← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Buster
Thread ID: 20502 | Posts: 50 | Started: 2005-10-03
2005-10-03 16:21 | User Profile
This Miers lady has Souter-Kennedy-O'Connor written all over her.
I say, "Not this time."
2005-10-03 16:34 | User Profile
Bush is such a damn whimp ... it's always loyalty to him over any other principal. Miers was loyal, so she gets the nod.
Luttig should have been tapped for this one, no question about it. Why not?
This whole (Bush) mentality of getting to the "middle of the road" by appointing such justices and making apologetic promises to rebuild New Orleans makes me sick. I swear, I think Bush is more liberal than Clinton in some regards.
2005-10-03 18:01 | User Profile
[url]http://www.drudgereport.com/[/url]
VP Cheney on Limbaugh: 'I'm confident that she has a conservative judicial philosophy that you will be comfortable with, Rush... You will be proud of Harriet's record. Trust me.'
Oh, well as long as those guys are "comfortable" ...
They don't have a clue; looks like another example of using Rush to pull the thin layered, patchy wool over the dittoheads' eyes.
2005-10-03 18:06 | User Profile
*I never thought I'd defend George W. Bush from charges of cronyism, but Kristol's incredible arrogance and hypocritical chicanery is a little too much here. Today, the shyster editor-in-chief of the Weekly Standard complains that Miers is not a "constitutionalist" - this from the neocon whose friends helped bring about the Patriot Act. Forgive me if that sounds a bit like Jeffrey Dahmer accusing Ted Bundy of being inhumane.
The most likely reason for this out of the blue criticism of Bush is that Kristol and the neos are angry with him for meeting with Abbas, and is exacting his revenge with the hope that their boy in the White House will go back to being the obedient lap dog that he was during his first term. -AY *
[url="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1495720/posts"][size=+1][color=black]**Kristol: Disappointed, Depressed and Demoralized- A reaction to the Harriet Miers nomination**[/color][/size][/url]
<small>**[url="http://www.freerepublic.com/%5Ehttp://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/166quhvd.asp"]The Weekly Standard ^[/url] ** | 10/03/05 | William Kristol</small>
<small>Posted on **10/03/2005 8:14:00 AM PDT** by [url="http://www.freerepublic.com/%7Epokey78/"][color=black]**Pokey78**[/color][/url]</small>
I'm disappointed because I expected President Bush to nominate someone with a visible and distinguished constitutionalist track record--someone like Maura Corrigan, Alice Batchelder, Edith Jones, Priscilla Owen, or Janice Rogers Brown--to say nothing of Michael Luttig, Michael McConnell, or Samuel Alito. Harriet Miers has an impressive record as a corporate attorney and Bush administration official. She has no constitutionalist credentials that I know of.
I'm depressed. Roberts for O'Connor was an unambiguous improvement. Roberts for Rehnquist was an appropriate replacement. But moving Roberts over to the Rehnquist seat meant everything rode on this nomination--and that the president had to be ready to fight on constitutional grounds for a strong nominee. Apparently, he wasn't. It is very hard to avoid the conclusion that President Bush flinched from a fight on constitutional philosophy. Miers is undoubtedly a decent and competent person. But her selection will unavoidably be judged as reflecting a combination of cronyism and capitulation on the part of the president.
I'm demoralized. What does this say about the next three years of the Bush administration--leaving aside for a moment the future of the Court? Surely this is a pick from weakness. Is the administration more broadly so weak? What are the prospects for a strong Bush second term? What are the prospects for holding solid GOP majorities in Congress in 2006 if conservatives are demoralized? And what elected officials will step forward to begin to lay the groundwork for conservative leadership after Bush?
William Kristol is editor of The Weekly Standard
2005-10-03 18:43 | User Profile
Poor Bill. Maybe Bill's Chinese wife will give him a massage tonight to ease his uncontrollable despair.
"Poor Billy, me luv u loan tine."
2005-10-03 20:51 | User Profile
Of course it is true that the Bush administration is rotten with cronyism, and of course it's true that Miers will be another Kennedy or Souter type of nominee.
The problem isn't what is said but the source. Where was Komrade Kristol's righteousness about Bush's cronyism during his first term cabinet appointments? Why the sudden concern over "constitutionalism" when Kristol and his fellow neos were the most vocal cheerleaders of the Patriot Act and its attack on the 4th and 5th Amendments? On the side of the Bush administration, of course, because back then Shrub did Kristol's bidding. Now that Bush is a lame duck, he can get away with small acts of independence like meeting with Abbas and other members of the PLO leadership. So Billy K. throws his little temper tantrum by proxy, using issues he doesn't care a whit about with the hope that those sincerely concerned with cronyism will take his side. It's a classic bait and switch tactic, one that the neocons and GOP have mastered over the years: rally the troops with one issue, then sell them your real agenda.
2005-10-03 21:22 | User Profile
AY,
Bait and switch indeed. I think your's is the best explaination for Kristol's hissy fit. When it comes to the cronyism charge the best jerks like Limbaugh and Hannity can come up with is: "If you want cronyism, just look at the Clinton Administration!" I can do them one better. Bush wants to appoint Gen. Meyers' niece to head up I.C.E. She is married to Chertoff's chief of staff. Those are her qualifications for this important post.
The Daily Cardinal - Opinion Issue: 9/30/05
Cronyism is invading top govt. positions By Erik Opsal
Cronyism is defined as "favoritism shown to old friends without regard for their qualifications, as in political appointments to office." After the Hurricane Katrina disaster and the failure of management at all levels of government to respond, President Bush's cronyism has been exposed.
Michael Brown, director of the Federal Emergency Management Association until his resignation on Sept. 12, is only one of many such cases. Brown's qualifications? He was the Judges and Steward Commissioner for the International Arabian Horses Association, and during his tenure he financially ruined the organization.
