I can think of is that she is a token white woman candidate. This is not meant to be offensive, it's just an observation that in these "progressive" times, we need more women and minorities on the Supreme Court and this pick seems to be a weird attempt to satisfy that quota.
Of course, maybe the woman has some qualities that the media hasn't divulged yet. Wait and see, I guess. If they do need a minority candidate, I'm thinking the Attorney General or Miguel Estrada would be way more competent and experienced, but not necessarily ingratiate the liberals ;)
I heard she makes a good cup of coffee! Maybe that and the fact she has been sitting on bushies lap for all these years has earned her a place in the big chair. I bet there have to be a lot of pissed of highly qualified people out there.
Subject: Re: Bush nominates new supreme court justice.
Written By: John Jenkins on 10/04/05 at 6:21 pm
Who has never sat on the bench, never argued before the court. I would like to see experience on the bench in a Supreme Court Justice.
I, too, am underwhelmed by the nomination, but she has served as a trial lawyer and argued before courts other than the Supreme Court. And it has been pointed out, that of the 112 justices who have served on the Supreme Court, 39 others did not have experience as judges when their nominations were approved.
I think that before nominating her, Bush discussed a number of possible candidates with Democrats and Republicans in the Senate and Harriet Miers was definitely a compromise - she wasn't at the top of anybody's list, but she wasn't at the bottom of anybody's list, either. And I think Bush got some indication that Democrats, particularly Harry Reid, that they would be likely to vote to confirm her.
Subject: Re: Bush nominates new supreme court justice.
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 10/04/05 at 9:06 pm
I think it's touching how Bush likes to help out an old pal.ÂÂ
;)
Subject: Re: Bush nominates new supreme court justice.
Written By: danootaandme on 10/06/05 at 4:11 pm
Harriet Miers was definitely a compromise - she wasn't at the top of anybody's list, but she wasn't at the bottom of anybody's list, either. And I think Bush got some indication that Democrats, particularly Harry Reid, that they would be likely to vote to confirm her.
Looks like now the people most upset about this nomination is his conservative base. They don't know
what to make of the nomination.
Subject: Re: Bush nominates new supreme court justice.
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 10/06/05 at 8:32 pm
You conservatives need to unite around the president on Harriet Miers. You elected him, and so you trusted his judgment on who best to pick for Supreme Court justices. The 2006 mid-terms are just around the corner and if you start doubting your fellow conservatives over Miers, constituents of certain Republicans may lose confidence. From there you may lose one or both houses of Congress. Can't afford to take that chance.
Better get on the bandwagon, you people!
;)
Subject: Re: Bush nominates new supreme court justice.
Written By: GWBush2004 on 10/07/05 at 4:13 am
Yep, what a dream come true for conservatives. A nominee no one knows nothing about. Who was the last judge like that? Hmm....I think the name was David Souter. Liberals called him "Bork without a paper trail," instead he always sides with the likes of Ginsburg on split votes. Even donated to Al Gore in the 1980's.
The only thing I've heard good about her was from Fred Barnes. He talked about how she was once pro-choice and became rabidly pro-life in the 1990's when she became a born-again Christian, that was also the time she switched to being a republican.
Judges in the Scalia and Thomas mold my a**.
Subject: Re: Bush nominates new supreme court justice.
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 10/07/05 at 1:10 pm
Yep, what a dream come true for conservatives. A nominee no one knows nothing about. Who was the last judge like that? Hmm....I think the name was David Souter. Liberals called him "Bork without a paper trail," instead he always sides with the likes of Ginsburg on split votes. Even donated to Al Gore in the 1980's.
The only thing I've heard good about her was from Fred Barnes. He talked about how she was once pro-choice and became rabidly pro-life in the 1990's when she became a born-again Christian, that was also the time she switched to being a republican.
Judges in the Scalia and Thomas mold my a**.
Personal loyalty is a big thing with Bush, but his poor judgment is as clear as an unmuddied lake. Right on the heels of the "Brownie" Brown scandal, he nominates sweet old Mrs. Miers to the Supreme Court. Now all the conservatives are mad at him (except for total boot lickers like Fred Barnes). But what's Bush gonna do? If he retracts the nomination, he'll get lambasted further for having no backbone and betraying a friend. He's going to have to let her go to the hearings. In the end Bush will be alright, he'll just let Miers get skewered (like "Brownie"), and then nominate Luttig, or some other fascist. Who knows? Maybe Miers will get confirmed!
:o
Subject: Re: Bush nominates new supreme court justice.
