If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Bush nominates Harriet Miers for Supreme Court Justice   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 1025
    More: News  
•       •       •

17700 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Oct 2005 at 7:20 AM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1025 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | » | Last | Show all
 
2005-10-03 10:26:04 AM
Obviously I forgot to put the /sarcasm after my last post.

While there are plenty of liberal minded people who will hold their opinions until Miers goes through her gauntlet of drunkards (Senate hearings), the vast majority of liberals will attack her simply because Bush nominated her.

If Bush were to cure cancer, end world hunger and eliminate poverty all by himself, there would still be those who would attack him and anything he tries to do.

It is those who I refer to when I originally posted.

/common sense isn't very common
 
2005-10-03 10:26:06 AM
This woman appears to have kept her eyes open while the Ark of the Covenant was opened, and yet survived.



/IJatRotLA reference
 
2005-10-03 10:26:43 AM
Champagne corks are popping in wombs all over America right now.
 
2005-10-03 10:26:59 AM
I think Bush is going to stir up trouble with this fake nomination, and then pull out his real nominee --



-- Roberts' dancing fool of a son!

You want loyalty? That kid has to ask permission to make doody!
 
2005-10-03 10:27:21 AM
And according to Drudge (no link provided) she gave to Gore and Benston...

Another Ginsburg...oh joy!
 
2005-10-03 10:27:26 AM
thank you whorehopper.....may your week be full of unexpected free stuff.
 
2005-10-03 10:27:38 AM
Glom84: No judical experience, yea that will work,


Might not be totally bad. The last time we got an unexperienced person in that position it was Renquist. He was installed by the last 2 term Rep.
 
2005-10-03 10:27:52 AM
//fdiaz78
//the people reelected the President for
//another term. LOL Deal with it Demowhiners.

Yep, solid proof that people are stupid, ignorant and not worth saving.

I'm actually ditching my liberal ways and going back to my conservative roots. The human race is just too dumb to be worth trying to help. I might as well try to cash in on screwing the masses while I can.

Global warming is either a lie, or a natural process!

Teach Creationism in the schools!

More government, more federal power!

Repeal the 22nd amendment so Bush can run for another term!

Turn over all the national parks to logging and oil companies!

Give the FBI and the CIA full power to monitor anyone!

Build more nuclear power plants!

Shut down all the solar power research!

Ban all technologies that can't be monitored!

Man, I forgot how easy being a conservative was. This should be fun.
 
2005-10-03 10:27:54 AM
TGOT

do you really need someone to point out the difference between being elected and being appointed, or do you just not like moseley braun? bush's loyal opposition sometimes calls him Shrub. does that mean he's a shrub?
 
B82
2005-10-03 10:27:59 AM
Can this at least convince the lefties that Bush doesn't care about polls? This isn't exactly a move that endears him to his conservative base.
 
2005-10-03 10:28:00 AM
You're standing in horse miers.

/too obscure?
 
2005-10-03 10:28:04 AM
lilplatinum:

Yeah I am wary about feminists too, but whats wrong with being on the Lottery Commission, its an oversight board to prevent corruption and makesure that the state gets the profits from its little gambling monopoly/tax on stupidity.

Well, I hate lottery in the first place. Second of all, I gather you know nothing about the Texas Lottery Commission, right?

Because there's more scandals there than crooked politicians in Congress
 
2005-10-03 10:28:16 AM


She is a looker.
 
2005-10-03 10:28:33 AM
SideshowBob: Obviously the Framers didn't know about electronic surveillance, etc.. but they sure seem to have believed that individuals should be free of snooping by the gov't. How else to interpret 'secure in their persons... against unreasonable searches' other than a right to privacy?

Let's say Congress writes a law banning, oh i dunno, body piercing. It kills skin cells, which are living tissue after all, and violates the sanctity of life (yes I'm being facetious here.) How does the law get enforced without unreasonable searches of individual persons?


A right to one form of privacy, yes. But I think we're on a different page in this discussion.

Don't get me wrong, ¼ of my income can be attributed to the 5th Amendment.

Y'all have a nice day, I've got to run.
 
2005-10-03 10:29:16 AM
carrion_luggage: Champagne corks are popping in wombs all over America right now.


