Being Careful For What One Wishes For

[mark056]

Once again the politicos of all stripes have only proven what true slimeballs they really are.

Now many of those on the right were concerned about Harriet Miers because they thought that she might not be conservative enough.

Now many of those on the left were concerned about Harriet Miers because they thought that she might be too conservative.

So, not having support from either side she withdrew her name from consideration. (Voluntarily or not is immaterial, in my opinion)

It is now a sure thing that GWB will nominate someone with impeccable conservative credentials...beyond the pale....but guess what, now some of the liberals are whining and saying that maybe old Harriet might not have been such a bad choice because they really didn't know if she was a true conservative or not, and in the next round they know what they are going to get.

Who loses in all of this ? Why the American people once again. Maybe Miers is a conservative which would please many on this forum, or maybe she is a moderate which, in the opinion of some including myself would have been a good thing for the country...but now we will never know.

I think the Democrats really screwed themselves on this one proving once again: be careful what you wish for.

Regards,

Mark

 

[Martlet]

I'm wishing for Ashcroft.

 

[Lynne]

I don't care if the nominee is conservative or not. What I DO wish for is that said Judge be a Constitionalist. Period. I don't want someone legislating from the bench. Contrary to the Left Wings beliefs, that piece of paper is not a living document. It's the law of the land and it's governed us quite nicely for the past 200 plus years. However the Libs will be apoplectic if there's even a hint of conservatism, and they sure as hell won't give them the leeway they gave Mz. Ginzberg. [roll]

Personally, I would have liked to hear her comments during the interview process before the committee, but alas....

 

[Skald]

Contrary to the Left Wings beliefs, that piece of paper is not a living document.

Lynne,

I respect you a lot, but its called a living document because of what the founding fathers did, allow it to be ammended when needed and set forth a way for it to be ammended.

-Brian

 

[Admin]

Good post Mark.

 

[Pilgrim]

Contrary to the Left Wings beliefs, that piece of paper is not a living document.

Lynne,

I respect you a lot, but its called a living document because of what the founding fathers did, allow it to be ammended when needed and set forth a way for it to be ammended.

-Brian

It's not a living document in the way Dems have made it.. It was made VERY hard to change it, only under VERY important circumstances.

It was never meant to be manipulated by corrupt judges and laywers like it is and twisted to their own crooked values.

 

[SiameseRat]

I hate to say it, but I want my judges as unbiased as possible. I'd be happy if all judges were moderates. Not too liberal, not too conservative. Not afraid to lean one way or the other when needed, but right down the middle most of the time. IS that bad?

 

[Lynne]

Contrary to the Left Wings beliefs, that piece of paper is not a living document.

Lynne,

I respect you a lot, but its called a living document because of what the founding fathers did, allow it to be ammended when needed and set forth a way for it to be ammended.

-Brian

I don't have a problem with it being amended Brian, if that's whats needed to be done. But, if law is going to be made, then there is a set procedure to do just that. NOT by judges, and that's what I have the problem with. By them legislating from the bench, they forgo the procedure, as set forth by our forefathers, to amend it.

 

[Skald]

yes, but to say its not a living document is a misnomer. It can be changed, even though it is difficult to do so, it still can be done. It has the possiblity of growth.

Now, I agree we need more consitutionalist judges, but it will never really happen because instead of it being who is well qualified, we just have politicians running around in long robes. If a person wants to be a judge they have to campaign, raise funds etc. This is the core of the problem imho. They feel indebted to either party for where they are instead of doing what they are supposed to do and judge the law.

I look at the judges around here, and about the country and just cringe and wonder how we have managed as a society for long.