Harriett Miers Supreme Court nomination

[gordontravels]

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

Dude, the republicans dislike her more than the democrats.
So, I guess, your statement says that the republicans don't think she is good enough because Bush appointed her, thats saying alot about the Republican party.

I could care less what Republicans or Democrats think. I say the President by his election to the office has the right and duty to appoint who he wants and believes in. I think he has done both. If Republicans or Democrats don't like a qualified woman to be the nominee why should I be surprised. For some it could be the chance to appear in front of the cameras; for some it could be a deep philosophical view. There have been 39 Supreme Court Justices that never wore the robe. Give me the names of any of those who disgraced their President or the court.

Your comment has no teeth since the media only concentrates on what the Republicans are saying and, as far as I can see, only on the Republicans that are either opposed or not happy. You hear little from the Republicans that support her nomination and they are out there without the media seeking them out. Tell me. Why should Democrats speak out if the media has Republicans that will. MSNBC uses Pat Buchanan as their "Republican Conservative" spokesman. Like Pat likes Bush, sheesh.

As far as what it says about the Republican Party? I could give you volumns on both the Republicans and Democrats when it comes to self-preservation and partisan politics. November 7th is when she is scheduled to testify and why not go see?

Did you understand that the American Bar Association has consistently had her in the top 100 attorneys of the country out of over 400,000? Does that mean anything to you or is it just who you follow? Of course following the American Bar Association may not be your chosen path but at least that is a 400,000 member association of her peers. If she has done something scandalous where is it? She will be confirmed. :duel

 

[Caine]

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

I could care less what Republicans or Democrats think. I say the President by his election to the office has the right and duty to appoint who he wants and believes in. I think he has done both. If Republicans or Democrats don't like a qualified woman to be the nominee why should I be surprised. For some it could be the chance to appear in front of the cameras; for some it could be a deep philosophical view. There have been 39 Supreme Court Justices that never wore the robe. Give me the names of any of those who disgraced their President or the court.

Ummm... you may believe that, but many people believe that there should be a system of checks and balances in our government. I dunno, maybe im the only one.

Also, your comment on all the stuff with the bar association.
I don't care nothing about that, although it wouldnt surprise me that the American Bar Associaion would consider her since she was the president of a state bar association her self, or was it just a city, I dont remember.

Reguardless, My only argument is that I think she will let her "Born Again Christian-ness" get in the way of her judicial philosophy, whatever her judicial philosophy is (who knows?).

I know a few born again christians, these aren't your average, go to church on sundays, type of people.... these people are CRAAAAZZZZY!

I haven't met one who didn't cast a stone at non-christians.
I haven't met one who didn't judge others.
Then again, Ive only met... three.

 

[gordontravels]

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

Hey, I'm not knocking her. I'm stating what I think is the perception of her. I'm pretty sure there is no dirt on her, or it would have surfaced by now. But it's uncomfortable not knowing her judicial temperament regardless of her experience. Is she another believed to be a conservative originalist who will instead turn out to be a Stevens or a Souter?

But can you honestly say you aren't disappointed in this nomination? I wanted one of the knowns--the ones that raise liberal hackles and prompt all the teeth and claws to come out. I wanted a knock down drag out fight on the Senate floor. I wanted them to initiate the nuclear option. I wanted the Republicans to finally stand up on their hind legs, develop a backbone, and do the job we elected them to do. I wanted a candidate I could feel really good about, proud of, inspired with, and one that would nail GWB's legacy to finally accomplish a desperately needed reform of the high court.

But I got a practical warm sweater. So sue me.

I gave up counting your "I"'s. It is the President that has chosen a woman that is possibly more qualified than some of the non-judges that were appointed before (39). I say let her have her hearing, vote and confirmation. All my posts are honest but thanks for asking. :duel

 

[26 X World Champs]

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

I just read "I NEVER call you names, ever" and did a little research...found it somewhat false...

Would these counts or are we splitting hairs?...These were all directed at Navy Pride...not his posts or just his posts...him directly...