So they can drink themselves to death in order to avoid the coathanger?
 
2005-10-03 10:29:40 AM
I would suggest sitting back and letting conservatives crucify their president's own appointment. I remind you that some conservatives considered John Roberts too liberal.

Hardcore religious right activists are like Cubs fans. "Maybe this will be the year! Maybe we can finally get Roe overturned!" And it never, ever happens for them.

Maybe if we start mocking them for never getting their way, they'll get sick of it. They don't seem to enjoy being made out to be fools...once they realize that's what's happening.

Maybe it's time for a full-scale social-conservative uprising among the elephants.

/nah...they'll always fall back on "we'll get 'em next year"
//but mocking does have its place
///and it's fun!
////but not as fun as slashes!!!
 
2005-10-03 10:30:07 AM
So Bush was just toying with Alberto Gonzalez (and the Latino bloc) the whole time or what?
 
2005-10-03 10:30:27 AM
Dancin_In_Anson: Another Ginsburg...oh joy!

That would be so cool,, especially coming out of the Bush administration.
Wee

She has a liberal track record it looks like. Must be a ruse.
 
2005-10-03 10:30:33 AM
Jello Fever: You're standing in horse miers.

 
2005-10-03 10:30:50 AM
Rodeodoc
Looks like the unDemocratic Party will have to hang up the gloves again. But I'm sure they'll manufacture something bad about her. The Dem's have never concerned themselves with facts.

Why are you helping the terrorists divide this great nation? Why do you hate America?
 
2005-10-03 10:30:53 AM
Tatsuma [TotalFark]

Well, I hate lottery in the first place. Second of all, I gather you know nothing about the Texas Lottery Commission, right?

Because there's more scandals there than crooked politicians in Congress


Yeah, I heard that she helped do some house cleaning there, but since I havent really looked into it yet I reserve judgment. Although I like the lottery, anything that taxes the poor and stupid a little bit is a-okay in my book.
 
2005-10-03 10:31:24 AM
The SCOTUS needs a lesbian closet liberal with a sharp lawyer mind.
I am all for it:P
 
2005-10-03 10:31:31 AM
emeryannharris: So Bush was just toying with Alberto Gonzalez (and the Latino bloc) the whole time or what?

Yup - as John Stewart said, he was just being a dick.
 
2005-10-03 10:32:17 AM
Tatsuma: Non-tfers are strange people. Sooner today, a woman called me an alcoholic and when I said "Thanks!" she looked at me like I wasn't wearing pants*

Dude, I'd be offended - I'm a drunk; alcoholics go to meetings.
 
2005-10-03 10:32:19 AM
1. Why this or any SC nomination is important. The Justices can serve terms typdically ranging 15-35 years. (as such, they actually serve the country, versus serving an administration, none of which have been any good for the past 100 years.

2. So, 15-35 years...that's a long time to do one of three things: a lot of good, a lot of damage, or a lot of nothing.

3. Personally, I'm not in favor of lifetime terms. People are too flawed to be given that much power without any sort of realistic review or their performance, nor incentive to do the right thing. It's all carrot and no stick.

4. Justice without serving as a judge...well if you required that, all politicians should have been political science majors. This is the country where you can rise to any level using your own talents (or sink to the bottom in the same way). I think it is refreshing she is NOT a judge, especially out of the California federal court district.

5. Do I have an opinion on her in particular? No. How could I, they just announced it 2 hours ago. I will continue my research on her. I started with the NYTimes. Always start with who you think will be the most opposite to the candidate and work backwards. They're about as far opposite to her perceived image as any of the mainstream media can get. And I tend to ignore the rest of the nutjobs. Everybody can have their opinion, I just don't necessarily have to read them. (let the flamewar begin on that, but it's just an opinion)
 
2005-10-03 10:32:26 AM
consdubya [TotalFark]

carrion_luggage: Champagne corks are popping in wombs all over America right now.


So they can drink themselves to death in order to avoid the coathanger?


Pushing her down the stairs works just as well.
 
2005-10-03 10:32:46 AM
Ratchel Dratch is licking her chops getting ready to play her on SNL
 
2005-10-03 10:33:17 AM
lilplatinum:

Yeah, I heard that she helped do some house cleaning there, but since I havent really looked into it yet I reserve judgment. Although I like the lottery, anything that taxes the poor and stupid a little bit is a-okay in my book.