As for disaster relief, his biography on FEMA's website says he was an "assistant city manager with emergency services oversight" for Edmond, Okla., in the 1970s. However, a city spokesman told Time magazine that he was "an assistant to the city manager," which "is more like an intern ... department heads did not report to him."
So what qualifications did Michael Brown really have? Turns out he is an old friend of former FEMA Director Joe Allbaugh, who, upon further review, also lacked the qualifications necessary for the job.
Upon being elected president, Bush appointed Allbaugh as the head of FEMA with absolutely no prior experience in disaster relief. Allbaugh was Bush's campaign manager in 2000 and before that was his chief of staff while governor of Texas. Claire Rubin, senior researcher at George Washington University's Institute for Crisis, Disaster and Risk Management said, "Allbaugh? He was inept."
Unqualified appointments were not always the status quo for FEMA. Before Allbaugh was James Lee Witt, who, through a series of recommendations to President Clinton, was able to reform the organization by placing people with emergency experience in all levels. Even George W. Bush complimented Witt on his accomplishments.
Following Hurricane Katrina, Bush said, "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees." This is hard to believe after, in 2001, FEMA identified a hurricane in New Orleans as one of the three most likely, most catastrophic disasters facing this country. Starting in 2003, funding was specifically cut to fix New Orleans' levees in order to divert funds to Iraq. Through poor policy and incompetent employees, this administration has deteriorated an organization that had progressed a long way during the Clinton years.
One would think exposure to such incompetence from an unqualified Bush appointee would end this cronyism. Unfortunately, it has not. Bush is seeking to appoint Julie Myers to head the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency under the Department of Homeland Security. ICE accounts for close to 80 percent of all arrests made within the FBI's joint terrorism task force. It criminally prosecutes more individuals than any other federal agency.
The law requires Myers to have five years of law enforcement experience for this position, but her only experience in a related field is a year-long stint as assistant secretary for export enforcement at the Department of Commerce. She supervised 170 employees and oversaw a $25 million budget*-ICE has 20,000 employees and a $4 billion budget.
The possible appointment of Julie Myers is an example of not only cronyism, but favoritism. Myers is, to say the least, well connected. She is married to John Wood, the chief of staff to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, and is also the niece of departing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force Gen. Richard Myers.
It can be presumed that Myers is getting this job because of her connections, not her resumeô. We cannot afford to have ineptitude in high positions of government. While it may seem trivial now, if an illegal alien commits a terrorist act on U.S. soil it will be on Myers' watch. She will be scrutinized just as Brown was. Bush needs to put knowledgeable people in leadership positions now, not when disaster strikes. Doing so can only save himself further embarrassment.
Erik Opsal is a sophomore majoring in political science. Responses can be sent to [email]opinion@dailycardinal.com[/email] [url]http://www.dailycardinal.com/media/paper439/news/2005/09/30/Opinion/Cronyism.Is.Invading.Top.Govt.Positions-1004533.shtml[/url] ==================== XM,
That's news! I didn't know Kristol was married to an oriental. Not kosher at all. What would Prager says?
2005-10-03 22:15 | User Profile
I'd be suprised if Miers is the strict constructionist we needed to balance the court. Probably not the freaking wingnut that Ginsburg is but I fear a Souter-Clone as well. Too bad too. If Bush had a hair on his A** he would have did what he said he would and appoint a strict constitutionalist, and then fight for the nomination.
2005-10-03 22:38 | User Profile
I know nothing about the woman, but if Kristol is against her, I'm for her.
2005-10-03 22:55 | User Profile
[url]http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=9444[/url]
Miers' Qualifications Are 'Non-Existent'
by Patrick J. Buchanan Posted Oct 3, 2005
Handed a once-in-a-generation opportunity to return the Supreme Court to constitutionalism, George W. Bush passed over a dozen of the finest jurists of his day -- to name his personal lawyer.
In a decision deeply disheartening to those who invested such hopes in him, Bush may have tossed away his and our last chance to roll back the social revolution imposed upon us by our judicial dictatorship since the days of Earl Warren.
This is not to disparage Harriet Miers. From all accounts, she is a gracious lady who has spent decades in the law and served ably as Bushââ¬â¢s lawyer in Texas and, for a year, as White House counsel.
But her qualifications for the Supreme Court are non-existent. She is not a brilliant jurist, indeed, has never been a judge. She is not a scholar of the law. Researchers are hard-pressed to dig up an opinion. She has not had a brilliant career in politics, the academy, the corporate world or public forum. Were she not a friend of Bush, and female, she would never have even been considered.
What commended her to the White House, in the phrase of the hour, is that she ââ¬Åhas no paper trail.ââ¬Â So far as one can see, this is Harriet Miersââ¬â¢ principal qualification for the U.S. Supreme Court.
What is depressing here is not what the nomination tells us of her, but what it tells us of the president who appointed her. For in selecting her, Bush capitulated to the diversity-mongers, used a critical Supreme Court seat to reward a crony, and revealed that he lacks the desire to engage the Senate in fierce combat to carry out his now-suspect commitment to remake the court in the image of Scalia and Thomas. In picking her, Bush ran from a fight. The conservative movement has been had -- and not for the first time by a president by the name of Bush.
Choosing Miers, the president passed over outstanding judges and proven constitutionalists like Michael Luttig of the 4th Circuit and Sam Alito of the 3rd. And if he could not take the heat from the First Lady, and had to name a woman, what was wrong with U.S. appellate court judges Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owens and Edith Jones?
What must these jurists think today about their president today? How does Bush explain to his people why Brown, Owens and Jones were passed over for Miers?
