Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
shai

Harriet Miers- On The Come Up

Recommended Posts

If you thought John Roberts was bad...read this.

 

Washington Post article on Harriet Miers

 

She has no judicial experience.

 

She is a former Democrat who, after she was "born-again", joined the Republican Party to reflect the change in her values.

 

She's a member of a evangelical church that has held pro-life fund raisers in the past.

 

She represented Bush while he was governor of Texas in the 1980's, and has been tight with him ever since...so tight that she came along with him to the White House...but, no one's ever heard of her till Monday. Like Roberts, she has never gone on the public record as far as her views on abortion or civil rights.

 

Even Bush's constituents are thinking he might be back on the pipe on this one. Only one person has come out in support of her- Dianne Feinstein, who I think is really a closet Republican. And, her support is based on the fact that Miers is a woman. Hey, Condoleeza Rice is a woman, too, and no one with a conscience or a quarter of a brain is cutting HER any slack, last time I checked.

 

Discuss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bush is filling the supreme court with republinazis

before his croneys are indicted for the valerie plame case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or, he's crazier than a shithouse rat. He's alienating conservatives at this point...what next? He also introduced a bill to repeal the 22nd amendment (presidental term limits). He actually seems to think this is possible....if he had enough of a fan club in the Supreme Court, though, I suppose anything could happen.

 

This is what is called, "a cult of personality". Hitler had one, along with Mussolini, Stalin, and a lot of other fine examples of humanity and leadership.

 

The palace coup has started...where's the revolution to go along with it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This all makes me feel much better about the direction we're headed.

 

Edit: I've heard Bill Clinton was supporting that amendment because he wanted to run again, though. Don't know if it was true or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah...but we'd be a LOT better off if he had been able to stick around. I liked the guy a lot, actually...more so than any other president. I would have also liked to see who would come out of the woodwork...dude gets around. And, if you were married to Broadzilla, wouldn't you?

 

Here's a funny thought...

 

michael_jackson.jpg

 

"....and then, he stuck these two fingers in my asshole, and pulled them out and LICKED them! He said, 'Mmmm. They taste like....chickenhawk!'"

 

Man, someone call me a fuckin' doctor...I have no idea where that one came from. :huh2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i dunno, if he woulda thrown in a midget, some clowns, and a box of soft tacos, i'd be right there in the aroused corner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by shai hulud@Oct 7 2005, 04:16 AM

You....are a savage pimp. Anyone ever tell you that?

 

 

now that you mention it....yeah, but not those words....

not exactly...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me guess....

 

bee2.gif

 

"Aiiiii, Chihuahua! Put down thee coathanger, ccabron, you're keeling meeee!!!!"

 

Something like that?

 

I just looked at this..dude looks freaky, don't he?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

haha. actually...it was

 

"hey! what are you gonna do with that biscuit? oh my god!!!! get the fuck out of my house!"

 

 

hahaha the bumblebee guy is freaky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by casekonly@Oct 7 2005, 01:31 AM

i dunno, if he woulda thrown in a midget, some clowns, and a box of soft tacos, i'd be right there in the aroused corner.

 

 

The aroused corner arouses me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"She's got to convince the conservative world that she understands the word 'strict constructionist,"' said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, one of three Judiciary Committee conservatives who met Thursday with Miers. "She's going to have to fill in those blanks and create a comfort level."

 

yo, that's two words homie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Miers also picked up an endorsement from first lady Laura Bush. "I think she'll be really terrific," she said.

 

oh snap, that was all i needed to hear yo!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i was hoping for a good showing in this area, but as normal, we were let down. she has no qualifications for judge ship and no recorded stances on anything.

 

its time for the head check. bush has a "conservative" congress ready for the "nuclear option." he nominates some one with nothing for anyone to go on. vote this fucking woman down, and nominate janice rogers brown. it will satisfy everyone but liberals. then the women crying about another woman on the bench, will have a woman. the people crying about a minority on the bench, will have a black justice. and the conservatives will have another scalia who will put the issues back in the states where they belong and uphold the constitution of the USA. end of story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see Miers getting it. If Bush can "win", why can't she? The game is all parlimentary at the federal level. We don't get to vote for judges. It's up to the other 8 judges on the panel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest KING BLING
Originally posted by angelofdeath@Oct 7 2005, 09:52 AM

then the women crying about another woman on the bench, will have a woman. the people crying about a minority on the bench, will have a black justice. and the conservatives will have another scalia who will put the issues back in the states where they belong and uphold the constitution of the USA.  end of story.

 

1) Many black people don't even concider Condoleza Rice black - a puppet hiding behind her genetic appearance is easy to spot. People in general, me included, think a woman on the bench is healthy in bringing a perspective others might not intuitively possess...