HO HO HO! I call Navy Pride a "baby" AND he calls me a scumbag yet you write a long post defending him! Pathetic!

I stand by my posts, period. What you posted was all BS, none were direct attacks, they were all "attacking" the words in his posts.

I say "baby", he says "scumbag"! It's quite good to see that you, CNREDD, as a MODERATOR find it's OK to defend someone who calls me a SCUMBAG. Is that what MODERATORS are supposed to do?

You know what I think? I think you've tried this BS in the past, writing posts about me that were gross exaggerations and twisted truths. As a rule I ignore everything that you write because I have no respect for your opinion and you like to bait people, and your last post is a prime example.

I will not engage you in another post, it's a waste of my time and personally I do not care what you think or write. I will simply follow procedure for advsing management (those who are not purposely trying to bait others) if I feel rules are being violated.

Amazing...you think that calling someone a "baby" is name calling yet make no reference to that person calling someone a "scumbag."

You're a frickin' genius CNREDD! Tata!

 

[tryreading]

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

Karl Rove is trying to assure the anti-Miers Republicans by having James Dobson approve her after Rove privately revealed to Dobson how she really believes religiously. President Bush nominated her, and the Senate should have no issue with advise and consent in my opinion, but I worry when a Fire and Brimstone guy guarantees that a particular nominee will decide Supreme Court cases based solely on the Constitution.

The link below is a radio interview Dobson did on October 12. One thing he said in the interview makes no sense at all to me. He said Rove told him that many of the potential nominees on President Bushes list for Supreme Court Justice had backed out because the Democrats had made the process so tough. Not to defend the Democrats, but it seems to me that John Roberts smiled happily all the way to confirmation. Seriously, how many people who may be honored with nomination for Supreme Court Justice of the United States of America would back out because a Democratic Senator might ask him or her their opinion on Roe vs. Wade, which they wouldn't answer anyway?


http://www.family.org/welcome/press/a0038214.cfm

 

[Canuck]

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

Ummm... you may believe that, but many people believe that there should be a system of checks and balances in our government. I dunno, maybe im the only one.

Also, your comment on all the stuff with the bar association.
I don't care nothing about that, although it wouldnt surprise me that the American Bar Associaion would consider her since she was the president of a state bar association her self, or was it just a city, I dont remember.

Reguardless, My only argument is that I think she will let her "Born Again Christian-ness" get in the way of her judicial philosophy, whatever her judicial philosophy is (who knows?).

I know a few born again christians, these aren't your average, go to church on sundays, type of people.... these people are CRAAAAZZZZY!

I haven't met one who didn't cast a stone at non-christians.
I haven't met one who didn't judge others.
Then again, Ive only met... three.

the system is corrupt both sides of the house
they rely on your bent favour towards either dem or rep
thats your weakness both parties are owned by the ELITE
and Conquest for profits is their game
It's so bad these days Americans resort to putting Candain flags on their luggage when traveling abroad.


where are the common men as your leaders gone to
with common sense,common goals, common ideas.
they are shut out by high priced campaigns paid for by the elite
America is heading for a cross roads

 

[Canuck]

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

I could care less what Republicans or Democrats think. I say the President by his election to the office has the right and duty to appoint who he wants and believes in. I think he has done both. If Republicans or Democrats don't like a qualified woman to be the nominee why should I be surprised. For some it could be the chance to appear in front of the cameras; for some it could be a deep philosophical view. There have been 39 Supreme Court Justices that never wore the robe. Give me the names of any of those who disgraced their President or the court.

Your comment has no teeth since the media only concentrates on what the Republicans are saying and, as far as I can see, only on the Republicans that are either opposed or not happy. You hear little from the Republicans that support her nomination and they are out there without the media seeking them out. Tell me. Why should Democrats speak out if the media has Republicans that will. MSNBC uses Pat Buchanan as their "Republican Conservative" spokesman. Like Pat likes Bush, sheesh.

As far as what it says about the Republican Party? I could give you volumns on both the Republicans and Democrats when it comes to self-preservation and partisan politics. November 7th is when she is scheduled to testify and why not go see?