Where was Karl Rove in all of this? Is he so distracted by the Valerie Plame investigation he could not warn the president against what he would be doing to his reputation and coalition?
Reshaping the Supreme Court is an issue that unites Republicans and conservatives And with his White House and party on the defensive for months over Cindy Sheehan and Katrina, Iraq and New Orleans, Delay and Frist, gas prices and immigration, here was the great opportunity to draw all together for a battle of philosophies, by throwing the gauntlet down to the Left, sending up the name of a Luttig, and declaring, ââ¬ÅGo ahead and do your worst. We shall do our best.ââ¬Â
Do the Bushites not understand that ââ¬Åconservative judgesââ¬Â is one of those issues where the national majority is still with them?
What does it tell us that White House, in selling her to the party and press, is pointing out that Miers ââ¬Åhas no paper trial.ââ¬Â What does that mean, other than that she is not a Rehnquist, a Bork, a Scalia or a Thomas?
Conservative cherish justices and judges who have paper trails. For that means these men and women have articulated and defended their convictions. They have written in magazines and law journals about what is wrong with the courts and how to make it right. They had stood up to the prevailing winds. They have argued for the Constitution as the firm and fixed document the Founding Fathers wrote, not some thing of wax.
A paper trail is the mark of a lawyer, a scholar or a judge who has shared the action and passion of his or her time, taken a stand on the great questions, accepted public abuse for articulating convictions.
Why is a judicial cipher like Harriet Miers to be preferred to a judicial conservative like Edith Jones?
One reason: Because the White House fears nominees ââ¬Åwith a paper trailââ¬Â will be rejected by the Senate, and this White House fears, above all else, losing. So, it has chosen not to fight.
Bush had a chance for greatness in remaking the Supreme Court, a chance to succeed where his Republican precedessors from Nixon to his father all failed. He instinctively recoiled from it. He blew it. His only hope now is that Harriet Miers, if confirmed, will not vote like the lady she replaced, or, worse, like his fatherââ¬â¢s choice who also had ââ¬Åno paper trail,ââ¬Â David Souter.
2005-10-04 01:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]I'm disappointed because I expected President Bush to nominate someone with a visible and distinguished constitutionalist track record--someone like Maura Corrigan, Alice Batchelder, Edith Jones, Priscilla Owen, or Janice Rogers Brown--to say nothing of Michael Luttig, Michael McConnell, or Samuel Alito. Harriet Miers has an impressive record as a corporate attorney and Bush administration official. She has no constitutionalist credentials that I know of.
I'm depressed. Roberts for O'Connor was an unambiguous improvement. Roberts for Rehnquist was an appropriate replacement. But moving Roberts over to the Rehnquist seat meant everything rode on this nomination--and that the president had to be ready to fight on constitutional grounds for a strong nominee. Apparently, he wasn't. It is very hard to avoid the conclusion that President Bush flinched from a fight on constitutional philosophy. Miers is undoubtedly a decent and competent person. But her selection will unavoidably be judged as reflecting a combination of cronyism and capitulation on the part of the president.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Centinel]A paper trail is the mark of a lawyer, a scholar or a judge who has shared the action and passion of his or her time, taken a stand on the great questions, accepted public abuse for articulating convictions.
Why is a judicial cipher like Harriet Miers to be preferred to a judicial conservative like Edith Jones?
One reason: Because the White House fears nominees ââ¬Åwith a paper trailââ¬Â will be rejected by the Senate, and this White House fears, above all else, losing. So, it has chosen not to fight. [/QUOTE]I tell you, it is really scary when Bill Kristol and Pat Buchanan both are equally mad about something, and for the same perfectly good reason.
It shows I think what the political process in this country has come to.
2005-10-04 01:51 | User Profile
Okie,
Yes, but there is a difference! Pat's sincere :yes: whereas Bill is up to his old tricks! :bash:
2005-10-04 02:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]Okie,
Yes, but there is a difference! Pat's sincere :yes: whereas Bill is up to his old tricks! :bash:[/QUOTE] I know, that's what's so scary about seeing a neocon agree with a paleo. :shocking:
It must be something really bad.
2005-10-04 02:26 | User Profile
Okie,
Perhaps it is one of those rare occasions where all the planets are in alignment. :holiday:
I bet right now Pat is kicking himself for endorsing Bush in 2004.
2005-10-04 08:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=YertleTurtle]I know nothing about the woman, but if Kristol is against her, I'm for her.[/QUOTE] Perhaps this is part of a disinformation campaign. The plan being to preempt criticism from the Left by spinning her as somebody the "right" (if indeed Trotskites like Kristol can fairly be called "right" - what an Alice-in-Wonderland world this is) feels "uncomfortable" with. Then she's branded a Sandra Day O'Connor "moderate" in the mind of the sheeple, and the Rats have a way to avoid a nasty Borkian fight.
Just a thought.
2005-10-04 08:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Perhaps this is part of a disinformation campaign. The plan being to preempt criticism from the Left by spinning her as somebody the "right" (if indeed Trotskites like Kristol can fairly be called "right" - what an Alice-in-Wonderland world this is) feels "uncomfortable" with. Then she's branded a Sandra Day O'Connor "moderate" in the mind of the sheeple, and the Rats have a way to avoid a nasty Borkian fight.
Just a thought.[/QUOTE]I think it sure makes sense generally that ther was a deal made, and of course part of the "deal" is that publically you complain miserably about what all you had to give up vecause you're so nice a guy
[QUOTE=Kristol]I'm demoralized. What does this say about the next three years of the Bush administration--leaving aside for a moment the future of the Court? Surely this is a pick from weakness. Is the administration more broadly so weak? What are the prospects for a strong Bush second term? What are the prospects for holding solid GOP majorities in Congress in 2006 if conservatives are demoralized? And what elected officials will step forward to begin to lay the groundwork for conservative leadership after Bush? [/QUOTE]Think what Kristol is saying is "golly, you know the administration is having to be grovel so much to retain Democratic support on the war, New Orleans, etc, its decided to compromise on the judicial selections. The only miserable thing left that conservatives had left to hope from the Bush administration. And a few may come looking in our direction (the neoconservatives) as the people who caused all this mess, and realy don't care about anything except our war. Hey golly - I'm a principled conservative too - see how unhappy I am with the Bush admin" (crocadile tears).