Written By: Ophrah on 10/07/05 at 1:41 pm
Excepted from THE FEDERALIST PAPERS
No. 76, The Appointing Power of the Executive
Alexander Hamilton to the People of the State of New York
Tuesday, April 1, 1788.
THE President is "to nominate, and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and
consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States whose appointments are not otherwise provided for in the Constitution...
...To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. In addition to this, it would be an efficacious source of stability in the administration.
It will readily be comprehended, that a man who had himself the sole disposition of offices, would be governed much more by his private inclinations and interests, than when he was bound to submit the propriety of his choice to the discussion and determination of a different and independent body, and that body an entier branch of the legislature. The possibility of rejection would be a strong motive to care in proposing. The danger to his own reputation, and, in the case of an elective magistrate, to his political existence, from betraying a spirit of favoritism, or an unbecoming pursuit of popularity, to the observation of a body whose opinion would have great weight in forming that of the public, could not fail to operate as a barrier to the one and to the other. He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure…
Oh, so one would think, Mr. Hamilton. So one would think.
Subject: Re: Bush nominates new supreme court justice.
Written By: Don Carlos on 10/07/05 at 3:06 pm
Excepted from THE FEDERALIST PAPERS
No. 76, The Appointing Power of the Executive
Alexander Hamilton to the People of the State of New York
Tuesday, April 1, 1788.
THE President is "to nominate, and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and
consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States whose appointments are not otherwise provided for in the Constitution...
...To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. In addition to this, it would be an efficacious source of stability in the administration.
It will readily be comprehended, that a man who had himself the sole disposition of offices, would be governed much more by his private inclinations and interests, than when he was bound to submit the propriety of his choice to the discussion and determination of a different and independent body, and that body an entier branch of the legislature. The possibility of rejection would be a strong motive to care in proposing. The danger to his own reputation, and, in the case of an elective magistrate, to his political existence, from betraying a spirit of favoritism, or an unbecoming pursuit of popularity, to the observation of a body whose opinion would have great weight in forming that of the public, could not fail to operate as a barrier to the one and to the other. He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure…
Oh, so one would think, Mr. Hamilton. So one would think.
But you must remember that this was written before the emergance of political parties, which Madison (in # 10, my favorite) would probably have characterized as "factions". I'm sure they are all rolling over about this, and so many other things.
My suspicion is that this one will be contentious.
Subject: Re: Bush nominates new supreme court justice.
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 10/07/05 at 11:37 pm
But it is an astute observation Harpo makes in his emphasis, is it not?
???
Subject: Re: Bush nominates new supreme court justice.
Written By: GWBush2004 on 10/11/05 at 4:56 pm
Now all the conservatives are mad at him (except for total boot lickers like Fred Barnes
It seems that Fred Barnes wasn't wrong:
1. In 1989, she contributed $150 to Texans for Life. 95% of those who contribute to pro-life groups seek to reverse Roe v. Wade; there's no reason to think Miers is an exception.
2. When she ran for Dallas City Council, she openly identified herself as pro-life. Her campaign manager has since called her "on the extreme end of the anti-choice movement".
3. She became head of the Texas Bar in 1992-93, and used her position to lobby against the ABA's pro-abortion positions. She continued this lobbying late into the decade. There is no reason to doubt that this was powerfully rooted in her own pro-life political views.
4. She gave money to Bentsen and Gore in 1987/88 when she was still a conservative Democrat. Since 1990 she has made 13-14 political donations, and these donations have gone ONLY to 100% pro-life candidates.
5. In 2000 she gave money to Donald Stenberg, the Nebraska attorney general who defended Nebraska's partial birth abortion law before the Supreme Court. As one blogger put it: “I didn’t know she had given to Sternberg . The only people who I know from around here who did that were the real activists.†Exactly.
6. Summary: this is the most extensive pro-life record of any nominee to the Supreme Court in recent years. Even Scalia and Thomas, who both rejected Roe, never had a record like that. Roberts certainly never did. Her on-record pro-life convictions are clear and undeniable.
It will be interesting to see the democrats say a woman is against womens' rights.
Again, I oppose this nomination. Abortion is NOT the only thing. I think Limbaugh said it best: "Harry Reid got his nominee, when do we conservatives get ours?"
Subject: Re: Bush nominates new supreme court justice.
Written By: Ophrah on 10/12/05 at 8:40 am
It seems that Fred Barnes wasn't wrong:
1. In 1989, she contributed $150 to Texans for Life. 95% of those who contribute to pro-life groups seek to reverse Roe v. Wade; there's no reason to think Miers is an exception.
