October 4, 2005
-
She Has My Trust
DALLAS - (KRT) - "As political activists rush to mine Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers' slender public record, a former campaign manager says she opposed abortion rights while running for Dallas City Council in 1989."
"She is on the extreme end of the anti-choice movement," said Lorlee Bartos, who managed Miers' first and only political campaign and said they discussed abortion once during the race.
"I think Harriet's belief was pretty strongly felt," Bartos said Monday. "I suspect she is of the same cloth as the president."
Many are wondering why I support this nominee. Its simple. Its not blind support for this administration. Its simply because it is too early to claim we been betrayed here. Im hearing such an outrage by those on the right. Its incredible. Dick Cheney had to basically beg Rush Limbaugh to trust him on this. But this President has come through in the past. I know you are fed up with immigration, I know you are fed up with the spending. But that doesn’t mean we should make premature accusations here. This nominee is a conservative. I guarantee it. This nominee will not legislate from the bench. This nominee will not change her philosophy when she reaches the court. This President does what he wants, and he doesn’t care what people think. He deafeats the left without them realizing it until its too late. He doesn’t wish to fight with the dems, he is going to get the job done without a fight.
Morrison
Comments (7)
:sigh: I don't know about the conservativism anymore... read this article:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46641
There's two reasons I oppose this nomination:
1) She. Is. Not. Qualified. The only reason Bush picked her is because she a)is a woman and b)is his friend. I'm sorry, but those are not sufficient qualifications to be on the highest court in the land. There are hundreds of actual conservative judges just as qualified, if not more, as she. There are even thousands of lawyers, like her, that are more qualified and proven conservatives. The fact is, she used to be a Democrat and contributed to both the Clinton and Gore campaigns, before becoming a Republican.
2) She is not a proven conservative. She has no record, why on earth would you nominate someone that you just have a hunch might be a conservative because you know her as opposed to people who have established themselves in their respective careers as originalist judges? She is being appointed because she happened to have a lucky acquaintance in President Bush, as opposed to having actually earned that position as someone such as Janice Rodgers Brown has.
I am still holding judgment on her. I seem to be reading better things about her as each day goes by. The Drudge Report tonight states that she became a born again Christian and as a result switched to Republican. She has given to Democrat compaigns in the past. I heard the Cheney interview on Rush. I must say I was proud of Rush because he did ask hard questions, and I think that is what he should do. Many times he doesn't ask the tough questions to Cheney or other Repubs he interviews on his show, but he did stick it to Cheney. However, I knew Cheney wasn't going to say anything to oppose her.
the same cloth as the President....so liberal. I can see the "read my lips" moment coming. And why doesn't he wish to fight with the Dems. The Dems would clearly lose if he sent up a J R Brown nomination. She is a staunch right wing conservative and would have the backing of the nation. The libs have been punching the conservatives in the face for the last 40 years and when we finally get a chance to hit them back, our "conservative" president says no, you go ahead and keep punching us in the face, and in fact we will now shoot ourselves in the foot. Bunch of idiots running the GOP.
"This nominee will not legislate from the bench."
-I'm not sure you even know what it is to "legislate from the bench."
This has become a bumper sticker slogan with virtually no substance to it.
Oh, and as for JRB getting in... I agree that she probably would. Though, I sincerely doubt it would be with "the backing of the nation." I am glad at least that it was not she who was nominated.
Although I don't agree with some of the decisions that have been handed down (both moving left, and right), I am a fan of balance on the nation's highest court. Keeping such a liberal/conservative balance can help to ensure that decisions handed down remain rooted in the constitution and the issues at hand, rather than rooted merely in the legal philosophy of a right or left leaning bench.
Although the decisions handed down in such a manner may be mere pluralities, they enjoy the strength of dialogue, varying viewpoints, and they can also benefit from meaningful dissent, to provide direction for future courts, should said issue arise again.
It would be a lot easier to trust the President if he didn't always seem to be with his dad ("read my lips,no new taxes") and CLINTON("I did not have sex with that woman,Miss Lewinsky")all the time now. Mike,I hope YOU are right and I am wrong,but I think we conservatives are getting the shaft here,I'm sad to say.
Comments are closed.