Most of the FRers will buy it. "The Bush admin was good, it just didn't listen to those principled neoconservatives enough" :lol:
2005-10-04 08:57 | User Profile
Okie,
Hannity already has along with a number of the hanniots. You see, according to him we should trust Bush on this because Cheney said so and because Bush knows her and we can trust him because he has never lied to us...blah, blah, blah.
2005-10-04 09:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]...blah, blah, blah.[/QUOTE]Shouldn't it be more "bah, bah, bah" like the sheep in [I]Animal House[/I]?
You know, "Roberts good, Miers bah.. bah..bah better".
Although all the coaking canary conservatives aren't so hot on her, Limbaugh weighs in in opposition.
I suspect Bush knows with a lot of people like Hannity, they'd say "we can trust the President, its good enough for us" if he nominated Jenna :lol:
2005-10-04 10:39 | User Profile
Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers is largely viewed as a staunch Bush supporter and Republican insider, but in the not too distant past she was a financial backer of Al Gore and the Democrats, NewsMax has learned.
In 1987 Miers gave $1,000 to the primary campaign of Democratic Sen. Lloyd Bentsen, a fellow Texan who also ran with Michael Dukakis on his party’s ticket against Bush’s father in 1988.
During that presidential campaign, Miers contributed $1,000 to the Albert Gore for President Committee, as well as $1,000 to the Democratic National Committee. Gore lost the Democratic primaries to Dukakis. In recent years Miers has given only to Republicans. She has backed Republican Pete Sessions, the Congressman from Dallas and one of the House’s most noted conservatives. She has also supported George W. Bush. She gave $1,000 to the George Bush campaign in 1999, and $2,000 to the Bush-Cheney campaign in 2003. She also contributed $5,000 to the Bush-Cheney Inc. Recount Fund in 2000.
NewsMax com
2005-10-04 10:49 | User Profile
Conservatives are "pretty demoralized” over President Bush’s surprise nomination of Harriet Miers to the U.S. Supreme Court, says Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol.
Kristol noted, in an interview with Fox News, that with liberal Republican Sandra Day O’Connor leaving the court, Bush had a unique opportunity to put his conservative stamp on the Supreme Court. Instead, Kristol suggests Bush "flinched.”
"It looks like he capitulated,” a pessimistic Kristol said. The conservative commentator noted she has absolutely no judicial record, and he fears she will be "another O’Connor, another Souter.” While O’Connor and current Associate Court Justice David Souter had served as judges, their judicial records were obscure at the time they were nominated for the Supreme Court. Kristol sees Bush’s pick of Miers as a slap in the face to conservative women jurists.
"He has passed over conservative judges, including female judges, who have long and distinguished records on the federal and state supreme courts," Kristol said.
"Maybe he is right. Maybe she will be a first-rate justice, but you don't know that.
"This is not a Scalia, a Rehnquist or, for that matter, a John Roberts in terms of quality of pick," he added. "It's hard to interpret this as anything but flinching from a fight."
Kristol suggested the Bush administration may have feared a nomination fight with Democrats on judicial philosophy, which he said is a fight that most conservative Republicans would have welcomed.
"It sends a bad signal," Kristol said. Conservative judges, particularly conservative women, that have been making the case for 5, 10 or 15 years, have been passed over in favor of someone with no record. That's hard to explain to conservatives."
NewsMax.com
2005-10-04 10:50 | User Profile
1 Timothy 2:12 NIV (New International Version)
12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.
:shocking:
2005-10-04 10:51 | User Profile
Count Ann Coulter among the conservatives who are unhappy with President Bush’s nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.
Asked by NewsMax.com if she considers Miers to be what she had called John Roberts after his nomination - a "tabula rasa” - Coulter, who’s now out with the paperback edition of her best-seller "How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must),” said:
"No. She’s something new: a complete mediocrity.”
Ouch.
NewsMax.com
2005-10-04 10:54 | User Profile
Rush Limbaugh is none too happy about President Bush’s nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, saying it’s a selection "made from weakness.”
"There was an opportunity here to show strength and confidence, and I don’t think this is it,” Rush told listeners of his show, America’s most widely heard talk radio program.
"It seems to me from the outset that this is a pick that was made from weakness. "There are plenty of known quantities out there who would be superb for the Court. This is a nominee that we don’t know anything about. It makes her less of a target, but also doesn’t show a position of strength. "I have a tough time believing that if the White House didn’t feel embattled over all of this stuff with Hurricane Katrina and the war in Iraq and these poll numbers, the choice would have been somebody different, somebody that could immediately be tagged as an originalist, somebody who was in the same mold of Scalia and Thomas, who the president once told us were his ideals for the Supreme Court.
"The Democrats are saying some favorable things about Harriet Miers right now, led by dingy Harry (Reid), the Senate leader. He likes her very much. Almost like he’d like to marry her, he likes her so much.
"And when you start hearing the President’s opponents start talking about this in the way they’re talking about it, you have to have a red flag go up.
"But the main reason I don’t like this pick has nothing to do with Harriet Miers, because I don’t know her. I think the pick makes President Bush look weak. I think the pick is designed to avoid more controversy, to appease.” Rush said Miers’ nomination "disappoints” him because he feels Bush might be losing a historic opportunity to take the Court in a definitely conservative direction. "As I’ve said, the Court is the last refuge for the left. It is where they hope to institutionalize their beliefs and get their beliefs out of the arena of debate.
