New Nominee

BBMarley · Post by **BBMarley** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 2:43 pm

Is it a good idea to put somoene on the highest court in the land that has no expereince as a judge? I know she's been a lawyer for a long time- but don't you think she should have a little experience as a judge before putting her on the Supreme court?

Meirs Nominated

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 2:47 pm

Not exactly an unprecedented move.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 2:51 pm

BBMarley wrote:Is it a good idea to put somoene on the highest court in the land that has no expereince as a judge? I know she's been a lawyer for a long time- but don't you think she should have a little experience as a judge before putting her on the Supreme court?

Meirs Nominated

She'll be fine. It's not like she has to think or anything. All she needs to do is pray and I errrr I mean God will write the discisions.

sin

Pat Robertson

Risa · Post by **Risa** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 2:53 pm

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1495688/posts

She failed in Card's office for two reasons," the official says. "First, because she can't make a decision, and second, because she can't delegate, she can't let anything go.

Uh oh. That's just what we need in the Supreme Court, someone who can't make a decision. Think such a person would feel a strong impulse to split hairs and go for something in between? Sandra Day O'Connor, we thought we'd lost you.

Looks like we finally misoverestimated our president.

Sounds like someone who gets lost in minutiae.

That doesn't bode well for someone who must make policy or decisions.

first 3 comments

does anyone KNOW where she stands on the 2d Amendment, property rights,civil rights, pro-life or anything else????

i'm sitting here wondering if the POTUS has nominated another Scalia or Thomas (in skirts) & has "stuck it to" the DIMocRATS/LIBs?????

as best as i can remember the last time a NON-judge was appointed to the USSC, it was EARL WARREN by DDE! (we KNOW how that turned out!!!!)

free dixie,sw

Sounds like someone who gets lost in minutiae. That doesn't bode well for someone who must make policy or decisions.

Uh, you don't want judges to make policy. And you want them to examine the details regading decisions.

I don't know squat about Miers. But I'm not going to pre-judge her based on the alarmed squawkings I've heard from others when they don't know much about her either.

""She can't separate the forest from the trees," says one former White House staffer. "

Cool.

Time will tell, I guess.

the 13th, 14th and 15th.

I repost these because I have no opinion upon her myself. I don't know anything about her.

The comments about her are regarding this profile of her published here:

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1102944936042

Risa · Post by **Risa** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 2:56 pm

Malkin's opinion:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1495704/posts

UTTERLY UNDERWHELMED(Michelle Malkin on Harriet Miers)
Michelle Malkin.com ^ | 10/3/2005 | Michelle Malkin

Posted on 10/03/2005 7:52:06 AM PDT by kellynla

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003660.htm

What Julie Myers is to the Department of Homeland Security, Harriet Miers is to the Supreme Court. (Video of the announcement here via NYT).) It's not just that Miers has zero judicial experience. It's that she's so transparently a crony/"diversity" pick while so many other vastly more qualified and impressive candidates went to waste. If this is President Bush's bright idea to buck up his sagging popularity--among conservatives as well as the nation at large--one wonders whom he would have picked in rosier times. Shudder.

Reax around the right side of the blogosphere is mostly negative--and brutally so...

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 2:57 pm

If he had listened to the Republican Senators we might have ended up with Judge Judy.

Risa · Post by **Risa** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 3:19 pm

you know, Mikey, as long as it was someone with principles, ... but people seem to be pissed off that this chick represents nothing except naked cronyism. That, coupled with the attacks on her apparent health....

it's a bad sign when your own want to feed you to the sharks.

I support the President on just about everything.

But this is a travesty. And the people on FR who keep saying "Give it a rest!" strike me as total Bushbots (and I've never called anyone a Bushbot before).

Presidents who appoint their good buddies to life-time appointments to the Supreme Court should be ashamed. It's like a bad joke.

New 'Who' song... We Just Got Fooled Again!”

"but of course with 55 seats and weakies like Snowe,Collins,Chaffee and Dewine on our side he might have did the best he could"

What makes you think such weakies will vote to confirm a candidate with no judicial experience? I wouldn't be surprised if some conservatives took this opportunity to distance themselves from the administration also.

Except that President Bush didn't promise us Court nominations that would be the best he could safely get through the Senate. He promised us strict constructionists.

Unless there's more info about Miers than what we've heard this morning, he has broken that very serious promise.

This could be payback for all the bad-mouthing of Al Gonzales. I'm going to trust Bush's judgement with this pick.

To me it shows a total capitulation on the part of the President. We supported him so that he would move the court to the right. Ms. Miers is not the most qualified person. It smacks of cronyism. She doesn't look like she will be healthy enough to be around for 20 years. At best, I think we got another O'Connor. I will no longer support the President. This reminds me of "No new taxes".

Well I would have liked to seen a more Conservative pick but of course with 55 seats and weakies like Snowe,Collins,Chaffee and Dewine on our side he might have did the best he could..As far abortion im pro choice except for late term so it dont bother me none

An underwhelming argument for nomination Skater. If there is to be a fight anyways, which all of use are spoiling for, then give us a Bright Red originalist. Not an unknown. I don't care if she is nice. I want a reassuring solid originalist, PERIOD.

Payback time? To whom does GW owe this flaccid proposal - Is he being blackmailed? There has to be a compelling (and no doubt hidden) reason for this bad-smellin betrayal of the rest of us.

I think he just blew his last golden opportunity. Maybe he doesn't care now that re-election is not a threat.

After CAFTA, I've come to suspect that no living president will ever be able or willing to overcome the globalists.

I did find out that she was a former member, board with the organization Pioneer Bible Translators, as well as doing pro-bono work with the organization exodusministriesinc, a group that helps ex-offenders and their families(as per what Bush said this morning.) I believe that this is the ministry that Bush spoke of.

http://www.pioneerbible.org

http://www.exodusministriesinc.com

Yea, well anybody who donated to Al Gore for POTUS is "stuck on stupid" and automatically disqualified!
Next candidate...

So basically, she knew Bush for years, she's a family friend, she's a bible thumper, and at one point she donated to Al Gore's campaign.

I have no idea what to make of all this, since it's just people like us giving opinions on the internet (to echo dude above in comment 14). so I won't make anything of it. I just ... don't know.

I would like to hear the Republican trolls opinions on all this :?

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 4:36 pm

Damn, who would have thought Bush would have drawn flack from the right wing nuts over his SCOTUS pick?

Its official, nobody in America likes Bush anymore.

Degenerate · Post by **Degenerate** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 4:39 pm

Looks like it pays to be the Bush family retainer.

Risa · Post by **Risa** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 4:48 pm

Degenerate wrote:Looks like it pays to be the Bush family retainer.

"i'll drink to that"

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 5:06 pm

mvscal wrote:
Degenerate wrote:Looks like it pays to be the Bush family retainer.
Yeah when Freepers start screaming cronyism, it's time to withdraw that nominee. Unless that was the plan all along, of course. This is probably another Karl Rove Rope a Dope.

"Oh...you didn't like our "unqualified" pick? Sorry about that. Here's someone with impeccable credentials and you just confirmed her for the bench not too long ago, so we should be able to go ahead and fast track this nominee...right?

Regards,

Karl"

The Freepers are a bunch of whack jobs. That they are hating on her makes me want to give her a chance. Maybe THAT was Bush's plan.

Risa · Post by **Risa** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 5:13 pm

mvscal wrote:
Degenerate wrote:Looks like it pays to be the Bush family retainer.
Yeah when Freepers start screaming cronyism, it's time to withdraw that nominee. Unless that was the plan all along, of course. This is probably another Karl Rove Rope a Dope.

wishful thinking. same type of wishful thinking that had people talking up Matrix: Revolutions and Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith as 'that's not what they're REALLY planning... it's a gag.. you'll see, it's a joke and when opening day comes they'll show us the real director's cut oh yeah!'

Face it, man, this Meier (sp) chick is the 'real deal'. She isn't a fake pick. There will be no 'better' nominee. She's the real nominee. She's a Bush family friend. She's loyal to the family. Apparently, to the Bush' loyalty matters more than all the qualifications on the planet.

But enough about that. How do you feel about her, now that she's a done deal (since Bush is not going to withdraw her)?

Risa · Post by **Risa** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 5:16 pm

BSmack wrote: The Freepers are a bunch of whack jobs. That they are hating on her makes me want to give her a chance. Maybe THAT was Bush's plan.

and yet the freepers are money to demand someone who will interpret and respect the constitution regardless of politics. like someone over there said, to put someone in who is merely anti-abortion doesn't mean you'll get someone who will do what's right and constitutional by other laws that will come up before the court. they'll fuck up if they're one noters.

they have to be deeper.

apparently there was depth that was passed by yet shouldn't have been to nominate this family friend chick. but i don't know. i just find the fact that two political extremes could think as one on this meier chick. it tells me that this administration fucked up royally.