2. When she ran for Dallas City Council, she openly identified herself as pro-life. Her campaign manager has since called her "on the extreme end of the anti-choice movement".
3. She became head of the Texas Bar in 1992-93, and used her position to lobby against the ABA's pro-abortion positions. She continued this lobbying late into the decade. There is no reason to doubt that this was powerfully rooted in her own pro-life political views.
4. She gave money to Bentsen and Gore in 1987/88 when she was still a conservative Democrat. Since 1990 she has made 13-14 political donations, and these donations have gone ONLY to 100% pro-life candidates.
5. In 2000 she gave money to Donald Stenberg, the Nebraska attorney general who defended Nebraska's partial birth abortion law before the Supreme Court. As one blogger put it: “I didn’t know she had given to Sternberg . The only people who I know from around here who did that were the real activists.†Exactly.
6. Summary: this is the most extensive pro-life record of any nominee to the Supreme Court in recent years. Even Scalia and Thomas, who both rejected Roe, never had a record like that. Roberts certainly never did. Her on-record pro-life convictions are clear and undeniable.
It will be interesting to see the democrats say a woman is against womens' rights.
Again, I oppose this nomination. Abortion is NOT the only thing. I think Limbaugh said it best: "Harry Reid got his nominee, when do we conservatives get ours?"
Well theoretically as far as her job on the Court is concerned, her personal and political beliefs shouldn't be important. What's supposed to be important is her philosophy of Constitutional interpretation and her intellectual integrity. Whether you're pro-life, pro-choice, or indifferent, the issue is (or is supposed to be) whether the right to an abortion is Constitutionally protected and whether R v W was based on a legitimate reading of the Constitution.
If we're ready to accept the idea that appointed judges will just abandon all intellectual and personal integrity and "interpret the Constitution" according to their own personal likes and dislikes, sooner or later, we're ALL going to be screwed. Heck, why appoint lawyers at all?
Subject: Re: Bush nominates new supreme court justice.
Written By: McDonald on 10/12/05 at 11:41 am
Excepted from THE FEDERALIST PAPERS
No. 76, The Appointing Power of the Executive
Alexander Hamilton to the People of the State of New York
Tuesday, April 1, 1788.
THE President is "to nominate, and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and
consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States whose appointments are not otherwise provided for in the Constitution...
...To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. In addition to this, it would be an efficacious source of stability in the administration.
It will readily be comprehended, that a man who had himself the sole disposition of offices, would be governed much more by his private inclinations and interests, than when he was bound to submit the propriety of his choice to the discussion and determination of a different and independent body, and that body an entier branch of the legislature. The possibility of rejection would be a strong motive to care in proposing. The danger to his own reputation, and, in the case of an elective magistrate, to his political existence, from betraying a spirit of favoritism, or an unbecoming pursuit of popularity, to the observation of a body whose opinion would have great weight in forming that of the public, could not fail to operate as a barrier to the one and to the other. He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure…
Oh, so one would think, Mr. Hamilton. So one would think.
Good show!
Subject: Re: Bush nominates new supreme court justice.
Written By: GWBush2004 on 10/12/05 at 7:44 pm
http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/05/217_frum.jpg
David Frum
"Harriet Miers is a taut, nervous, anxious personality. It is impossible to me to imagine that she can endure the anger and abuse - or resist the blandishments - that transformed, say, Anthony Kennedy into the judge he is today."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/05/217_krauthammer.jpg
Charles Krauthammer
"There are 1,084,504 lawyers in the United States. What distinguishes Harriet Miers from any of them, other than her connection with the president? To have selected her ... is scandalous."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/05/217_will.jpg
George Will
"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."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/05/217_buchanan.jpg
Pat Buchanan
"Bush had a chance for greatness in remaking the Supreme Court, a chance to succeed where his Republican predecessors from Nixon to his father all failed. He instinctively recoiled from it. He blew it."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/05/217_kristol.jpg
Bill Kristol
"I'm disappointed, depressed and demoralized."
Subject: Re: Bush nominates new supreme court justice.
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 10/12/05 at 9:11 pm
http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/05/217_kristol.jpg
Bill Kristol
"I'm disappointed, depressed and demoralized."
Thanks for the parade of the horribles!
Look, if Bush is so doggone religious, he ought to put his money where his mouth is and nominate Judge Roy Moore!
Bill Kristol saying he's "demoralized" is like a stone saying it's "exsanguinated."
http://www.thurgoodmarshall.com/images/TmcoverCrop.jpg
Thurgood Marshall
None of us got where we are solely by pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps. We got here because somebody -
a parent, a teacher, an Ivy League crony or a few nuns - bent down and helped us pick up our boots.