Did you understand that the American Bar Association has consistently had her in the top 100 attorneys of the country out of over 400,000? Does that mean anything to you or is it just who you follow? Of course following the American Bar Association may not be your chosen path but at least that is a 400,000 member association of her peers. If she has done something scandalous where is it? She will be confirmed. :duel

She has done nothing scandalous,the act of picking her is Scandalous ,akin to caligula picking his horse for the senate !
You would think the President would be wise in his choice ,that is given to him , to carry out for the people .
This President is a PUNK in a FANCY SUIT

He has neither the skill to pick a person ,for the people ,or the inclination .
A 2 bit Harlot could even tell the President was a PUNK in a FANCY SUIT

 

[cnredd]

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

As a rule I ignore everything that you write because I have no respect for your opinion and you like to bait people, and your last post is a prime example.

Anyone notice the logic of him saying that he ignores everything that I write...

As he's responding to my post?...:2wave:

I don't believe I've ever responded to you as a Moderator...I may have, but I don't remember...

But Moderators are also forum members...We don't just sit on Mt. Olympus passing judgement on people...we are allowed...I swear...to jump into conversations and form our own personal opinions...

I have formed one...You lie...You call people names while you declare you have not done so...and just now, you say you ignore what I write while obviously not ignoring what I write by responding to it...

As much as Navy pride debates like a high school girl after her third wine cooler, I notice that it's YOU that repeatedly respond to it...over & over again telling him he a "frickin' genius"...

I'm guessing sexual tension...:2wave:

 

[gordontravels]

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

QUOTES in black are Caine: Ummm... you may believe that, but many people believe that there should be a system of checks and balances in our government. I dunno, maybe im the only one.

Checks and balances are fine but obstruction and filabuster are not checks and balances. There should be a hearing and then committee vote and then either an up or down vote or new nominee. I see you don't address the 39 Supreme Court Justices with no bench experience, most of whom were nominated by Democrat Presidents. Just Bush's appointee.

Also, your comment on all the stuff with the bar association.
I don't care nothing about that, although it wouldnt surprise me that the American Bar Associaion would consider her since she was the president of a state bar association her self, or was it just a city, I dont remember.

If you base your arguments on what you don't remember then this isn't debate. She wasn't just considered but was elected president of the Texas Bar Association and voted into the top 100 of 400,000 lawyers nationwide by her state's association and 49 other state's associations and you "don't care nothing about that". She was also, which you don't remember, a member of the Dallas City Council.

Reguardless, My only argument is that I think she will let her "Born Again Christian-ness" get in the way of her judicial philosophy, whatever her judicial philosophy is (who knows?).

I know a few born again christians, these aren't your average, go to church on sundays, type of people.... these people are CRAAAAZZZZY!

I haven't met one who didn't cast a stone at non-christians.
I haven't met one who didn't judge others.
Then again, Ive only met... three.

When you participate in any court of law you take an oath as a Judge, Lawyer and testifying witness and that oath is before God. You're distrust of "Born Again Christian-ness" is unique to your arguement and flys in the face of Presidents and politicians you have voted for yourself. I suppose you don't vote because I am sure if you have you would have voted for a born again Christian. I ask - where is the information that her religious convictions have colored her and why wouldn't that apply to any other born again Christians such as Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush One and Two or Clinton?

I am a Christian with respect for other religions such as Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and any others you may know of if you can remember. I don't want to meet you but it would break your determining string of 3. I live in the Bible Belt and have no problem with Christianity. Your problem seems to be with someone you "know". That is telling about your attitude that you would have preconcieved ideas about those you meet and should I be surprised?

You have no information that Harriett Miers religion is detrimental to her serving on the bench other than your penchant for stereotyping. No one is reporting anything she did that would be exclusive to any Christian person in any endeavor she has taken on.

If you don't like born again Christians it seems you take your dislike and place it before your own knowledge as a crutch. To use your stereotype of born again Christians against someone because you listen to the media proclamations; a media that enjoys an anti-Christian bias, is you showing how uninformed you are at best.