Degenerate · Post by **Degenerate** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 5:20 pm

mvscal wrote:Yeah when Freepers start screaming cronyism, it's time to withdraw that nominee. Unless that was the plan all along, of course. This is probably another Karl Rove Rope a Dope.

That's a helluva game of chicken to be playing if that's the case.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 5:51 pm

mvscal wrote:
Risa wrote:(since Bush is not going to withdraw her)?
She won't last the week.

If Bush caves to the Freepers and comes back with a nominee acceptable to the far right whackos, get ready for a fillibuster.

You think he wants to go down THAT road?

Risa · Post by **Risa** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 5:56 pm

BSmack wrote:
mvscal wrote:
Risa wrote:(since Bush is not going to withdraw her)?
She won't last the week.
If Bush caves to the Freepers and comes back with a nominee acceptable to the far right whackos, get ready for a fillibuster.

that's just it, man. it's not just the far righters -- or better described, the Bushites, since there's far righters (extreme conservatives, regardless of who's fronting the party) and Bush fans (folks who'll swallow anything as long as the Bush' are attached). it's just about EVERYBODY is appalled by this nomination.

dig the malkin site, above. hardly anybody likes this nomination. might as well be nobody.

and that's... telling.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 6:04 pm

Risa wrote:
Degenerate wrote:Looks like it pays to be the Bush family retainer.

"i'll drink to that"

RACK Bush

His lips aren't even moving.

She's one hot mama.

Sincerely,

Risa · Post by **Risa** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 6:26 pm

mvscal wrote:Is she a dyke?

I read the following exchange at redstate.org.... and immediately thought of you:

http://www.redstate.org/story/2005/10/3/82655/5147

If I were a Republican.... By: chase

If I were a Republican, which i am not, i'd be somehwat concerned. Everyone here is raving about her political contributions, but i don't see that as being quite so telling. What raises my eyebrow is her personal background: never married, no childern. It is very non-traditional for someone of her age. Nothing says conservative less than that sort of non-traditional background. In addition, though of less importance, she is not particularly wealthy.

It just isn't the sort of bio you would expect from a conservative SCOTUS nominee.

Personal background By: Tim Saler

Ms. Miers' personal background is a unique one. Everything about her is non-traditional for someone her age. Most people her age have not been pioneers in the legal profession, worked for the Governor of Texas, worked for the President of the United States, run one of the largest law firms in Texas, and been nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court. So, yes, much about her is non-traditional for someone of her age. She has done quite a bit with her time.

I'm not sure what being "not particularly wealthy" has to do with anything.

And "non-traditional" is code By: cincinatus

for what? This should be the least of our complaints.

I think you can guess By: Tim Saler

I think you can guess what the intimation is.

of course, Condi Rice has also never been married and is childless, and no one's accused her of lesbianism. Then again, Condi -- Dr. Rice -- is an intellectual freak of nature. Something no one is accusing Meir (sp) of.

all that to say, i like the 'sorority sister with laura' snap more than the lesbian snap. it's all gossip with a political veneer.

Bizzarofelice · Post by **Bizzarofelice** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 8:02 pm

According to a blog by former White House speechwriter David Frum, Miers has been known for her loyalty and will not make headlines as a Supreme Court associate justice.

"In the White House that hero worshipped the president, Miers was distinguished by the intensity of her zeal: She once told me that the president was the most brilliant man she had ever met," Frum's blog said. "She served Bush well, but she is not the person to lead the court in new directions — or to stand up under the criticism that a conservative justice must expect."

BWWAAHAAHAAHAA!!!!

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 8:28 pm

Concur with Mvscal...she won't last a week. Despite Frist's knee-jerk support Bush 100% reax, it seems the general response from Republicans in the Senate has been...soft, maybe even a little demoralizing.

Even many of the strong bush supporters at National Review are hammering Bush on this pick.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 8:45 pm

DrDetroit wrote:Concur with Mvscal...she won't last a week. Despite Frist's knee-jerk support Bush 100% reax, it seems the general response from Republicans in the Senate has been...soft, maybe even a little demoralizing.

Even many of the strong bush supporters at National Review are hammering Bush on this pick.

So when Bush dumps this pick because she's not hard right enough for the Freepers, what do you think will happen in the Senate when he nominates someone said base supports? He's in a Catch-22. He can either piss off his base or risk all hell breaking out in the Senate.

