can you me tell what the major problem is that you guys are having with Harriet Miers(sp).

Seems like she is getting a rough go from your constituents.

Thank you for any insight you can give.

uhmump95 Wrote:can you me tell what the major problem is that you guys are having with Harriet Miers(sp).

Seems like she is getting a rough go from your constituents.

Thank you for any insight you can give.

wellnow, speaking only for myself, i'd sum it up in 2 words: david souter.

According to the site listed below, Souter is a moderate with leaning toward being Libertarian and liberal. One thing that stuck out was that it looks like he is pro-abortion.

So do you think that Miers like Souter may be a liberal in conservative clothing?

<a href='http://www.issues2000.org/David_Souter.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.issues2000.org/David_Souter.htm</a>

uhmump95 Wrote:According to the site listed below, Souter is a moderate with leaning toward being Libertarian and liberal. One thing that stuck out was that it looks like he is pro-abortion.

So do you think that Miers like Souter may be a liberal in conservative clothing?

<a href='http://www.issues2000.org/David_Souter.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.issues2000.org/David_Souter.htm</a>

google "souter stealth nominee."

Because I feel like she was chosen as a candidate because he didn't have the "fight" left in him to put Janice Rogers Brown, Charles Pickering, Estrada, or Priscilla Owens up.

I also think it's cronyism at it's worst. You don't appoint your personal attorney to the highest court in the land and think that people won't question you. This isn't a "payback" position like Diplomat to Belize, this is about experience, and in this case, should be the MOST experienced.

RebelKev Wrote:Because I feel like she was chosen as a candidate because he didn't have the "fight" left in him to put Janice Rogers Brown, Charles Pickering, Estrada, or Priscilla Owens up.

I also think it's cronyism at it's worst. You don't appoint your personal attorney to the highest court in the land and think that people won't question you. This isn't a "payback" position like Diplomat to Belize, this is about experience, and in this case, should be the MOST experienced.

Finally the idealist side of RebelKev comes out.

The Republican party is in the midst of a 30+ year effort to advance lawyers through the nations court system in order to position them for a supreme court nomination. The slate that RK advances is the result. Conservatives have put a lot of effort and thought and planning into the process, only to see President George W. Bush bypass the entire effort with both the Roberts and Miers nominations. Roberts put a scare into a lot of Conservatives because he comes across as being principled at the expense of ideology - thus, he is cast as a swing vote on items such as abortion.

President George P. Bush left a legacy with his son and with Conservatives of being betrayed on two fronts - Alan Greenspan (I have seen considerable discussion that the Bush family blamed Greenspan for the loss of the White House in 1992) and Judge Souter, who didn't deliver what was expected to be the reversal of Roe v. Wade. The lesson learned by the son was that selecting what the father probably thought as the best qualified candidates produced bad results in the end. How this lesson is being applied with regard to the Supreme Court is that the candidates who have been nominated have been very close to the president - I think the two nominees and the most likely to be the third (Alberto Gonzales) have all served as counsel to President George W. Bush.

Judge Roberts is probably the prototype of the future. Harriet Miers follows the same path, the availability of the office just placed her as the nomination a bit prematurely. I think this President is unlikely to nominate someone for any office like the Supreme Court when he is unfamiliar with them on an intimate level (the nomination of Paul Wolfowitz and John Bolton follow this pattern). I think it is a mistake to refer to the Miers nomination as base cronyism, but the perception it is understandable because it is hard to distinguish cronyism from what is probably a coherent strategy to push through the President's agenda ... perception be damned.

I give a damn about Roe V. Wade. As for Roberts, I was all for it and support him whole-heartedly; he was experienced. As for anything else, if you are referring to activist judges, I think you on the left take the cake.

Idealist Rebelkev? Wrong. I don't want ANYONE, Liberal OR Conservative, legislating from the bench. I want a strict interpretation of the Constitution and that's it.

Once again, you have totally misjudged me....but then again, I could care less.

I'm a Libertarian. Interpret the Constitution as it stands PERIOD!

RebelKev Wrote:Idealist Rebelkev? Wrong. I don't want ANYONE, Liberal OR Conservative, legislating from the bench. I want a strict interpretation of the Constitution and that's it.

Once again, you have totally misjudged me....but then again, I could care less.

You have seriously misinterpreted me if you think that I have judged you at all (at least in this thread).

RebelKev Wrote:I'm a Libertarian. Interpret the Constitution as it stands PERIOD!

As for the first part, how did you feel when the Libertarian candidate for President took the opportunity of September 11, 2004 to hold a memorial for all of the various peoples across the world that the United States was responsible for killing? (That's when I dropped the capital L off any reference to my beliefs as libertarian).

As for the second part, it's a somewhat vacuous statement since all member of every political spectrum would assert the same thing.

As he Called The Kettle Black - the Pot Wrote Wrote:As for anything else, if you are referring to activist judges, I think you on the left take the cake.