Just looking at your "I don't care" and "I don't remember" comments assures me that you are the poster child for un or ill informed. :duel

 

[tryreading]

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

No one has addressed the issue of the fact that we don't know a galdarn thing about this woman that actually lets us know, even in the vaguest sense, what kind of justice she will be! She was on the city council, but that doesn't matter, I could be on the city council if I had nothing better to do with my time, she was the head of the Texas Lottery, what does that tell us, that she has a specific ideology on reading little balls with numbers on them? We know that some republicans don't like her, but they don't like a lot of things, and we know some democrats like her and some hate her, and that's it.
Why don't we have any pertinent information on this woman who could very well be on the highest court in the land for the rest of her damn life. Why is the media wasting time telling us who likes her and who doesn't, it's completely irrelevant, we need to find out something about her, unless the media also subscribes to Bush's "trust me"s

Why don't you do some research on her? You obviously have a computer and can go online. Here's a site where you can start. The fellow being interviewed says he has direct information from Karl Rove on Harriet Miers religious beliefs.
Shouldn't be pertinent to her confirmation, but Rove seems to think it will be.

http://www.family.org/welcome/press/a0038214.cfm

 

[gordontravels]

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

No one has addressed the issue of the fact that we don't know a galdarn thing about this woman that actually lets us know, even in the vaguest sense, what kind of justice she will be! She was on the city council, but that doesn't matter, I could be on the city council if I had nothing better to do with my time, she was the head of the Texas Lottery, what does that tell us, that she has a specific ideology on reading little balls with numbers on them? We know that some republicans don't like her, but they don't like a lot of things, and we know some democrats like her and some hate her, and that's it.
Why don't we have any pertinent information on this woman who could very well be on the highest court in the land for the rest of her damn life. Why is the media wasting time telling us who likes her and who doesn't, it's completely irrelevant, we need to find out something about her, unless the media also subscribes to Bush's "trust me"s

You are absolutely right. I have an idea and I'd like your input to let me know if you think it might help us find out something about this woman before she gets voted up or down:

Let's get the Senate Judiciary Committee to hold full blown hearings where both Senators from the Republican and Democrat Partys can actually ask her direct questions and reveal any information they might have on her. This way we could maybe get it put on C-span on November 1st for all to see and actually listen objectively to what is asked by all sides and what the nominee has to say in reply. What do you think?

She was on the city council of the City of Dallas. You do know that Dallas is one of the largest cities in the country? Ok. You can be on the Dallas City Council. These are your main topics for your meeting on October 19th:

* Business Retention Proposal for Hunt Consolidated (pdf - 280 KB)
* Trinity Crossing Entertainment Complex (pdf - 1.48 MB)
* Bond Program Development (pdf - 711 KB)
* City Manager's Performance Plan (pdf - 151 KB) City Manager's Performance Plan - Attachment A (pdf - 37 KB)

I'm sure the development of the Bond Program will be a shoe-in don't you? After all, interest and principle are all so easy to calculate these days that anyone with or without expertise in long term financing instruments can just step right in. Hey? Why not you?

As head of the lottery you, I am sure would be responsible for all the little balls and the multiple millions that are not only won but distributed throughout the school system which you have to work with hand in hand. You go to their meetings and hand out balls and your through. What could be simpler.

And finally: You want the media to find out? You must really not like her. The media isn't going to tell you anything good about her, that wouldn't be down their "scandal riddled road". They will present you with their agenda and you will feed at the trough. I have to laugh; the media is going to trust Harriett Miers? They just haven't found any scandal to use against her so it's "we don't like her time" with every Republican or Democrat they can scare up. Why expect more, you're wasting your time.

So. What do you think? Doesn't the hearings idea sound kind of like something that might answer some of your questions? Think we can get them to hold some? :duel

 

[26 X World Champs]

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

Why don't you do some research on her? You obviously have a computer and can go online. Here's a site where you can start. The fellow being interviewed says he has direct information from Karl Rove on Harriet Miers religious beliefs.
Shouldn't be pertinent to her confirmation, but Rove seems to think it will be.

http://www.family.org/welcome/press/a0038214.cfm

The propaganda train is coming to a town near you! WHOA! "The Fellow" that you refer to is none other than Family.Org Chairman James C. Dobson, known to be one of the most rabid of the rapture right in the USA.

Do you know one of the reasons that the Senate is so pissed off about Miers? Because they feel they know $hit about her, yet supposedly Rove tells Dobson all about her and reassures him that she's a rapture rightist too. Senators don't take kindly to supposedly pertinent info re Miers not being shared with them but being shared with the extremist James Dobson.

With all due respect, James Dobson has less creditability in this matter than almost any other public figure that you can think of, so citing him as a source for info is like asking a Neo-Nazi their opinion of Hitler!

 

[AlbqOwl]

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

Ah ha ha, some good old patronizing, that's always a good way to actually discuss ideas:roll:
And you know what, I probably could do all of that stuff if I lived in Dallas and did a lot of research, it's not as hard as you'd think, it's just worded in a way to make people think it's hard.
And I don't know if I like her or not, you want to know why, cause I don't know **** about her!
And about the senate confirmation hearings, that's a frickin joke if I've ever heard one. For the entirity of my entire waking life, barring Clarence Thomas, any real question that could actually build or detract from public confidence in the candidate has gone unanswered. It's gotten to the point where "I can't answer since that might actually apply to what I might actually do as a judge." like for some reason that's not the purpose of the ****ing hearing!

Have you listened in on the hearings? I usually listen in on C-span every chance I get. I remember well Joe Biden smiling and encouraging Ruth Bader Ginsburg not to answer any questions that might compromise her later opinion on upcoming or potential cases before the high court. And she didn't. And she was no unknown--she was a card-carrying, ultra liberal, feminist, ACLU lawyer liberal. And she was confirmed 98 to 0.

Then Biden and others excoriated Roberts for doing what they counseled Ginsburg to do. But Roberts was no unknown either. And his credentials were pretty conservative and reflected little or no legislating from the bench--something the President specifically said he wanted. The Democrats are less magnanimous than the GOP I guess--he was confirmed with something like 78 to 22.

Now we have Miers and you're right. We have no track record and no clue how competent a constitutional scholar she might be or how good a judge she might make. As Gordon points out, that does not disqualify her in any way.

But it also does not allieve the fears of those who have seen the havoc wrecked by a liberal-minded high court who is not shy in creating new law. We conservatives had high hopes for Stevens and Souter when they were appointed, and both have tilted left and have been disappointments.

Now we have a President who has vowed to put strict originalists and constructionists on the court, judges not given to interjecting their personal ideology into the law of the land. Judges who will interpret the law according to constitutional principles rather than rewrite both the constitution and the law to make it like they think it should be.

Will Miers be that kind of judge? We don't know. We don't want to blow our chances to see the integrity of the High Court restored. And that's why we are nervous.

I tend to agree that the Senate hearings won't provide those answers or allieviate those fears.

All I have to go on is faith in a President who tells it as it is to the best of his ability. He wants her. He'll probably get her. And she may be absolutely wonderful and we'll all warm up to the idea after awhile. For now, for me, she is still that warm sweater I got instead of the Red Ryder BB gun I wanted.

 

[RightinNYC]

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

Take Cnredd for an example. He's a conservative, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find a liberal here that doesn't like him

As the official forum liberal (as denoted by NavyPride) I just want to go on record as stating that I don't like cnredd.

 

[RightinNYC]

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

Ummm... you may believe that, but many people believe that there should be a system of checks and balances in our government. I dunno, maybe im the only one.

Also, your comment on all the stuff with the bar association.
I don't care nothing about that, although it wouldnt surprise me that the American Bar Associaion would consider her since she was the president of a state bar association her self, or was it just a city, I dont remember.