"This woman could end up being fabulous,” Rush acknowledged, but asked: "Why do we have to take the risk? Why do we have to roll the dice?”
NewsMax.com
2005-10-04 11:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]"No. Sheââ¬â¢s something new: a complete mediocrity.ââ¬Â
[/QUOTE]Com'mon. For the* Bush * administration?
2005-10-04 11:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE=confederate_commando]1 Timothy 2:12 NIV (New International Version)
12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.
:shocking:[/QUOTE]He's talking about an ecclesiastical setting.
2005-10-04 18:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=confederate_commando]1 Timothy 2:12 NIV (New International Version)
12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.
:shocking:[/QUOTE]
Phyllis Schlafly is probably one of the greatest legal minds in America, and she is a Christian. Name me one white Christian male, other than Scalia, who is more logical than Schlafly.
2005-10-04 19:01 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Centinel]Handed a once-in-a-generation opportunity to return the Supreme Court to constitutionalism, George W. Bush passed over a dozen of the finest jurists of his day -- to name his personal lawyer.[/QUOTE]I don't believe for a moment that Bush or his handlers have ever had the slightest interest in a return to constitutionalism.
2005-10-04 19:02 | User Profile
So, Gabby, how's that fawning, unwavering support for Dubya thing working out? Will this be the kick in the teeth that finally wakes you up? Or can you take a few more from our 'conservative, Christian' president? If the latter, I hear he's cooking up a really 'conservative' amnesty plan for some 'hard-working undocumented workers' that you should really enjoy.
2005-10-04 20:17 | User Profile
Does anyone know if there were other stealth candidates, other than Souter, who turned out to be the opposite of what was expected or is this fairly rare.
2005-10-04 21:53 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]So, Gabby, how's that fawning, unwavering support for Dubya thing working out? Will this be the kick in the teeth that finally wakes you up? Or can you take a few more from our 'conservative, Christian' president? If the latter, I hear he's cooking up a really 'conservative' amnesty plan for some 'hard-working undocumented workers' that you should really enjoy.[/QUOTE]
It was Bush or Kerry, Quantrill, so don't think you are 'getting' me. :dry: I never said Bush was perfect...
2005-10-04 22:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Will this be the kick in the teeth that finally wakes you up? Or can you take a few more from our [U]'conservative, Christian'[/U] president?[/QUOTE] Q!
You forgot "...and [B][U]Republican[/U][/B] President"!
2005-10-04 23:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]Q!
You forgot "...and [u]Republican[/u] President"![/QUOTE] Sert, You mean 'Republican' is not a synonym for 'conservative, Christian'? :wink:
[Quote=Gabrielle] It was Bush or Kerry, Quantrill, so don't think you are 'getting' me. :dry: I never said Bush was perfect... Perhaps not, but some of your posts have come awful close. Just for my edification, exactly what would Kerry have done that is worse than what Bush has done?
2005-10-04 23:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=DakotaBlue]Does anyone know if there were other stealth candidates, other than Souter, who turned out to be the opposite of what was expected or is this fairly rare.[/QUOTE] Actually its more the rule than the exception.
2005-10-05 10:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]He's talking about an ecclesiastical setting.[/QUOTE]
Oh? And women should submit to their husbands...
So, 2 of the 3 Institutions established by God, the Family and Church, are led by Men, but not the Civil Magistrate? Illogical in the extreme:
13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women[a] will be saved** through childbearingââ¬âif they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
Culture is religion externalized, we may logically infer the proper role of Man and Woman...
2005-10-05 12:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=confederate_commando]Oh? And women should submit to their husbands...
So, 2 of the 3 Institutions established by God, the Family and Church, are led by Men, but not the Civil Magistrate? Illogical in the extreme:
13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women[a] will be saved** through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
Culture is religion externalized, we may logically infer the proper role of Man and Woman...[/QUOTE]
I agree, but...
God also used a lady to lead Israel to battle, and another to kill an enemy of our people.
Name me one white Christian man that is not already there now better qualified than Phyllis Schlafly to sit on the Supreme Court.
2005-10-05 12:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Sert, You mean 'Republican' is not a synonym for 'conservative, Christian'? :wink:
Perhaps not, but some of your posts have come awful close. Just for my edification, exactly what would Kerry have done that is worse than what Bush *has* done?[/QUOTE]
Hmmm… He said he would allow aliens with deadly diseases to become American citizens.
He wanted to make it law that, regardless of age, Americans (white folks) would have to do a certain amount of ‘community’ work every year.
He would have been much worse than Bush with this illegal alien rubbish – did you never read what he promised??
2005-10-05 20:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]Hmmm… He said he would allow aliens with deadly diseases to become American citizens.
He wanted to make it law that, regardless of age, Americans (white folks) would have to do a certain amount of ‘community’ work every year.
He would have been much worse than Bush with this illegal alien rubbish – did you never read what he promised??[/QUOTE]
Cat got your tongue, Quantrill ? :)
2005-10-05 22:07 | User Profile
Gabrielle,
How would Kerry be worse than Bush? I can't see any[B] real difference[/B] between them on this issue.
I do know this. If Kerry were elected, the Stupid Party would oppose any amnesty by Kerry if for any reason, partisanship.
2005-10-06 10:48 | User Profile
WASHINGTON, Oct. 5 - A growing chorus of conservatives from Republican senators to the columnist George F. Will cast skepticism on Wednesday on President Bush's selection of Harriet E. Miers for the Supreme Court, expressing worry not only about unanswered questions on her legal philosophy but also about her legal credentials.
