Will Harriet Miers be confirmed?

[langeweile]

Robertson????? Do you mean Roberts? It would seem you have that you have good ole christian Pat on the mind. I use the term christian loosely here Well if anything has been fun with the Meir's pick it is watching the Republicans eat their young.

One thing else langeweile, why is it you conservatives view any vote against your beliefs as clueless. One would think that in a democratic society, dissenting votes are necessary to further the debate, unless of course you would be happier with a fascist society. I point this out because your unnecessary rantings about the opposition's duty only give the loony left some justification for their silly positions.

Roberts..yeah you are right..sorry..again....(insert insult here)

I don't find all D's clueless, there are some very good ones. Feingold,Schweitzer, Zell Miller, Leahy,ettc..just to name a few, and just like there are extremist in the GOP there are alive and well in the democratic party.

If you add Pelosi to the mix, those four present the very worst of the D's. i think they do more harm than good.
As i stated before IMO the vast majority of people are more in the center, but the extremists on both parties are occupying the media.

 

[lenharper]

FORGET the you will cut and post crap

Hell that is you

ok forget you

Is this some new "free form" style of haiku?

 

[TOVisitor]

Is this some new "free form" style of haiku?

Naw. He just was running low on his meds.

 

[langeweile]

Naw. He just was running low on his meds.

YAAAAWWNNN almost as original as chicken hawk...

 

[TOVisitor]

YAAAAWWNNN almost as original as chicken hawk...

I also should have mentioned that you seemed to have been running low on meds.

Talk about the Dems being clueless? Four times in one post you talk about Robertson. Bwahahaha.

Like I said before, incompetent and confident. That's you.

 

[papasmerf]

I also should have mentioned that you seemed to have been running low on meds.

Talk about the Dems being clueless? Four times in one post you talk about Robertson. Bwahahaha.

Like I said before, incompetent and confident. That's you.

Hey TOV why not meet me for lunch in Bufdal and I can show you some Marines who want to hold you

 

[TOVisitor]

I don't know if she is the best choice, to little is known about her, but unlike some we should wait for the outcome IMSO.

Speaking again of being clueless ...

Care to tell us the meaning of IMSO?

You might want to check here first before you answer: http://www.cygwin.com/acronyms/ or http://mindprod.com/jgloss/i.html

 

[TOVisitor]

This Miers appointment gets better every day.

From Dr. SpongeBob Dobson:

"By day's end, Mr. Dobson, one of the most influential evangelical conservatives, welcomed the nomination. "Some of what I know I am not at liberty to talk about," he said in an interview, explaining his decision to speak out in support of Ms. Miers. He declined to discuss his conversations with the White House.”

Hmmmm.

What has the White House been telling Dr. Dobson about Ms. Miers that should be kept secret from the American people? Maybe he should be called as a witness at her confirmation hearings.

 

[TOVisitor]

And another to add to truncy's list of stupid people: Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, wingnut extraordinaire.

"Sen. Brownback said he is not convinced that Miers is the best person for the job and that will have to be determined in her hearings. When asked if he was disappointed in the President's choice, he said, 'Yes, I am disappointed.'"

 

[TOVisitor]

because when the new Bench gets around to restoring the original Constitution and the laws, you won't be gloating anymore ...

And what did the Founding Fathers mean when they talked about Presidential appointments and the Senate approving of such appointments? After all, truncy would like us to go ahead and be true to what they said.

Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers #76:

"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..."

"[The President] 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."

Seems pretty clear to me.

 

[Truncador]

If Hamilton's theory of deterrence is valid, you've just provided a powerful argument in support of the argument that Miers is a sound nominee. Thanks !

 

[Truncador]

This Miers appointment gets better every day.

From Dr. SpongeBob Dobson:

"By day's end, Mr. Dobson, one of the most influential evangelical conservatives, welcomed the nomination. "Some of what I know I am not at liberty to talk about," he said in an interview, explaining his decision to speak out in support of Ms. Miers. He declined to discuss his conversations with the White House.”

Hmmmm.

What has the White House been telling Dr. Dobson about Ms. Miers that should be kept secret from the American people? Maybe he should be called as a witness at her confirmation hearings.