And in the not-too-distant past we had Supreme Court Justices who actually merited the title.
Subject: Re: Bush nominates new supreme court justice.
Written By: GWBush2004 on 10/12/05 at 9:24 pm
Can you blame them? Harriet Miers reeks of becoming David Souter or Eisenhower's biggest mistake (he even said it was his biggest mistake): Earl Warren, the king of judicial activism.
We don't need to let any of those types get on. Ms. Miers would be a great choice for Bush if the democrats held the senate, but they don't. Bush said that he would select a judge in the mold of Scalia of Thomas and he didn't. He punted.
Withdraw Miers now.
Subject: Re: Bush nominates new supreme court justice.
Written By: Rice_Cube on 10/12/05 at 9:26 pm
I'm still confused as to why Bush didn't appoint Miguel Estrada again. With extra boost in both houses of Congress, he would have had a better chance of getting onto the bench this time around. Miers still seems like a token woman appointment to me.
Subject: Re: Bush nominates new supreme court justice.
Written By: GWBush2004 on 10/12/05 at 9:38 pm
I'm still confused as to why Bush didn't appoint Miguel Estrada again. With extra boost in both houses of Congress, he would have had a better chance of getting onto the bench this time around. Miers still seems like a token woman appointment to me.
If Bush had to pick a minority of a female for the U.S. supreme court, he had so many choices that no conservative would have said a bad thing about. Janice Rogers Brown, Edith H. Jones and Emilo Garza instantly come to mind.
Subject: Re: Bush nominates new supreme court justice.
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 10/12/05 at 10:16 pm
Conservatives favor judicial activism as long as it is in favor of activism in favor of the upward allocation of power and resources into fewer and fewer hands, for that is the raison d'etre of the American Right.
Vote for a candidate who will appoint "constitutional originalists"
get
Tax cuts for the rich.
Vote for a candidate who will help overturn Roe v. Wade
get
Tax cuts for the rich.
Vote for protection of Second Amendment rights
get
Tax cuts for the rich.
Vote for "school choice"
get
Tax cuts for the rich.
Vote for securing our borders against illegal aliens
get
Tax cuts for the rich.
Vote for a return of God to the public square
get
Tax cuts for the rich.
Vote for...oh bugger!
:D
Subject: Re: Bush nominates new supreme court justice.
Written By: Rice_Cube on 10/12/05 at 10:20 pm
I don't understand your logic there. The judiciary does not determine tax legislation, at least not now that income taxes are constitutional.
Subject: Re: Bush nominates new supreme court justice.
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 10/13/05 at 10:27 pm
I don't understand your logic there. The judiciary does not determine tax legislation, at least not now that income taxes are constitutional.
All I'm saying is conservatives make a big noise about the "culture wars" and "clean up corruption," yet it all boils down to tax cuts for the rich. Oh, and corporate cronyism. They don't seem to be too good at actually achieving much else. They're having a problem now, though, because they control the entire government. Who can they blame?
So now they're trying to blame the media for the quagmire in Iraq!
::)
Subject: Re: Bush nominates new supreme court justice.
Written By: GWBush2004 on 10/15/05 at 1:25 am
I get the feeling that president Bush is in deep sh** with his pick of Ms. Miers. Especially after seeing that the usual Bushbots at the FreeRepublic are even saying bad things about her.
He should withdraw her now and nominate someone conservatives can be proud of.
Subject: Re: Bush nominates new supreme court justice.
Written By: Rice_Cube on 10/15/05 at 2:00 am
I get the feeling that president Bush is in deep sh** with his pick of Ms. Miers. Especially after seeing that the usual Bushbots at the FreeRepublic are even saying bad things about her.
He should withdraw her now and nominate someone conservatives can be proud of.
With all due respect, Bush is already in deep for any number of reasons. Miers is a weird choice at best. He scored some brownie points by nominating Roberts, but when even your own party is saying "Whodis?" with Miers, you know you have problems.
Subject: Re: Bush nominates new supreme court justice.
Written By: GWBush2004 on 10/15/05 at 2:32 am
With all due respect, Bush is already in deep for any number of reasons. Miers is a weird choice at best. He scored some brownie points by nominating Roberts, but when even your own party is saying "Whodis?" with Miers, you know you have problems.
Don't you know that she gave donuts to little kids at her church?
That alone makes her the best pick ever! :D
Good reading: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/14/AR2005101401765.html
Subject: Re: Bush nominates new supreme court justice.