The Miers Nomination The Times's Richard W. Stevenson discusses the nomination of Harriet E. Miers to the Supreme Court. Plus video of the president and the nominee.
THE ANNOUNCEMENT Transcripts: Bush | Miers "There are a lot more people - men, women and minorities - that are more qualified, in my opinion, by their experience than she is," Senator Trent Lott, Republican of Mississippi, told MSNBC on Wednesday. "Right now, I'm not satisfied with what I know. I'm not comfortable with the nomination, so we'll just have to work through the process."
Senator George Allen, Republican of Virginia, considered a potential presidential candidate, said that "people who I have a great deal of admiration for" had said they were "disappointed or deflated" by the choice.
"I want to be assured that she is not going to be another Souter," Mr. Allen said, referring to Justice David H. Souter, a George H. W. Bush appointee who has upheld abortion rights and other liberal precedents. "I understand the president knows her well, but I don't."
The administration sent Ed Gillespie, the former Republican Party chairman helping to shepherd Ms. Miers through Senate hearings, to shore up support at a weekly meeting of conservative organizers convened Wednesday by the strategist Grover Norquist. There, Mr. Gillespie was pelted by criticism that the president had failed to pick a committed conservative or a legal star.
"There was pretty much unanimity," said one conservative who spoke anonymously because confidentiality was a condition of the meeting. "Morale is low right now at the base."
Ms. Miers, meanwhile, continued her rounds of Capitol Hill. Senator Mike DeWine, Republican of Ohio, pronounced her "tough as nails" after an hourlong meeting with her. Responding to criticism that Ms. Miers had never been a judge, Mr. DeWine praised the breadth of her practical experience in the White House and in her long career as a private lawyer. "She is somebody who has gone out late at night to get someone out of jail," Mr. DeWine said she had told him.
None of the senators who spoke with her said they discussed constitutional issues. "She listens more than she talks," said Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah.
Democrats, delighted by the division on the right, pushed Ms. Miers to repudiate assurances about her views that the administration has reportedly made through private conversations or closed conference calls with conservatives. "No Supreme Court nomination should be conducted by winks and nods," said Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee.
Referring to statements by the evangelical conservative James C. Dobson that he had been given confidential information about Ms. Miers's views, Mr. Leahy said: "I asked her about that specifically. I said, 'Has anybody been authorized to speak on your behalf or have you spoken to anybody about how you would vote?' She assured me, 'Absolutely not.'
"I said, 'Would you disavow anybody who send out assurances that they know how you would vote?' She said, 'Absolutely.' "
After a meeting on Wednesday of the so-called Gang of 14, a bipartisan group of senators who agreed earlier to block filibusters against judicial nominees except in "extraordinary circumstances," several members of both parties said they agreed that so far Ms. Miers "did not set off alarm bells," as Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, put it. If the Republican majority of 55 senators votes on party lines, a filibuster would be the only way Democrats could block a nominee.
On Wednesday, however, the Democrats mostly stood back as conservatives took aim at the selection of Ms. Miers. Mr. Will, a conservative essayist, made the case for her rejection in a syndicated column published on Wednesday. "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," he wrote.
If 100 legal experts had each recommended 100 top candidates for the Supreme Court, Mr. Will added, "Miers's name probably would not have appeared in any of the 10,000 places on those lists."
Mr. Gillespie, who also attended a lunch of the Senate Republicans to make the case for Ms. Miers, acknowledged "pointed questions" from conservatives. He said he had told Mr. Norquist's meeting about her "distinguished career" as a lawyer, her work "shoulder to shoulder with the president" and her central work "moving forward conservative nominees to the federal judiciary."
"The more people on the conservative side of the spectrum know about her, the stronger their support will get," Mr. Gillespie said.
Christian conservatives, who see the vacancy left by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's retirement as the chance to turn the tide in 30 years of culture wars over abortion and social issues, continued to complain that Ms. Miers had no public record of her legal approach to such subjects.
Dr. Dobson, founder and chairman of Focus on the Family and one of a handful of prominent Christian conservatives to support the selection of Ms. Miers publicly, said in his radio program Wednesday: "There has been a firestorm of activity since then. This nomination has angered and disillusioned many conservatives, many Christian conservatives."
Explaining his reasons for supporting her and praying for guidance, Dr. Dobson cited her religious faith and said he knew her conservative evangelical church. "I know the person who brought her to the Lord," he said. "I have talked at length to people that know her and have known her for a long time."
Dr. Dobson acknowledged conversations with Karl Rove, the president's top political adviser, about the selection but declined to disclose their contents. "You will have to trust me on this one," he said, adding that if he was wrong, "the blood of those babies" - aborted fetuses - "will be on my hands to some degree."
But Gary Bauer, president of the Christian conservative group American Values, said that he remained unconvinced about Ms. Miers despite her religious views. "As of today, not one friend, associate, co-worker or White House official is able to produce one sentence she has written or spoken in criticism of Roe v. Wade," he wrote in an e-mail newsletter to supporters. "Her apparent silence is troubling - at least to me."
Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota, said he, too, was nervous about Ms. Miers but also about a fight within his party. "I don't think that an intraparty battle is what we need," he said. "But I think before too long the left is going to go off on her, and that will effectively bring everybody together."
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/06/politics/politicsspecial1/06nominate.html?th&emc=th[/url]
2005-10-06 10:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]Gabrielle,
How would Kerry be worse than Bush? I can't see any[B] real difference[/B] between them on this issue.[/Quote]
Hmmm… He said he would allow aliens with deadly diseases to become American citizens.
He wanted to make it law that, regardless of age, Americans (white folks) would have to do a certain amount of ‘community’ work every year.
He would have been much worse than Bush with this illegal alien rubbish – did you never read what he promised??