Here's hoping they can put together a Bench that'll finally stand up and expurgate that most perverse abomination and stain on the world's greatest legal systems, namely Roe v. Wade.

 

[Don]

Smart move by the Bush team

...and I say Bush TEAM because it is not Bush coming up with these ideas.

Bush picks a candidate who is conservative but not as right as some conservatives would like so they criticize her. In fact, since she is not as right as Roberts, it puts the D's in a tougher spot. Oppose her and you are opposing someone who is more moderate than someone who you backed (Roberts). Also the R's will just come back with someone more conservative and constantly opposing candidates is a bad PR move. Support her and you just got another justice who is deep down pro-life. That makes 2 recently appointed justices who are pro-life. Pro-choice rights are in trouble.

Should be no surprise that the D's House leader supports Miers since Reid is also pro-life.

Personally I think she gets in. Having Reid's support and the fact that many hardcore conservatives make her look (relatively) attractive to the other side

 

[TOVisitor]

If Hamilton's theory of deterrence is valid, you've just provided a powerful argument in support of the argument that Miers is a sound nominee. Thanks !

Up is down. Black is white. On is off. No wonder you like the Shrub.

 

[TOVisitor]

New phrase coined by the right-wing: Bush packing.

From: http://www.americandaily.com/article/9531

"When there are so many proven judges in the mix, it is unacceptable this President has appointed a political crony with no conservative credentials. This attempt at 'Bush Packing' the Supreme Court must not be allowed to pass the Senate and we will forcefully oppose this nomination."

BTW, the organization making this statement is the President of an organization called Public Advocate. "Public Advocate has been fighting for the American family for over 25 years, it most recently made headlines when it withdrew its support for the Roberts nomination because of the designee's voluntary free legal work on behalf of the homosexual lobby."

Sounds right up your alley, truncy.

Bwahahahaha.

 

[papasmerf]

New phrase coined by the right-wing: Bush packing.

From: http://www.americandaily.com/article/9531



BTW, the organization making this statement is the President of an organization called Public Advocate. "Public Advocate has been fighting for the American family for over 25 years, it most recently made headlines when it withdrew its support for the Roberts nomination because of the designee's voluntary free legal work on behalf of the homosexual lobby."

Sounds right up your alley, truncy.

Bwahahahaha.

Why do I feel that because she has no paper trail to assinate her with; asshats from both sides are out to distroy her. While I view her as an unknown I actualy like the idea of that. No matter what her alliance is today she would be a judge for life. And who knows what direction cases will take her. I like this idea, Let the Constitution guide the courts and not the courts redeign the constitution.

 

[langeweile]

New phrase coined by the right-wing: Bush packing.

From: http://www.americandaily.com/article/9531



BTW, the organization making this statement is the President of an organization called Public Advocate. "Public Advocate has been fighting for the American family for over 25 years, it most recently made headlines when it withdrew its support for the Roberts nomination because of the designee's voluntary free legal work on behalf of the homosexual lobby."

Sounds right up your alley, truncy.

Bwahahahaha.

Running low on friends..so now you resort to conversation with yourself...like the old saying goes..assholes die lonely..

 

[WoodPeckr]

Dubya just covering his ass

In case there is any impeachment trial should that occur. Hattie does have experience in 'cleaning up other Dubya messes' from his past!

BUSH'S SUPREME COURT BETRAYAL

When a political party supports a candidate for President, it is done with the expectation that, should a vacancy occur on the US Supreme Court, said candidate will appoint judges that embody the political philosophy of his party. Few actions by a President can have as lasting an effect as the judges they put onto the court.

George Bush has had an exceptional opportunity to reshape the court, appointing not only a Justice, but a Chief Justice as well. But Bush has betrayed his own political party with his selections. Instead of appointing Justices with an eye towards how they might rule on the issues expected to be brought before the court in the coming decades, Bush has squandered the vacancies to load up the court with Justices whose only qualification appears to be that they will protect the rear-end of their benefactor should that become necessary.