That is, unless a little birdie from Rove's office dimes on Miers and we find out she had lesbian 3 ways with the girls from the steno pool.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 8:50 pm

mvscal wrote:
BSmack wrote:So when Bush dumps this pick because she's not hard right enough for the Freepers,
That isn't why they're pissed off, dumbfuck.

Then please do elaborate.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 9:00 pm

mvscal wrote:Try reading the thread, ya fucking moron.

I did. And their objections are all about Bush nominating someone they consider to be against their POV. If you think otherwise, please feel free to back it up.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 9:00 pm

DrDetroit wrote:Concur with Mvscal...she won't last a week.

In that case she'll be confirmed quite easily.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 9:12 pm

mvscal wrote:
BSmack wrote:I did. And their objections are all about Bush nominating someone they consider to be against their POV. If you think otherwise, please feel free to back it up.
Bullshit. You didn't read a fucking thing.

Michelle Malkin wrote:It's not just that Miers has zero judicial experience. It's that she's so transparently a crony/"diversity" pick while so many other vastly more qualified and impressive candidates went to waste. If this is President Bush's bright idea to buck up his sagging popularity--among conservatives as well as the nation at large--one wonders whom he would have picked in rosier times. Shudder.

Reax around the right side of the blogosphere is mostly negative--and brutally so...
Let me know if you need help with any "big words"...

Yea, they're really upset about cronyisim in the White House. Are you fucking serious? This is the Bush White House we're talking about. That's nothing more than a smoke screen for "Holy shit this woman is unmarried and gave to Gore and she might just be another Souter."

You people are so fucking transparent.

Wolfman · Post by **Wolfman** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 10:04 pm

another genius move by that
stupid coke-head frat boy !!!

a woman----- shuts up a sizeable opposition

no "paper trail" ???

the people who count on this now--
those 100 folks called Senators wil confirm her
and the "W Court" will be on its way to getting
some common sense back in our society !!

the next one---and there will be one more before 2008--

surprise/surprise-- an Hispanic person !!

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 10:51 pm

BSmack wrote:
DrDetroit wrote:Concur with Mvscal...she won't last a week. Despite Frist's knee-jerk support Bush 100% reax, it seems the general response from Republicans in the Senate has been...soft, maybe even a little demoralizing.

Even many of the strong bush supporters at National Review are hammering Bush on this pick.
So when Bush dumps this pick because she's not hard right enough for the Freepers, what do you think will happen in the Senate when he nominates someone said base supports? He's in a Catch-22. He can either piss off his base or risk all hell breaking out in the Senate.

That is, unless a little birdie from Rove's office dimes on Miers and we find out she had lesbian 3 ways with the girls from the steno pool.

Sorry, but this issue of nominating judges was a primary issue for many, many voters...and Bush sold out on this one.

See You Next Wednesday · Mon Oct 03, 2005 11:08 pm

DrDetroit wrote:
BSmack wrote:
DrDetroit wrote:Concur with Mvscal...she won't last a week. Despite Frist's knee-jerk support Bush 100% reax, it seems the general response from Republicans in the Senate has been...soft, maybe even a little demoralizing.

Even many of the strong bush supporters at National Review are hammering Bush on this pick.
So when Bush dumps this pick because she's not hard right enough for the Freepers, what do you think will happen in the Senate when he nominates someone said base supports? He's in a Catch-22. He can either piss off his base or risk all hell breaking out in the Senate.

That is, unless a little birdie from Rove's office dimes on Miers and we find out she had lesbian 3 ways with the girls from the steno pool.
Sorry, but this issue of nominating judges was a primary issue for many, many voters...and Bush sold out on this one.

If I may steal a line from the Bushistas when defending Bush's poor popularity ratings:

Who cares, it's not like he is running for anything.

See You Next Wednesday · Mon Oct 03, 2005 11:15 pm

mvscal wrote:
See You Next Wednesday wrote:Who cares, it's not like he is running for anything.
The Senate Republicans who are being asked to confirm this clown do.
They are or will be running for something.

At least try to make some sense. I know it's difficult.

Sure, but Bush doesn't care.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 3:15 am

I'm cautiously depressed by the choice.

Risa · Post by **Risa** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 6:07 am

DrDetroit wrote:
BSmack wrote:
DrDetroit wrote:Concur with Mvscal...she won't last a week. Despite Frist's knee-jerk support Bush 100% reax, it seems the general response from Republicans in the Senate has been...soft, maybe even a little demoralizing.

Even many of the strong bush supporters at National Review are hammering Bush on this pick.
So when Bush dumps this pick because she's not hard right enough for the Freepers, what do you think will happen in the Senate when he nominates someone said base supports? He's in a Catch-22. He can either piss off his base or risk all hell breaking out in the Senate.