From all I read she helped creating the illusion of some house cleaning, but I'm still looking into it and Immaculate will hopefully send me more links about it in a near future...

Yeah, well I dislike lottery because I think we're far too taxed

The more taxes = the more government = the less freedom = the less privacy
 
2005-10-03 10:34:10 AM
Immaculate_Misconception

I really agree with your post here Jesus, I mean I've been in practice for less than a decade, and I belong to enough associations to fill a page or two.

In all honesty lefande, can you not say the same?


I'm not big on associations, I'm too busy trying to make people's lives miserable (and make a living) with my frivolous litigation.

I just can't get these people (who mostly aren't attorneys) saying that a big time lawyer that has been practicing for 35 years doesn't understand constitutional law and isn't qualified to be a judge. I know plenty of judges that I wouldn't trust pet sitting. I also know enough lawyers that have better things to do besides spending their formative years in District Court dividing the baby every day.
 
2005-10-03 10:34:23 AM
Champagne corks are popping in wombs all over America right now.

That's hawt.
 
2005-10-03 10:34:43 AM
B82: Can this at least convince the lefties that Bush doesn't care about polls? This isn't exactly a move that endears him to his conservative base.


Boy, you're kinda dense huh?

How is she not ok with his base?

She's a member of his inner circle and will obviously tow the line.

Is it the fact that she's female? I don't even believe that's an issue for 99% of the country, regardless of which side of the aisle you're on.

Please come up with a coherent talking point. Saying that this woman won't please his base is like saying NCLB was great for education. As they say where I'm originally from, that dog won't hunt.
 
2005-10-03 10:34:56 AM
The problem I have with Miers without knowing anything else about her is, it looks like a pure, unadulterated case of "President attempting to force his opinion into the SCOTUS by nominating someone who will only vote like he thinks". It happens more often than this country would like to admit. Bush managed to avoid doing that with Roberts, but he's doing it now with Miers.

When you do that, I hate you hate you hate you hate you for it. It goes against the way this country was set up. (Yeah, yeah, so do most things these days, and I hate that, too.)
 
2005-10-03 10:35:06 AM
Harriet Miers for Supreme Court Justice!

Confirm her!

Confirm her!

Womens' rights promote lesbianism and witchcraft! Pat Robertson is right, we need to get good, upstanding Christians into the Supreme Court so we can overturn Roe vs Wade and get those baby killing abortion doctors behind bars, where they belong. Death row would be even better.

We Christians are oppressed in this nation. We need to make sure all the public funding goes to schools teaching good, Christian values. They're the foundation of the nation, and we need to make sure no one is exposed to deviant, "liberal" ideas.

Separation of Church and State is a liberal lie. The founding fathers never wanted a Godless, secular nation, which is what Satan and the Liberals are trying to make us!

I hope this woman can help turn the tide in God's favor and we can start digging this liberal cancer out of our nation's flesh.
 
2005-10-03 10:35:09 AM
Random Reality Check: But what I like most about the people in this thread blindly backing this appointment based solely on the fact their beloved president chose her.

Eh, I'm not especially a Bush fan. I didn't vote for him, and I don't really like him, but I guess it's just too wacky for me to actually hold her to the standards of the job, which includes looking at what qualifications were held by previously successful executors of the job.
 
2005-10-03 10:35:14 AM
Sloth_DC: Dude, I'd be offended - I'm a drunk; alcoholics go to meetings.

Well, I'm meeting at the bar everyday... that counts, right?

lilplatinum: Pushing her down the stairs works just as well.

Tire iron hit when she's not expecting it. Works wonders
 
B82
2005-10-03 10:35:26 AM
George Bush doesn't care about religious conservative people?
 
2005-10-03 10:36:26 AM
This thread needs more Ha! Ha! Guys
 
2005-10-03 10:37:21 AM
Here's some meat for the conspiracy nuts. Supposedly a nexus between the National Guard story and the Texas Lottery Commission.

Clicky Pops

I guarantee you this will be picked up eventually.
 
2005-10-03 10:39:38 AM
Non-Republicans: No judicial experience, doesn't sound good. Texas crony of Bush, sounding even worse.