[QUOTE=Sertorius] I do know this. If Kerry were elected, the Stupid Party would oppose any amnesty by Kerry if for any reason, partisanship.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps :)
2005-10-06 11:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle] He would have been much worse than Bush with this illegal alien rubbish ââ¬â did you never read what he promised??[/QUOTE] Well, currently Bush refuses to protect our borders, maligns those people who volunteer to protect them, refuses to deport any illegals caught here, and has tried twice to grant all current illegals amnesty. What exactly would Kerry have done that is worse than that? Invited them to stay in the Lincoln Bedroom?
2005-10-06 11:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Well, currently Bush refuses to protect our borders, maligns those people who volunteer to protect them, refuses to deport any illegals caught here, and has tried twice to grant all current illegals amnesty. What exactly would Kerry have done that is worse than that? Invited them to stay in the Lincoln Bedroom?[/QUOTE]Tancredo I consider the expert, and he's really got every reason in the world, as a House Republican, to give Bush any credit he could, but he said he honestly saw no substantative difference between Kerry and Bush on Immigration.
Not saying really that Kerry isn't horrible, just Bush is just as bad.
2005-10-06 11:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Well, currently Bush refuses to protect our borders, maligns those people who volunteer to protect them, refuses to deport any illegals caught here, and has tried twice to grant all current illegals amnesty. What exactly would Kerry have done that is worse than that? Invited them to stay in the Lincoln Bedroom?[/QUOTE]
What about guns? What taxing social security ? What about allowing aliens with deadly diseases to become American citizens? What about forcing American citizens to perform ‘community’ work every year? What about all the promises Kerry made to the ‘gay community? Etc, etc...
Quantrill, you really are starting to sound like the leftist media. :unsure:
2005-10-06 14:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]What about guns? What taxing social security ? What about allowing aliens with deadly diseases to become American citizens? What about forcing American citizens to perform ââ¬Ëcommunityââ¬â¢ work every year? What about all the promises Kerry made to the ââ¬Ëgay community? Etc, etc...
Quantrill, you really are starting to sound like the leftist media. :unsure:[/QUOTE]Speaking of leftist media Gabby, if you were in 30's Russia, you would be tooting your horn for either Trotsky or Stalin, cause, although not perfect, he "still is so much better" than the other.
(honestly I'm not sure which, maybe you could enlighten us? :lol:)
2005-10-06 23:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Speaking of leftist media Gabby, if you were in 30's Russia, you would be tooting your horn for either Trotsky or Stalin, cause, although not perfect, he "still is so much better" than the other.
(honestly I'm not sure which, maybe you could enlighten us? :lol:)[/QUOTE]
Them are fighting words, Okieddust. :closedeye
2005-10-08 01:37 | User Profile
In 1964 one of my professors iconoclastically announced that there is really only one political party in this country but every 4 years they pretend there are 2.
Kerry and Bush have agendas that overlap enough times to question the whole 2-party system, but Kerry is the more egregiously arrogant, dishonest, untrustworthy, self-absorbed and generally vapid of the two. Something's pathologically wrong with a grown man who's not comfortable with his own heritage and pretends to be something he isn't. But what put the kabosh on him for me was the Swifties. Until then I wasn't going to vote, but when his own men decided to risk everything in order to tell the world what they thought of this cowardly fop, then I knew immediately he wasn't just incompetent...he was dangerous.
I believe he would have been a disaster for this country. Bush makes me angry but Kerry would have made me sick with fear. So I voted for the lesser of two evils. What can you expect when you have a one party system.
2005-10-08 12:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE=DakotaBlue]In 1964 one of my professors iconoclastically announced that there is really only one political party in this country but every 4 years they pretend there are 2.
Kerry and Bush have agendas that overlap enough times to question the whole 2-party system, but Kerry is the more egregiously arrogant, dishonest, untrustworthy, self-absorbed and generally vapid of the two. Something's pathologically wrong with a grown man who's not comfortable with his own heritage and pretends to be something he isn't. But what put the kabosh on him for me was the Swifties. Until then I wasn't going to vote, but when his own men decided to risk everything in order to tell the world what they thought of this cowardly fop, then I knew immediately he wasn't just incompetent...he was dangerous.
I believe he would have been a disaster for this country. Bush makes me angry but Kerry would have made me sick with fear. So I voted for the lesser of two evils. What can you expect when you have a one party system.[/QUOTE]
How refreshing! Someone who reasons! :)
2005-10-11 10:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]I agree, but...
God also used a lady to lead Israel to battle, and another to kill an enemy of our people.
Name me one white Christian man that is not already there now better qualified than Phyllis Schlafly to sit on the Supreme Court.[/QUOTE]
Roy Moore would do... :clown: How about John Cripps of Mississippi? There are any number who would be better, because that is the way we are Created...
But seriously it doesn't matter, FedGov IS the problem and the sooner it leaves Dixie, the better.
2005-10-30 21:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Centinel][url]http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=9444[/url]
Miers' Qualifications Are 'Non-Existent'
by Patrick J. Buchanan Posted Oct 3, 2005
Handed a once-in-a-generation opportunity to return the Supreme Court to constitutionalism, George W. Bush passed over a dozen of the finest jurists of his day -- to name his personal lawyer.
[/QUOTE]
Amazing, after talking about qualifications, Pat neglects to articulate the most fundamental qulification necessary for one to "support and defend This Constitution".
Don’t get me wrong, I like Pat and we have spoken many times in the past.
But getting down to business, the following article, I believe, addresses what the fundamental fight is about.
**Our SCOTUS, DOMESTIC ENEMIES, and the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system! **
The discussion concerning the nomination to the SCOTUS exposes and brings to light we have extremists in our society--- left wing militants and right wing militants, who ought to be viewed as domestic enemies of our constitutional system!