That is, unless a little birdie from Rove's office dimes on Miers and we find out she had lesbian 3 ways with the girls from the steno pool.
Sorry, but this issue of nominating judges was a primary issue for many, many voters...and Bush sold out on this one.

holy shit. i have a new .sig

(and even more than the cronyism charge, which i see some have psyched themselves out of thinking about by repeating 'liberal mantra liberal mantra' 30 times in the mirror... this one is the one that's sticking
too many people. a lot of conservatives, apparently, swallowed their tongues and their consciences on a lot of shit they didn't agree with when it comes to this party and this administration, because they believed that they were going to win the Big One when it came to the Supreme Court.

and instead, they're stuck with pro-corporate interests.

they're learning too late that they were used. the people they elected have zero interest in the issues that the 'base' elected them for in good faith. zero.

there are people who are shocked that the republicans, who hold the house, the senate and the presidency would have to kowtow to democrats in the first place by even accepting a list of 'acceptable to us' nominees from the democrats. their thinking is, you hold all the cards, this is what we elected you for... what the fuck gives??!

and then you find out that half of them don't even consider bush a conservative.... but this was THE ONE issue they were willing to give him a pass on, in spite of all the other bullshit. and he fucked up.

it's sad. but they'll talk themselves into trying to find a silver lining.. those who insist on putting all their faith in a Man instead of their own ideals.

it's good to see some waking up, though. it's not the man who matters. it's the actions. apparently, there's a number of conservatives who believe that this was a major betrayal by a man and an administration who haven't really proven themselves to be true conservatives.

but i don't know. i'm just gleaning from blogs like the rest of the unwashed.

i do believe this chick was a bush family pick, not a conservative pick. she'll do whatever the bush family tells her to do.. even if it's to the detriment of

and now, with this 'shocking' $22 million dollar settlement her law firm had to pay out for doing dirty in a fucking ponzi scheme..........shocking because no one pays out that kind of money without being dirty...

and only hitler's inner circle had the type of fanaticism that they're ascribing to this chick towards Dumbya. come on, the smartest man she knows? get the fuck out of here. i'm not accusing bush of being hitler... just saying, gotta be EXTREMELY wary of people in positions of power who surround themselves with followers like that.

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 1:25 pm

88:

No paper trail means nothing to spin.

What do you mean "no paper trail?" She has an extensive legal career and you're supposing that there is no paper trail? Already it's being reported that she was involved with a $22 million liability lawsuit brought against a firm she worked for in Texas. Of course, the Democrats will also want all documents related to her stint as WH Counsel, which the administration will rightfully deny completely.

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 1:27 pm

When John Roberts's memos from his years in the White House counsel's office depicted him as a staunch Reagan conservative on legal issues, the Bush White House quickly explained that his staff work in no way reflected his own views, i.e. he was being a good aide who reflected the boss's views. To reassure conservatives on the Harriest Miers nomination, the White House is arguing that the President's preferences for judicial nominees should be attributed to Harriet Miers owing to her position as a senior aide on such appointments. Can they have it both ways?

Degenerate · Post by **Degenerate** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 2:13 pm

88 wrote: And I really want to see Kennedy, Shumer and Reid give her hell in front of the cameras

The same Schumer who was practically gloating in front of the camera yesterday? The same Reid that says he likes her...that SUGGESTED her as an acceptable nominee? Even Dick Durbin says she's not radioactive.

Follow current events much?

88 wrote:I think Bush knows Miers very well

Whatever gave you that idea? :roll:

88 wrote:and he trusts that she will do a good job as a Supreme Court justice. And by a good job, I mean that she will follow the Constitution and refuse to legislate from the bench. She will not be an ideological lapdog.

Good God, fall for talking points much? For all his bluster towards the social cons about Scalia or Thomas being his idea of a model jurist, he went and nominated someone with no evident connection towards strict constructionism. TWICE! (Save the NoCal resets, clones)

There are literally hundreds of conservative justices with better credentials than Miers and there are a select few: Luttig, McConnell, Batchelor, Jones, Clement, Alito, and more, who are known conservative commodities and who - tho they would be attacked - would be virtually unassailable during the confirmation process because of the makeup of the Senate.

Instead, he nominated a corporate mouthpiece from a third-tier law school who has shown little to no interest in Constitutional law.

That's your idea of knocking it out of the park?