The new Chief Justice, who owes his position to President Bush, will preside over an impeachment trial should that occur. Both justices will rule if Bush and his administration are indicted on conspiracy charges in the Valerie Plame case, not to mention a lawsuit against the government for violation of 18 USC - 371.*

Certainly the appointment of Harriet Miers reveals Bush's shallow and self-centered decision-making process. Harriet is not a judge, has authored few scholarly legal opinions, and therefore there is no record to predict how she will rule on anything. Her only qualification seems to be that she was in charge of the "cleanup" of Bush's Texas Air National Guard records to conceal his loss of flight status and being AWOL. From this, it is clear that her talent is as a cover-up artist, and equally clear, this is why Bush has nominated her.

But Republicans who supported Bush in the hopes of having a Supreme Court more favorable to their political agenda must be kicking themselves by now with the realization that Bush has used his historic opportunity purely for self-preservation. It is very difficult to know how Roberts will rule on cases in the future (aside from a potential impeachment hearing), and impossible to know how Harriet Miers will rule on anything (other than a conspiracy charge against the President).

Like the power of the Presidency, like the military, like the economy, Bush has taken the authority that millions of Republicans worked to give him to appoint Justices to the US Supreme Court, and used it for purely personal gain.

The people who supported Bush in the hopes of a Supreme Court favorable to their views have been betrayed. Bush simply appointed cronies who will try to protect him from the consequences of his illegal actions, and that is not what his supporters expected or wanted.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bushSCbetrayal.html

 

[TOVisitor]

It's piling on time.

First, Robert Novak, the Prince of Darkness himself.

Two questions were asked in conservative circles Monday when it was learned President Bush had nominated his lawyer, Harriet Miers, for the Supreme Court. Question No. 1: "Is this what we fought for?" Question No. 2: "What was he thinking?"

The conservative Republican base had tolerated George W. Bush's leftward lunges on education spending and prescription drug subsidies to re-elect him so that he could fill the Supreme Court with conservatives and send it rightward. But the White House counsel hardly looked like what they had expected...

...Miers's qualifications for the high court are still questioned. Members of Congress describe Miers as a nice person but hardly a constitutional scholar. Indeed, she might trip over questions that Roberts handled so deftly. People who have tried to engage her in serious conversation find her politely dull.

And then from Wingnut Daily, er, World Net Daily:

Miers' firm fined big for cheating investors
Texas law group forced to pay $30 million for vouching for clients in Ponzi scheme
Posted: October 5, 2005
9:12 p.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

WASHINGTON – While Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers presided over a major Texas law firm, it was forced to pay more than $30 million to settle claims it vouched for the reputation of two clients who cheated investors out of millions in an elaborate Ponzi scheme.

While there is no evidence Miers knew about the actions of partners who represented the clients until investors began filing lawsuits against Locke Liddell & Sapp LLC, she publicly defended the firm's actions saying it never should have been named as a co-defendant in the case.

Yet more stupid people for truncy to count.

 

[TOVisitor]

Which right winger's head will be the first to explode?

http://chronicle.com/temp/email.php?id=e6yeo9i8hnrs60hye6marcd5rt52f6f5

Supreme Court Nominee Helped Set Up Lecture Series That Brought Leading Feminists to Southern Methodist U.
By PETER SCHMIDT

For someone both heralded and feared as a potentially conservative voice on the U.S. Supreme Court, Harriet E. Miers has played a key role in exposing college students to some unmistakably liberal ideas.

In the late 1990s, as a member of the advisory board for Southern Methodist University's law school, Ms. Miers pushed for the creation of an endowed lecture series in women's studies named for Louise B. Raggio, one of the first women to rise to prominence in the Texas legal community. A strong advocate for women, Ms. Raggio helped persuade state lawmakers to revise Texas laws to give women new rights over property and in the event of divorce.

Ms. Miers, whom President Bush announced on Monday as his choice to fill the Supreme Court seat being vacated by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, not only advocated for the lecture series, but also gave money and solicited donations to help get it off the ground.

A feminist icon, Gloria Steinem, delivered the series's first lecture, in 1998. In the following two years, the speakers were Patricia S. Schroeder, the former Democratic congresswoman widely associated with women's causes, and Susan Faludi, the author of Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women (1991). Ann W. Richards, the Democrat whom George W. Bush unseated as governor of Texas in 1994, delivered the lecture in 2003.

How dead in the water is she after this one?