What these militants have in common is their desire to use the SCOTUS to impose their personal whims and fancies as being within the meaning of our Constitution, even though their personal views are, without question, in direct conflict with the intent of the Constitution and the beliefs under which it was agreed to by the people when ratifying it, and can be documented from historical records such as:
[url=http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/debates/debcont.htm][u]Madison’s Notes[/u][/url] on the proceedings and debates of the convention of 1787; The [url=http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed.htm][u]Federalists[/u][/url] and [url=http://www.constitution.org/afp/afp.htm][u]Anti Federalist Papers[/u][/url], recording public debate of the proposed constitution in a series of newspaper articles; and [url=http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwed.html][u]Elliot’s Debates[/u][/url], the actual ratification proceedings of several states, during which time the meaning and intent of the various articles sections and clauses of our Constitution is elaborated upon to gain state ratification, and in many instances it is elaborated upon by the very delegates who attended the Constitutional Convention!
Together, the above sources do in fact record a preponderance of evidence a general consensus establishing the intent of the framers and ratifiers and the beliefs under which the Constitution was agreed to by “We the People.”
Justice Story in his Commentaries informs us that:
"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"
And Jefferson tells us:
[I]"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."[/I]--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.
But the domestic enemies of our constitutional system want to give new meaning to our Constitution and do so without that meaning being accepted by the people via the Constitution’s amending process. What these scoundrels pretend is that the SCOTUS is not bound to abide by the intent and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted. They eagerly instruct us that the Court is not required to adhere to the intent of the Constitution and support its opinions with supportive references to the historical records mentioned above, because to do so, would bind us to the “dead hand of its framers“.
This thinking disingenuously ignores the amendment process, designed by the framers to allow the people, not renegade judges, make change to accommodate changing times. But there is a reason for their thinking, it cleverly removes the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system [abiding by its documented intent] and sets folks in government free to make the Constitution mean whatever they want it to mean.
The bottom line is, and should be remembered by all freedom loving people, the most fundamental rule of our constitutional system is to carry out the intent and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted.
“A constitutional provision is to be construed, as statutes are, to the end that the intent of those drafting and voting for it be realized."(Mack v Heuck (App) 14 Ohio L Abs 237)
"No part of the constitution should be so construed as to defeat its purpose or the intent of the people in adopting it."Pfingst v State (3d Dept) 57 App Div 2d 163 .
"the rule being that a written constitution is to be interpreted in the same spirit in which it was produced" Wells v Missouri P.R. Co.,110Mo 286,19SW 530.
"Where language used in a constitution is capable of two constructions, it must be so construed as to carry into effect the purpose of the constitutional convention.” Ratliff v Beal, 74 Miss.247,20 So 865 .
"In construing federal constitutional provisions, the United States Supreme Court has regularly looked for the purpose the framers sought to accomplish.” Everson v Board of Education, 330 US 1, 91 L Ed 711,67 S Ct 504, 168 ALR 1392.
"The primary principle underlying an interpretation of constitutions is that the intent is the vital part and the essence of the law." Rasmussen v Baker, 7 Wyo 117, 50 P 819.
And, see Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 37 U.S. (12Pet.) 657,721(1838), in which the Supreme Court has pointed out that construction of the constitution **"...must necessarily depend on the words of the Constitution; the meaning and intention of the conventions which framed and proposed it for adoption and ratification to the Conventions...in the several states...to which this Court has always resorted in construing the Constitution." **
Fact is, even Congress understands this fundamental principle of constitutional law, even though they no longer follow it.:
"In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it...A construction which would give the phrase...a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution." Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),
Now, here is an example of the Court pointing to what the Founders intended by referencing the Federalist Papers 18 times in order to find the legislative intent of our Constitution. See:[url=http://www.able2know.com/go/?a2kjump=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=514&page=549]UNITED STATES v. LOPEZ, ___ U.S. ___ (1995)][/url] Also see: GREGORY v. ASHCROFT, 501 U.S. 452 (1991) and: Nixon v. United States (91-740), 506 U.S. 224 (1993).
Regards, John W K, Founder American Constitutional Research Service
[I][color=red]Those who reject abiding by the intent and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to [u]as it may be documented from the historical records[/u], wish to remove the [u]anchor and rudder [/u] of our constitutional system and set folks in government free to make the Constitution mean whatever they wish it to mean.[/color][/I]
.
2005-10-31 17:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=john w k]Justice Story in his Commentaries informs us that:
"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"
And Jefferson tells us:
[I]"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."[/I]--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.
But the domestic enemies of our constitutional system want to give new meaning to our Constitution and do so without that meaning being accepted by the people via the Constitution’s amending process. What these scoundrels pretend is that the SCOTUS is not bound to abide by the intent and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted. They eagerly instruct us that the Court is not required to adhere to the intent of the Constitution and support its opinions with supportive references to the historical records mentioned above, because to do so, would bind us to the “dead hand of its framers“.
.[/QUOTE]
These points are well and good, but an extra one to be made is that MUCH of the "bad law" created by SCOTUS involves the 14th Amendment, which was a product of gun-point deliberations aimed at Southern States after the Civil War.
The fact that our country proceeded as such at this time leads me to believe that the "spirit manifested in the [Philadelphia] debates," as Jefferson put it, had already evaporated upon the South's loss.
This sounds extremely radical, but the proper remedy would be to strike the 13th, 14th, 15th Amendments. THEN, re-pass them with proper changes. The case law expounding on the "illegal amendments" would likewise be nullified--this case law had a compounding negative effect: to get to the passage of the 14th Amendment was firstly unconstitutional, and then to draw from that amendment a decision like Brown v. Board of Educ. was an even further lapse into oblivion. Where does that leave us now?