Reguardless, My only argument is that I think she will let her "Born Again Christian-ness" get in the way of her judicial philosophy, whatever her judicial philosophy is (who knows?).

I know a few born again christians, these aren't your average, go to church on sundays, type of people.... these people are CRAAAAZZZZY!

I haven't met one who didn't cast a stone at non-christians.
I haven't met one who didn't judge others.
Then again, Ive only met... three.

Using a religious test to determine someones fitness for a public position is unconstitutional.

 

[RightinNYC]

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

Gee? None of you thought my joke was funny? LOL

Why do I bother?

Cause clarence thomas cant even hold a candle to the true pimpmaster of all time on the supreme court, Thurgood Marshall.

He kept his hand strong on the hos.

 

[tryreading]

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

The propaganda train is coming to a town near you! WHOA! "The Fellow" that you refer to is none other than Family.Org Chairman James C. Dobson, known to be one of the most rabid of the rapture right in the USA.

Do you know one of the reasons that the Senate is so pissed off about Miers? Because they feel they know $hit about her, yet supposedly Rove tells Dobson all about her and reassures him that she's a rapture rightist too. Senators don't take kindly to supposedly pertinent info re Miers not being shared with them but being shared with the extremist James Dobson.

With all due respect, James Dobson has less creditability in this matter than almost any other public figure that you can think of, so citing him as a source for info is like asking a Neo-Nazi their opinion of Hitler!

You understood what I was trying to show galenrox. You got the point exactly. I posted the same link on a thread yesterday and no one payed attention, probably because I revealed my personal opinion on Dobson, like you did above. To me, he is the worst kind of nut, a dangerous one with a little influence.

Notice in the interview that he names the justices that he thinks are wrong, evil, un-American, and wouldn't you know it, they are the ones who don't vote his way. But Miers is right, to Dobson. She is deserving of confirmation because she is a member of a church he approves of, became a member of the political party he approves of, etc.

Karl Rove went to this guy so Dobson would help him sell Miers to the Republicans who are grumbling, and so Dobson would assure people of his religion that Miers is worthy. Then the relevant religious base would call their Congressman and put pressure on him/her to shut up and confirm.

Religion should never have been brought up, but Karl Rove will do anything it takes to make sure the person whose campaign he is running, or the Justice whose confirmation he is backing, ends up where he wants them to be. Miers is not to blame in any of this, though.

"...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any public office or public trust under the United States."

I wrote this from memory and hope the wording is right. I'm sure everybody visiting this site knows what document this quote comes from.

 

[tryreading]

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

Like I said in a previous post when push comes to shove and the vote is taken the usual suspects will oppose her and Republicans will fall in line and vote for her confirmation.......She will receive more votes then Roberts did.......

Take it to the bank.........

You are correct. Harriet Miers will be confirmed. But I don't like your 'usual suspects' phrase. Whenever I argue a point with a Republican, I try to use Fox News or another supposedly conservative source for my back up. With a Democrat, maybe I use CNN or CBS. There are those on the 'other side' who are not so radical that the party line, or the dogma barrier, can never be crossed.

This link shows that a religious organization can look at a potential Justice, and the process to confirm her, through both lenses of the bifocals.

http://www.bjcpa.org/news/news/051013_miers.htm

 

[Navy Pride]

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

As the official forum liberal (as denoted by NavyPride) I just want to go on record as stating that I don't like cnredd.

Just curious my Liberal friend are there any Conservatives you like in this forum?

 

[Navy Pride]

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

You are correct. Harriet Miers will be confirmed. But I don't like your 'usual suspects' phrase. Whenever I argue a point with a Republican, I try to use Fox News or another supposedly conservative source for my back up. With a Democrat, maybe I use CNN or CBS. There are those on the 'other side' who are not so radical that the party line, or the dogma barrier, can never be crossed.

This link shows that a religious organization can look at a potential Justice, and the process to confirm her, through both lenses of the bifocals.

http://www.bjcpa.org/news/news/051013_miers.htm

When I say the usual suspects I mean people to the far left like Kerry, Kennedy, Boxer, and probably Hillary to mention a few......Some of my Conservative friends are questioning her now but I think it is really a smokescreen to fool people on the left into voting for her..........