 

2) Scalia hardly brings things back to the states in any meaningful way that contributes rather than simply hinders the functioning of government. He is arogant and his rulings are wrought with emotion and bias - he isn't a beleiver in anything, like many republicans in government <like congress and our president> he acts with an emotional impulse against the very government that gave him his power and glory. He hates the government yet everytime one of his kind is empowered the economy declines and the "big government" always seems to pay off for them and there rich cohorts all of who hate government except when seeking corporate welfare and protections. A constitutionalist would not have stopped the state of Florida from recounting votes - Bush and his team went to the federal government FIRST, and even multiple times requesting an end to the recount and ultimately the "conservative" on the bench as well as others voted that it was ok for the federal government to stop a states level recount. His descisions are as suspect as his trips to energy executives estates with Dick Cheney and than moving to rule on a case regarding energy laws and dick Cheney...

 

 

The Christian Science Monitor:

 

http://csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/durableRedire...03/us/us.3.html

 

Scalia's critics are diverse and numerous. Their basic complaint is that his originalist ideas tend to freeze the Constitution in time rather than allow it to speak to contemporary needs. Scalia himself has referred to the founding document as "a statue." Some Scalia critics also see inconsistencies in the justice's application of originalism. When it comes to abortion, which he opposes, Scalia is among the first to note that there's nothing in the Constitution explicitly supporting that right. Yet when it comes to states' rights, which he has sought to broaden, Scalia treats the 10th Amendment as if it gives states power to ignore congressional requests to comply with federal regulations - even though the Constitution gives no affirmative rights to states, critics say. "States' rights, executive privilege, qualified immunity, all the things Scalia seems to support, are part and parcel of the judge-made law he says he doesn't agree with," gripes a constitutional lawyer who has a case before the court. "Scalia seems to feel that original interpretation is everything," says Georgetown University's Dr. Tushnet. "He exalts text and history above practical issues, like how a ruling affects the machinery of government in the real world. That's a concern he doesn't seem to have." Yet in some cases, like the one to criminalize the burning of the American flag, Scalia does not side with the patriotic or traditional camp. He argues that dissent is an American trait. Notes a former Scalia law clerk: "He doesn't always vote the way a conservative Republican would want. He can be brought to see and do the principled thing, even when his instincts run contrary."

 

*The enlarged was a quote froma critic but it says everything about his positions...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bling:

 

scalia is a conservative, bush and party are not. he is pro dissent, as were the people who founded this country. he is a constitutionalist. he believes in constructionism in interpreting the constitution.

 

allow me to give you a basic course on constitutional law:

 

the constitution recognizes our "inalienable" rights and creates a government, BY THE STATES, BY THE PEOPLE. the states alone have the right to create the federal government not the other way around. the constitution is designed to limit powers. the constitution and bill of rights, (which was passed to please the anti federalists, who wanted no centralization) are very specific. the constitution is a "statue" and is not "living." the constitution lays out very simply what the powers of the federal government are. very limited. under the 9th and 10th, all other powers not expressed directly in the constitution are to be left to the states. its very simple. why is roe v wade a bad decision? because the court had no jurisdiction dictating social policy to the whole USA. it is not the job of the federal government. its the same with the gay marriage amendment, it shouldnt pass. it should be a state issue. its basic federalism.

 

of course this is something that liberals dont understand, or refuse to understand. they are much more content with slinging names of "RACIST" or "FACIST" freely when they cant argue a point.

 

of course liberals want to push the "Scalia is an activist" because he rules on things the way thomas jefferson or James madison, our constitution authors would have. in reality, he is a true interpreter of the constitution. most peole today believe that the job of the government is to control every part of everyone's lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe in a strict constructionist viewpoint of the Constitution. Yes, it was designed to be modifiable, but it has already been twisted so far away from what the Founders intended that one can hardly recognize it.

 

The philosophy of the Constitution as a so-called "living document" means that all the liberal nut cases, communists and socialists have just got to keep peck, peck, pecking away at it, and eventually we will find ourselves living in Venezuela or Cuba.

 

One of the absolutely worst changes that have been made was the changing of the election of Senators from the STATE LEGISLATURES to a POPULAR VOTE. This was a huge mistake, but it was part and parcel of a larger plan to centralize power in the Federal government and further emasculate the individual states' power. This was a plan that began before the War Between the States, and of which TWBTS was also a part. This change occurred in the 1890's, and was part of an overall national struggle for power following the Election of 1876, and the End of Reconstruction.

 

Before this change, SENATORS WERE DELEGATES FROM THE STATE LEGISLATURES TO THE U.S. CONGRESS AND WERE ACCOUNTABLE TO THE INDIVIDUAL STATE LEGISLATURE. Today, the sonofabitches are accountable to NOBODY. "Democracy" is always destined to be a tyranny, and this change was another step on that road.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kabar you are so full of shit it's mind boggleing.

Republicans have done more damage to the Constitution and bill of rights just in the patriot act alone than the democrats ever could.

 

And you said it's a bad thing for Senators to be elected!?!?

You really are a internet propogandist aren't you? :biglaugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing I've ever read liberals wanting to toy with in the constitution was the right to bear arms. Republicans are bending it over and raping it with a broom handle with the patriot act and patriot act 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Register for a 12ozProphet forum account or sign in to comment

You need to be a forum member in order to comment. Forum accounts are separate from shop accounts.

Create an account

Register to become a 12ozProphet forum member.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×