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 3:06 pm

RACK Degenerate. Bush blew it huge on this one. I don't think anyone can argue that this was not a crony pick. It's Bush being stubborn. One of things that many liked Bush for was for sticking to principle - nominating Bolton despite being called a unilateralist and Bolton's rep for bashing the UN; nominating Roberts despite the incessant whining to nominate a woman of similar termperment to O'Connor. But he took it a step too far this time. In the face of calls to nominate a woman to replace O'Connor, he does so, but he goes and nominates a personal friend with no constitutional experience at all and essentially says, "Take this and smoke it." He fell for the gender diversity trick but then nominated a weak candidate. Hell, there are several women right off the top of my head that are 100x better suited for this nomination than Miers.

As well, at a time when he should giving his base something to improve their position on him and building trust he comes out with a, "Just trust me" attitude. Bullshit. If he's not going to rub the Democrats noses in it and declare that elections matter, then at least challenge the so-called "Gang of 14" and lets have the fight. In the end the filibuster would have been abandoned and we would have gotten another strong intellectual conservative on the bench. Instead, Bush went for the easy--changing voting patterns-- rather than the more difficult--changing the legal culture. It's a cop-out quite unlike many of Bush's other nominations.

Risa · Post by **Risa** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 4:20 pm

mvscal wrote:This nomination is a quid pro quo deal made behind closed doors. If you're 'OK' with this, you're an idiot.

behind whose closed doors, though?

why would the democrats offer up this woman -- who is Bush's personal attorney, the woman who defended him on that dui charge many moons ago -- as acceptable in the first place?

this is the woman who, to use someone else's phrasing, 'knows where all the bodies are buried'.

she has zero qualifications except her quickness to, willingness to, and the number of years she has devoted to sucking Bush dick.

all the qualified persons out there.... and he chooses this chick out of all chicks?

he wasn't sold on the others loyalties to him personally, or what?

before it sunk in, people were trying to suggest (including you at one point) that maybe there was some master plan behind this, to trip up the democrats. but if the democrats are loving it... just who was zooming who?

Risa · Post by **Risa** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 4:24 pm

DrDetroit wrote:As well, at a time when he should giving his base something to improve their position on him and building trust he comes out with a, "Just trust me" attitude. Bullshit.

then perhaps y'all should reconsider and rethink who his base really is, who is the base who matters to him, nuts and bolts, beyond the numbers needed for election day.

if he was really concerned about his base -- from the beginning -- this
wouldn't have happened for y'all....

unless, again, his definition of his 'base' is different from the majority of republicans/conservatives definition of who his base should be.

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 4:28 pm

Risa wrote:behind whose closed doors, though?

Dumbshit, try knowing something before you post. Bush met with several Democratic members of Congress to discuss this appointment. That's why Reid and Leahy are taking credit for this nomination.

why would the democrats offer up this woman -- who is Bush's personal attorney, the woman who defended him on that dui charge many moons ago -- as acceptable in the first place?

Ask them...but perhaps they did so because she is weak, because she does not have a developed judicial philosophy, and because they think she will "grow" while on the Bench like O'Connor, Souter, and Kennedy.

she has zero qualifications except her quickness to, willingness to, and the number of years she has devoted to sucking Bush dick.

It's sickening how you slander people that you know nothing about. I hardly doubt that you'd say the same if Hillary had nominated her personal lawyer.

before it sunk in, people were trying to suggest (including you at one point) that maybe there was some master plan behind this, to trip up the democrats. but if the democrats are loving it... just who was zooming who?

Bush sold out. Just like he did on women on the battlefield and Clinton's don't ask, don't tell shit, just like signing the McCain/Feingold legislation that he thought was unconstitutional...he sold out.

DrDetroit · Post by **DrDetroit** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 4:29 pm

Risa wrote:then perhaps y'all should reconsider and rethink who his base really is, who is the base who matters to him, nuts and bolts, beyond the numbers needed for election day.

Make sense, will ya?

if he was really concerned about his base -- from the beginning -- this wouldn't have happened for y'all....

Think before posting.

unless, again, his definition of his 'base' is different from the majority of republicans/conservatives definition of who his base should be.

Again, you're in no position to even discuss this.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Tue Oct 04, 2005 4:49 pm

I love watching dittotards melt in the morning.

So how do you propose that Bush derail this nomination? What then after this nomination? You know if Bush yanks this nomination that his next choice is DOA in the Senate. With everything else that is going on, do you think Bush wants more drama over the SCOTUS?

T1B

New Nominee

New Nominee

Re: New Nominee