Republicans: Just confirm her already. A friend of Bush is a friend of mine, no critique necessary.
 
2005-10-03 10:39:40 AM
Based on the collected images of this woman, she must go through 3 to 5 eyeliners a day.

Eyeliners are made of wood. She is against trees! Greenies Unite to fight this tree-killer!!!

Cool, I found a solid argument against her. Do I get my cookie now?
 
2005-10-03 10:40:09 AM
lefande: I'm not big on associations, I'm too busy trying to make people's lives miserable (and make a living) with my frivolous litigation.

Fair enough.

I just can't get these people (who mostly aren't attorneys) saying that a big time lawyer that has been practicing for 35 years doesn't understand constitutional law and isn't qualified to be a judge. I know plenty of judges that I wouldn't trust pet sitting. I also know enough lawyers that have better things to do besides spending their formative years in District Court dividing the baby every day.

I think in the most basic way she's probably qualified. But her never having sat on the bench really does bother me. I guess I'd just like to see a demonstrated ability (and record of said ability) to offer sound judgement based (somewhat) purely with the law.

Anyway, I really must run. This has ben fun, but not as fun as my pwnage of Shadowlore last night.
 
2005-10-03 10:40:20 AM
realitycheckmate

Is there a point to this?
 
B82
2005-10-03 10:41:23 AM
Immaculate_Misconception

You have numerous samples from this thread about how Freepers and National Review are mad about this nomination. These people vote more in polls than some anoymonous shadow interest you subscribe to the Bush administration. If FreeRepublic and National Review aren't Bush's base, then what are they?
 
2005-10-03 10:41:24 AM
consdubya
palexc: Didn't the same thing happen with Cheney? He was supposed to be heading the search for a running mate for Bush and was picked.

Dude, please tell me you understand that Cheney is the real person in power. Please.

Bush did not pick Cheney, Cheney picked Bush.


no, no, no.
I was watching something on CNN, i think, about Cheney, and this is how it happened.

He was helping Bush decide who would be the VP, and one day after trying to figure this out for a while they were on a fishing trip, a bunch of them. Anyway Cheney falls asleep on the boat and when he wakes up everyone is smiling at him and they tell him that they decided that HE should be the VP while he was asleep.

I swear to god that is what he said happened. It was a very surreal moment to be watching that.

and I know for a fact that Cheney would never lie.
 
2005-10-03 10:41:49 AM
Ha you lefties better start working hard on someone for 2008
 
2005-10-03 10:43:06 AM
thetritoneterror:

Hmm she's a laywer with no experience as a judge. Is it normal to appoint someone like that?

Dunno if anyone picked this up, but the overwhelming majority of Supreme Court justices have no judicial experience.
 
2005-10-03 10:44:24 AM
carrion_luggage: Champagne corks are popping in wombs all over America right now.

They might be a little premature. (pun?)

Ok. Now if you stop and look at this for one instance. She might be qualified for a judicial post. That is not the point. As was pointed out, somewhere in this thread, my socks have almost as many qualifications. The point is that she lead a exhaustive search to find the best canidate. One that is conserviative and not an activist judge, right. Yet, you still want someone with a nice clean record. One that has the apperance of being on the SC and upholding the law.

You are telling me that with the thousands of equally qualified people out there she could not find anyone? She recommended herself to Bush? Or she recommended someone and Bush said "Naw, you want the job?"

I am amazed by the total lack of effort. So blatent.
 
2005-10-03 10:44:48 AM
A just reward for a lifetime of washing W's cock.
 
2005-10-03 10:44:49 AM
B82: You have numerous samples from this thread about how some Freepers and a columnist from National Review

There, I fixed it for you.

And how convenient for me, once again, you have no point.
 
2005-10-03 10:45:51 AM
flavor of the month "do you really need someone to point out the difference between being elected and being appointed, or do you just not like moseley braun?"


Harriet Miers was appointed. Moseley-Braun was elected. Both have seemingly dubious credentials, but to some, that didn't matter. The fact that I was no fan of Moseley-Braun has nothing to do with the observation. Sometimes people who are not ( or less ) qualified do an acceptable job.

Sometimes they do not, and people regret their choices down the road.
 
Displayed 50 of 1025 comments

First | « | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report