quote:

Originally posted by Gmoney part II The article didn't say that Bush picked her because of her religion. It said that "religion is one of the reasons he picked her". So stop your hysteria. Another reason he could have picked her is because she drives a silver Honda. But since that wouldn't cause any kind of media frenzy, it isn't worth mentioning.

That's a cute way of parsing words. No one here is claiming that it was the sole reason why Bush picked her. The fact that it was merely one of the rationales for choosing her, at least stating so publicly is both irrelevant and immaterial to the Supreme Court position itself. I personally don't care if she fucking worships dead rabbits, but making this public as a means of his choice was nothing shy of attempting to assure his fundie base that she'll be a big fat meany to gays and wants to overturn Roe v Wade if she gets the chance, nothing more.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

A half of me really wants Miers to be appointed and have this completely blow up in the face of conservatives, particularly those on this message board who are blindly advocating her nomination. The reason why so many conservative intellectuals or "elitists", as some of you now call them (it is rather humorous to see what happens to the base when there's divergent thoughts and opinions ... god forbid), is because regardless of how well Bush knows Miers personally, he is not a trained lawyer, he doesn't think like a lawyer, and he cannot pretend to know how she would interpret the constitution, how she would uphold precedent, and what kind of judicial philosophy she would uphold on issues that are "conservative" or "liberal" only in the sense that depends upon what angle you are looking at the cards. History has demonstrated time and time again, that supposed "conservative" nominations end up being the most "liberal" justices. One of the ONLY ways to know for sure how a person would rule is through judicial history or clerk work that outlines EXACTLY what a nominee's philosophy is in a court case after court case. Miers lacks this history which provides good justification for the concern of conservative intellectuals.

But hey ... "trust" Bush, because he's been right in the past right? At least this failure, I would be willing to accept.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider A half of me really wants Miers to be appointed and have this completely blow up in the face of conservatives, particularly those on this message board who are blindly advocating her nomination. The reason why so many conservative intellectuals or "elitists", as some of you now call them (it is rather humorous to see what happens to the base when there's divergent thoughts and opinions ... god forbid), is because regardless of how well Bush knows Miers personally, he is not a trained lawyer, he doesn't think like a lawyer, and he cannot pretend to know how she would interpret the constitution, how she would uphold precedent, and what kind of judicial philosophy she would uphold on issues that are "conservative" or "liberal" only in the sense that depends upon what angle you are looking at the cards. History has demonstrated time and time again, that supposed "conservative" nominations end up being the most "liberal" justices. One of the ONLY ways to know for sure how a person would rule is through judicial history or clerk work that outlines EXACTLY what a nominee's philosophy is in a court case after court case. Miers lacks this history which provides good justification for the concern of conservative intellectuals. But hey ... "trust" Bush, because he's been right in the past right? At least this failure, I would be willing to accept.

THUMBS UP !

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy And when they elected Kennedy, people were worried that the pope would control the country. Now God just talks to Bush instead.

Hahahahaha, that quote is pretty hillarious.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider But hey ... "trust" Bush, because he's been right in the past right? At least this failure, I would be willing to accept.

what? trust him like his dad did with Souter? no thanks dude.

you're giving Bush too much credit (which he may deserve given all the previous judges) for the judicial vetting process and all the other people involved.

So what that she’s religious? You guys have over exaggerated.. Just look at this man Roberts his Catholic and he goes to church like 2x a week, this man is a truly devoted catholic. The problem is that Bush was an idiot to make that statement.