Written By: GWBush2004 on 10/15/05 at 3:30 am
I found this list of popular conservatives that are openly for or against Harriet Miers:
For: Ken Starr, Lino Gralia, Thomas Sowell, Hugh Hewitt, James Dobson, Jay Sekulow, Marvin Olasky, Chuck Colson, Michael Medved, Pat Robertson, William Rusher, R. Emmett Tyrrell, Newt Gingrich and Fred Barnes.
Against: Tucker Carlson, Bill Kristol, Robert H. Bork, Mark Levin, Bob Barr, George Will, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Michael Savage, Mark Steyn, John Fund, Peggy Noonan, Charles Krauthhammer, David Frum, Rush Limbaugh, David Limbaugh, Pat Buchanan, Sen. Rick Santorum and Rep. Tom Tancredo.
--So far the only senator whose made a clear position known is Rick Santorum (R-PA) and he is against. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) from the house of representatives says he'd vote against her if he could, but obviously the house doesn't get a vote, only the senate does.
Subject: Re: Bush nominates new supreme court justice.
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 10/15/05 at 2:22 pm
I found this list of popular conservatives that are openly for or against Harriet Miers:
For: Ken Starr, Lino Gralia, Thomas Sowell, Hugh Hewitt, James Dobson, Jay Sekulow, Marvin Olasky, Chuck Colson, Michael Medved, Pat Robertson, William Rusher, R. Emmett Tyrrell, Newt Gingrich and Fred Barnes.
Against: Tucker Carlson, Bill Kristol, Robert Bork, Mark Levin, George Will, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Michael Savage, Mark Steyn, John Fund, Peggy Noonan, Charles Krauthhammer, David Frum, Rush Limbaugh, David Limbaugh, Pat Buchanan, Sen. Rick Santorum and Rep. Tom Tancredo.
--So far the only senator whose made a clear position known is Rick Santorum (R-PA) and he is against. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) from the house of representatives says he'd vote against her if he could, but obviously the house doesn't get a vote, only the senate does.
I'm still trying to figure out WHY he nominated Miers. OK, she's his buddy, and she doesn't have a record of hard right ravings. Oh, and maybe he wanted a lady justice to replace S.D.O. Is that it? Seems pretty lame to me. I thought with a Republican majority in both Houses, he wouldn't hesitate to nominate a Luttig or a Rogers-Brown. That seems to be what the Dems expected. Pundits speculated the Dems gave Roberts an easy pass pass because they were expecting Atilla the Hun for the next nominee.
The whole thing is a bit strange.
Subject: Re: Bush nominates new supreme court justice.
Written By: GWBush2004 on 10/15/05 at 8:49 pm
I'm still trying to figure out WHY he nominated Miers.
Cronyism.
In case you're interested in reading why conservatives oppose Ms. Miers:
BOB BARR: http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/1005/12edbarr.html
GEORGE WILL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/04/AR2005100400954.html
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/06/AR2005100601468.html?sub=AR
ANN COULTER: http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi
DAVID FRUM: http://frum.nationalreview.com/
PAT BUCHANAN: http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=9539
LAURA INGRAHAM: http://www.lauraingraham.com/
ROBERT BORK: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9623345/
BILL KRISTOL: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/166quhvd.asp
MONA CHAREN: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/monacharen/2005/10/07/159703.html
TERRENCE JEFFREY: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/column/terencejeffrey/2005/10/05/159416.html
MICHELLE MALKIN: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michelle/malkin100605.php3
BOBBY EBERLE - GOPUSA: http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/?p=49
MELANIE MORGAN: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46824
PEGGY NOONAN: http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110007363
MICHAEL GRAHAM: http://www.free-times.com/Usual_Suspects/suspects.html
JOHN PODHORETZ: http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/29257.htm
PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY: http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=9684
NATIONAL REVIEW EDITORIAL BOARD: http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/editors200510141544.asp
Subject: Re: Bush nominates new supreme court justice.
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 10/15/05 at 10:05 pm
Cronyism.
In case you're interested in reading why conservatives oppose Ms. Miers:
Thanks for posting all those links, but no thanks all the same.
Conservative points of view are ubiquitous in the media. Right now I'm looking at a forum at the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard U., made up of arch-conservatives Bill Kristol, P.J. O'Rourke, Fred Barnes, and Martha Bayles (all of the Weakly Standard)....and arch-moderate Jeane Shaheen. It really bugs me the way people assume C-Span is neutral when it has been consumed by the Republican Noise Machine.
::)
So it's cronyism. But what does Bush owe Miers? Where's the quid pro quo easiliy identifiable in most cronyism?