I don't refer to "activist judges", as it is nomenclature of the Conservatives, and again is vacuous language, generally used as a euphamism for someone they don't agree with. (There is probably a relatively limited scope where it does apply, but IMHO, the term disregards the Anglo-American tradition of Common Law, and is so over-used as to render it meaningless).

I45, I'm a Boortz Libertarian. I disagree with the leadership of the LP at this time. Doesn't mean I don't believe in the principles...aside from Isolationism and the war.

As for what you said about the USA being responsible, I'm gonna have to see a link to where Nolan said that. I don't particularly care for Nolan. Of course, I liked Perot, but the Reform Party went nuts as well. One difference though, the Reform Party didn't have Neal Boortz.

Here are Steve Czaban's summaries:
<a href='http://czabe.com/daily/archives/2005/10/index.html' target='_blank'>http://czabe.com/daily/archives/2005/10/index.html</a>

As a conservative, I feel like George W. Bush has just made the Heath Shuler of 1st round draft picks in Supreme Nominee Harriet Miers. Excuse me, but where the hell are her qualifications? Of course, my legal qualifications to judge these nominees is severely lacking myself, so I didn’t really get too worked up over it. Until now. I just read <a href='http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/georgewill/2005/10/04/159414.html' target='_blank'>George Will's scathing opposition</a> to her nomination, and that pretty much convinced me that my ignorant sportsfan “hunch

RebelKev Wrote:I also think it's cronyism at it's worst. You don't appoint your personal attorney to the highest court in the land and think that people won't question you. This isn't a "payback" position like Diplomat to Belize, this is about experience, and in this case, should be the MOST experienced.

I agree it is cronyism, but I believe that it would have been looked over if it was Harry instead of Harriet. Even Laura when asked on the Today Show said that she felt sexism was coming into play with the opposition to Miers.

What type of experience are you looking for?

Being a Circuit Judge, on state supreme court, Harvard Law professor?

RebelKev Wrote:As for what you said about the USA being responsible, I'm gonna have to see a link to where Nolan said that.

I'm not very familiar with Boortz, but I'm surprised he'd be called a Libertarian.

I tried to look for an email that I sent to the chief of staff, but couldn't find it. I thought I was rather nice about the whole thing, but got a response that was pretty much a brush off. I got the informatino from a page on either his campaign page, or the libertarian party page - I'll see if it's still out there somewhere.

I45Owl Wrote:I'm not very familiar with Boortz, but I'm surprised he'd be called a Libertarian.

Neal Boortz put the LP on the map.

uhmump95 Wrote:I agree it is cronyism, but I believe that it would have been looked over if it was Harry instead of Harriet.

You don't honestly think her being a woman bothers me, do you? I have a question for you, why is it that the Democratic party cannot, will not, allow a conservative black or hispanic to succeed? Why did they fillibuster Mrs. Rogers-Brown and Mr. Estrada, but are fine with Miers?

UH, My point isn't about her experience as an attorney, but damnit, this is the highest court in the land and, from my recollection, she has NEVER argued a case before the supreme court. She also, from my recollection, has no experience with constitutional law. Roberts did many times. This is cronyism and Bush is a dumb*** for nominating her if he thought he wouldn't get any opposition.

I45Owl Wrote:President George P. Bush

????

OptimisticOwl Wrote:

I45Owl Wrote:President George P. Bush

????

I was going to say something about that, but felt it better to let his ignorance stand. He is probably referring to Prescott Bush.....whom he will soon start off with his liberal diatribe.

RebelKev Wrote:

OptimisticOwl Wrote:

I45Owl Wrote:President George P. Bush

????

I was going to say something about that, but felt it better to let his ignorance stand. He is probably referring to Prescott Bush.....whom he will soon start off with his liberal diatribe.

There is a Geo. P. Bush - I think he is the one refered to as the Hispanic Bush, and he may well be President one day, but he has not yet been President.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:There is a Geo. P. Bush - I think he is the one refered to as the Hispanic Bush, and he may well be President one day, but he has not yet been President.

Should've been <a href='http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/gb41.html' target='_blank'>George H. W. Bush</a>.

RebelKev Wrote:I was going to say something about that, but felt it better to let his ignorance stand. He is probably referring to Prescott Bush.....whom he will soon start off with his liberal diatribe.

This is simply assinine.

RebelKev Wrote:As for what you said about the USA being responsible, I'm gonna have to see a link to where Nolan said that. I don't particularly care for Nolan. Of course, I liked Perot, but the Reform Party went nuts as well. One difference though, the Reform Party didn't have Neal Boortz.

Here is a link to the campaign page of (Libertarian party nominee) <a href='http://badnarik.org/supporters/blog/2004/09/05/show-them-its-not-in-your-name/' target='_blank'>Michael Badnarik</a>:

Quote:And don’t forget to wear something black to mourn the deaths of so many people, American and foreign, who have died as a result of our policies.

Note the implicit ties to <a href='http://www.notinourname.net/' target='_blank'>Not in Our Name</a>.