We shall see.....

 

[RightinNYC]

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

Just curious my Liberal friend are there any Conservatives you like in this forum?

Man, you just wouldn't know sarcasm if it bit you in the ass, would you?

 

[Pacridge]

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

Man, you just wouldn't know sarcasm if it bit you in the ass, would you?

I don't get it?

 

[Navy Pride]

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

I don't get it?

Me either.

 

[RightinNYC]

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

I don't get it?

Originally Posted by galenrox
Take Cnredd for an example. He's a conservative, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find a liberal here that doesn't like him

Originally Posted by RightatNYU
As the official forum liberal (as denoted by NavyPride) I just want to go on record as stating that I don't like cnredd.

My post was tongue in cheek, being as that I like cnredd.

Then navy snarkily asked if there were any conservatives that I do like, because he can't wrap his mind around the thought that I might in fact like conservatives, or god forbid, be one.

 

[Caine]

Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

Checks and balances are fine but obstruction and filabuster are not checks and balances. There should be a hearing and then committee vote and then either an up or down vote or new nominee. I see you don't address the 39 Supreme Court Justices with no bench experience, most of whom were nominated by Democrat Presidents. Just Bush's appointee.

Did I ever mention anything about bench experience in that part? Stop grabbing air. Did I mention BusH? Stop grabbing air. I see what your doing... sorry, its not working.

When you participate in any court of law you take an oath as a Judge, Lawyer and testifying witness and that oath is before God. You're distrust of "Born Again Christian-ness" is unique to your arguement and flys in the face of Presidents and politicians you have voted for yourself. I suppose you don't vote because I am sure if you have you would have voted for a born again Christian. I ask - where is the information that her religious convictions have colored her and why wouldn't that apply to any other born again Christians such as Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush One and Two or Clinton?

For one, you don't HAVE to include GOD in your oath you take if you don't believe in it. Two, with the potential issues that are possible to be dragged into the supreme court in the next decade, it is very possible that a judges religious faith could hinder them in making a decision based off the constitution or not. Alot of potential future cases involve "morals" (which I believe the government has no business restricting or dealing with), which I believe SERIOUS Christians (Like born agains) will have a difficulty seperating church and state, if you will.

I am a Christian with respect for other religions such as Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and any others you may know of if you can remember. I don't want to meet you but it would break your determining string of 3. I live in the Bible Belt and have no problem with Christianity. Your problem seems to be with someone you "know". That is telling about your attitude that you would have preconcieved ideas about those you meet and should I be surprised?

Good for you! Religion is a great thing, I just think BORN AGAIN Christians take things to the extreme, and sometimes thier comments or actions actually contradict that of the teachings of Jesus. i.e. Being too judgemental, to name one, there are more...

You have no information that Harriett Miers religion is detrimental to her serving on the bench other than your penchant for stereotyping. No one is reporting anything she did that would be exclusive to any Christian person in any endeavor she has taken on.

And why would the only people who seem to have this knowledge of her "judicial outlook" as the White House spokespeople like to use so much, why would they mention anything that could be detrimental? They aren't that stupid.

If you don't like born again Christians it seems you take your dislike and place it before your own knowledge as a crutch. To use your stereotype of born again Christians against someone because you listen to the media proclamations; a media that enjoys an anti-Christian bias, is you showing how uninformed you are at best.

Where are you getting all this bullshit from the media?
The only thing I listened to from the media was George Bush's own words about all her organizations she has been involved in (mostly church-related) and the one thing about her being a born again christian. Since I know a few of them, I use THOSE indications to determine what it is. It has not a god damned thing to do with "media bias" and "media proclamations"

Just looking at your "I don't care" and "I don't remember" comments assures me that you are the poster child for un or ill informed.

Because I don't care about the other crap. As long as I know she won't use her Christianity to try to make moral decisions for the rest of the country, Im happy as a pig in shizznitz.