Harriet Miers - Page 2

Gemini Cricket · 10-03-2005, 10:25 AM

Something I just thought of.

I think the media really wanted the 2 appointments to be a frenzy like like the appointments of Thomas or Bork. It wasn't that way for Roberts and I don't think it's going to be that way for Miers.

I laugh at that. Stupid mainstream media.

Not Afraid · 10-03-2005, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

Bush went on to say, "Yeah, she's never been a judge before but we'll learn her."

WTF?

There are things you say in jest to your cornies and then there are things you actually say that get quoted. Learn the difference, George!

And, she's never been a judge before? This is the SUPREME COURT. Maybe we have a long history of appointing successful supreme court judges that have no experience. Who knows. But, it just seems wrong.

Ghoulish Delight · 10-03-2005, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

WTF?

There are things you say in jest to your cornies and then there are things you actually say that get quoted. Learn the difference, George!

I think that line was a bit o' embellishment by Mr. Cricket.

Gemini Cricket · 10-03-2005, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

I think that line was a bit o' embellishment by Mr. Cricket.

Sorry, NA. GD's right. It was just my attempt at some John Stewartness.

Not Afraid · 10-03-2005, 10:40 AM

lol!

Well, you "had" me. I think it is probably frightening that I actually thought Georgie WOULD use that phrase.

wendybeth · 10-03-2005, 11:05 AM

I knew it wasn't a direct quote. It was too articulate.

Snowflake · 10-03-2005, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

Cronyism is everywhere in our country.
I think it's one of the big things weakening it.

Miers may be a crony. But after her lifetime appointment, she needn't be any more. Right? Who knows?

Well, first she needs to be confirmed. I'm not sure how I feel about this, too soon for me to form an opinon I guess.

I have to concur with Ghoulish Delight's superficial assessment, scary, indeed!

Donna

PanTheMan · 10-03-2005, 12:29 PM

Well, im sure we will all be able to rest well knowing all of Bushes and Cheneys big corporate pals will be well protected for years to come under this court. So much for protcting the little guy.

scaeagles · 10-03-2005, 12:41 PM

Like the little guy is protected from the government now?

I think Breyer, Ginsberg, Souter, and Stevens - the 4 "left leaning members - were 4 of the 5 votes (along with Kennedy) who voted to allow the government to take private property from one person and give it to another under eminent domain.

Don't tell me the court is protecting the little. It isn't the responsibility of the court to do so anyway. It is their responsibility to rule on Constitutionality of cases presented.

I do not have the direct quote, but Roberts made the perfect answer when asked by...Schumer, I think it was....about protecting the "little guy". He said if the Constitution says the little guy is right, then the little guy will win. If the Constitution says the big guy should win, then the big guy will win.

Motorboat Cruiser · 10-03-2005, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

Her Exodus Ministry is not the homophobic 'change you to straight' camp that's out there.

I stand corrected. Thanks, GC.

10-03-2005, 10:25 AM	#11
Gemini Cricket ... Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 13,244	Something I just thought of. I think the media really wanted the 2 appointments to be a frenzy like like the appointments of Thomas or Bork. It wasn't that way for Roberts and I don't think it's going to be that way for Miers. I laugh at that. Stupid mainstream media.
	Submit to Quotes

10-03-2005, 10:40 AM	#15
Not Afraid HI! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 17,108	lol! Well, you "had" me. I think it is probably frightening that I actually thought Georgie WOULD use that phrase.
	Submit to Quotes

10-03-2005, 11:05 AM	#16
wendybeth Nevermind Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,847	I knew it wasn't a direct quote. It was too articulate. __________________
	Submit to Quotes

10-03-2005, 12:29 PM	#18
PanTheMan Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Somewhere between you, and just over there. Posts: 258	Well, im sure we will all be able to rest well knowing all of Bushes and Cheneys big corporate pals will be well protected for years to come under this court. So much for protcting the little guy. __________________ What if the Hokey Pokey IS what it's all about? ....
	Submit to Quotes

10-03-2005, 12:41 PM	#19
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	Like the little guy is protected from the government now? I think Breyer, Ginsberg, Souter, and Stevens - the 4 "left leaning members - were 4 of the 5 votes (along with Kennedy) who voted to allow the government to take private property from one person and give it to another under eminent domain. Don't tell me the court is protecting the little. It isn't the responsibility of the court to do so anyway. It is their responsibility to rule on Constitutionality of cases presented. I do not have the direct quote, but Roberts made the perfect answer when asked by...Schumer, I think it was....about protecting the "little guy". He said if the Constitution says the little guy is right, then the little guy will win. If the Constitution says the big guy should win, then the big guy will win.
	Submit to Quotes