I'm confident that she has a conservative judicial philosophy that you'd be comfortable with, Rush. I've worked closely with Harriet for five years. I've seen her and worked closely with her, hand-in-glove with her, really, through this process of reviewing candidates for the Supreme Court, and that's how we got to the Roberts nomination. She believes very deeply in the importance of interpreting the Constitution and the laws as written. She won't legislate from the federal bench, and the president has great confidence in her judicial philosophy, has known her for many years, and I share that confidence based on my own personal experience.
३ ऑक्टोबर, २००५
"I'm confident that she has a conservative judicial philosophy that you'd be comfortable with, Rush."
Here's the transcript of Dick Cheney talking about Harriet Miers on Rush Limbaugh's show today:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
९ टिप्पण्या:
Probably true. One who starts life as a Democrat and turns to conservatism with maturity usually goes all the way.
For 25 years Ms. Miers has been a member of a non-hierarchical, theologically conservative Christian church in Dallas. See http://www.worldmagblog.com/blog/. She will understand deeply the concerns that people in such churches have about judges who seek to remake the culture and who remove social issues from the democratic process. Supreme Court nominess should neither be supported nor opposed on the basis of their religion, but her religious background will help her to understand why a majority of Americans (according to a recent poll) are not happy with the judiciary. I think she is likely to bring a refreshingly different perspective to the Court.
Well, I for one am glad to see such high standards in use for the Supreme Court: satisfying to Rush Limbaugh.
Adriana, you've missed the point: the nominee is not satisfying to Rush or his listeners, and the call-in by Cheney was an attempt by the administration to smooth the base's ruffled feathers. They do it all the time -- Cheney will call in whenever there's a bump in the road that needs flattening. I'm not sure how much good it does them here, but it is a technique they have employed with some success in the past.
Eddie,
That would be perfectly lovely. I will be delighted to eat my words if and when both Roberts and Miers prove me to have all the foresight of a goldfish. I will happily eat my words when Roberts writes the opinion in Ayotte overruling Roe and all its progency through Stenberg - or at least, a dissent urging the court to do the same.
Well-I love the irony of male pundits, particularly Kristol, and male blog commenters threatening to puke-and making statements like "I feel sick..."
These were the comments that they all labeled "hysterical" and weak or female when George Will derided the "feelings" of the Harvard female professors against Larry Summers. Link They adored jumping on that bandwagon-now they are the braying mules.
As for David Frum he describes her character in a manner that makes me think he's too close or jealous of his subject to be objective. Maybe she reminds him of his Mamma and he's suffered a reprimand or two.
Also some group {K-Lo publishes their letter in The Corner} proport to be interested in the welfare and safety of the military and their families-so they attack the sitting Commander in Chief during a time of well not technically war but when the military are straddled all over to say that she -Harriet- made Bush keep the Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy-that is illegal, and caused him to allow females in all male units.
Essentially eroding his support or attempting to with the base. All in the name of the military-nothing to do with THEIR political agenda like Cindy Sheehan.
So essentially the extremist ugly base is feeling alienated by Bush who is the puppet of the witch Hillary, erh Harriet and he isn't responsible.
Or the alternate criticism, they haven't made up their minds yet-President Bush has tricked them all-Mendoooooozaaaaa!!!! or whatever they are yelling in The Corner.
Gee if they are so easily fooled -why have I been reading them?
Hurricane Harriet has hit!
Oh cripes let me take a swipe at Instapundit. One of these days we'll be saying- "speaking truth to Instapundit" Man does this guy get away with the short reviews.
Someone writes him a paragraph on Harriet-and what is Instapundit's response "I am not persuaded." The other day it was-"I am not comfortable".
How would you like to be married to this guy? Let's just say you'd want feedback after-well you know....
And he'd say one of two things-
Indeed.
or
Heh.
If Democrats want liberal justices, they need to win the White House. They don't have it, so it comes down to what would be the best possible outcome for Democrats. And that would be an uninfluential conservative like Miers is likely to be.
Miers may very well turn out to be reliably conservative on social, corporate, and executive power issues if confirmed. However, her resume indicates that she will not be influential in shaping constitutional jurisprudence. No matter how conservative she is, she will not have the impact of Scalia.
It's also the case that her resume does not indicate that she has been engaged in consitutional issues over her career. Even if her personality and general outlook on issues is conservative, nothing should be taken for granted since she hasn't worked these questions.
If I were a conservative president in Bush's situation, I would have taken a shot at the end zone and nominated one of the more scholarly, more experienced conservative appellate judges. He has the votes in the Senate, but he didn't use them. For that, the Democrats are probably appreciative. And that is what is aggravating the base.
Patca:
One who starts life as a Democrat and turns to conservatism with maturity usually goes all the way.
Oh, you mean like David Souter?
Oh, yeah. He was a conservative who became a moderate and is now a member of the Liberal wing.
For that matter, Justices Blackmun, Stevens and O'Connor were considerably more conservative when they were nominated than where they evolved into on the court.
You see, the court has an awesome responsibility and makes decisions that bear directly on people's lives. This causes thinking people who get onto the court to do a lot of deep soul searching about some of these cases, instead of spouting off blind ideology, and the responsiblity and deep soul searching over time tends to bend many justices towards the left.
why would anyone listen to or read the transcipt of rush limbaugh's show?
he thinks murder, rape, sodomy, sexual humiliation and severe beatings are the stuff of fraternity pranks. he advertises shirts with the emblem "i heart gitmo" and joked about having an abu gharaib day.
and what kind of vice president thinks his opinion is important regarding the supreme court?
disgusting.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा