Harriet Miers withdraws

[ClaireZ]

I already explained that. Please go back and read.

I will refrain from using all caps although the desire is immense. There were individuals that persecuted her for her CHRISTIANITY ALONE...not her qualifications.

MAN!

Perhaps, and there were many others who supported her for that reason ALONE.

(She certainly lacked qualifications)

 

[ClaireZ]

Actually I wish she has made it to the confirmation hearings and had her shot.

I was planning to watch them to see how well she did.

But this saves time, and hopefully gives us a better nomination.

 

[CaligulaNero]

The timing is also related to the bad news the administration is expecting on the CIA leak case. She should have never been nominated- she has no experience or record in constitutional law.

 

[crazyfingers]

Claire, please do not make me go pull up past threads to show how that relates..... Surely you have an inkling?

Harriet Miers ridiculed for faith in regards to qualification (GASP!) (???)

I don't recall people ridiculing her because of her religion. I recall people ridiculing the hipocracy of BushCo in playing up Miers' religion in this nomination but declaring it a taboo subject in the Roberts nomination.

 

[Ginny]

I give her credit for pulling out. You can't get mad at the candidate...but you can the hiring manager.

Miers, the White House counsel, said her nomination presented a "burden for the White House."

 

[Ginny]

I don't recall.....

exactly.

 

[Ginny]

But, but, she's deeply religious. That alone qualifies her, doesn't it?

Yes....But as what?

HAHA...of course it does! *sarcasm* That alone is was qualified G-Dubbs (aka Bush)

So now Bush has to wait for Dobson to call and tell him who the proper candidate is?

(as in James Dobson)

LOL!. No doubt!

But let me guess.... open for interpretation.

 

[TeddyKGB]

But let me guess.... open for interpretation.

Well, yeah. I do not see any of those comments as ridicule beyond the fact that her nomination appeared to be based on a one-note litmus test, a charge bolstered by Bush's later assurance that she was indeed properly evangelical and Christian.

Certainly, there does not appear to be any ridicule on the basis of her Christianity alone, especially since some of those commenting are themselves Christian.

 

[Harpuia]

Good - Now I hope he nominates Hillary Clinton.

The Democrats will still vote against her because she was nominated by Bush.

 

[Quijote]

Thomas can probably be characterized as a Scalia-clone because he is (or was) a jurisprudential hack and needed a strong personality on which to piggyback.

But what makes you think Roberts is the same?

My bad

I meant to say that I hope the next nominee is a "Scalia/Thomas" or "Roberts" clone. Did not mean to imply that Roberts was a clone of Scalia/Thomas (I have heard that Roberts, though conservative in his judicial beliefs, approaches them differently from Scalia/Thomas).

 

[Harpuia]

Perhaps, and there were many others who supported her for that reason ALONE.

(She certainly lacked qualifications)

Ok ok, many Evangelicals were asking her to withdraw also because apparently, her views on abortion are shaky, I mean, even shakier than Roberts'. Roberts' only shakiness was that he hates abortion but will uphold Roe v. Wade (until he has the power to tear it down, which he now has ) but nobody really knew where Miers stood. Apparently, she said abortion = murder one way and then supported Roe v. Wade another way... it's hard to understand which way she went.

And the Evangelicals didn't want another Souter in their hands. Can't blame them for bein' cautious.

 

[ClaireZ]

Well, yeah. I do not see any of those comments as ridicule beyond the fact that her nomination appeared to be based on a one-note litmus test, a charge bolstered by Bush's later assurance that she was indeed properly evangelical and Christian.

Certainly, there does not appear to be any ridicule on the basis of her Christianity alone, especially since some of those commenting are themselves Christian.

Agreed. I don't see this as persecuting her because she is a Christian, but rather as questioning if that was the only reason she was selected.

 

[Ginny]

Certainly, there does not appear to be any ridicule on the basis of her Christianity alone, especially since some of those commenting are themselves Christian.

This has nothing to do with my post or the quotes used, but generally speaking do you, personally, take people's symbols they choose for their profile seriously? I look at what people have to say...not at their symbol.

 

[Harpuia]

This has nothing to do with my post or the quotes used, but generally speaking do you, personally, take people's symbols they choose for their profile seriously? I look at what people have to say...not at their symbol.

Now I find it insulting that you could just point out a Christian in the crowd and say "Nope, that's no Christian." There are plenty of pro-choice liberal Christians out there and just as many pro-life conservative Christians.

 

[ClaireZ]

This has nothing to do with my post or the quotes used, but generally speaking do you, personally, take people's symbols they choose for their profile seriously? I look at what people have to say...not at their symbol.

Actually I do take thier symbols seriously. And I believe forum rules state that we must.

Just because a person has a different view then I do on a topic, that doesn't mean they are any less Christian.

Christianity embraces a large group of people, many with different opinions and beliefs. It is not my right to judge someone else's salvation.

 

[Ginny]

Actually I do take thier symbols seriously. And I believe forum rules state that we must.

You nor Harpuia don't get where I am coming from....

BTW, b/c a forum says you must believe someone is this or that you actually do in your heart without doubt?

What if this forum stated you must believe GWB is Christian b/c it told you to? How many Christians around here flame GWB and judge him as God stating there is no way on earth he is a Christian b/c they do not believe he is based on actions?

This forum cannot force you to believe anything. I am sure Erwin would hope we are intelligent enough to make our own assumptions based on our own opinions/ convictions. Sure the symbols help initially....

 

[Sphere]

He won't make the same mistake twice.

Comedy. Bush has made the same mistake twice. That being to appoint people with no qualification into positions of power.

Micheal brown in FEMA and Miers in the supreme court. Bush still suggests that miers would be a good judge, im sure he would also contest that brownie did a good job with katrina.

The man is clueless, out of touch with reality, and to be honest--its quite frightening that these positions which impact people's lives and can change the course of American History are being handed out to his "Friends" like a personal favor.

No one knows who the nominee will be, but one thing can be assured: Qualifications and experience wont matter in who gets it, being a close friend to George Bush will.

 

[Harpuia]

Comedy. Bush has made the same mistake twice. That being to appoint people with no qualification into positions of power.

Micheal brown in FEMA and Miers in the supreme court. Bush still suggests that miers would be a good judge, im sure he would also contest that brownie did a good job with katrina.

The man is clueless, out of touch with reality, and to be honest--its quite frightening that these positions which impact people's lives and can change the course of American History are being handed out to his "Friends" like a personal favor.

No one knows who the nominee will be, but one thing can be assured: Qualifications and experience wont matter in who gets it, being a close friend to George Bush will.

Anyone wanna put on a bet that Michael Brown will be the next nominee?

 

[TeddyKGB]

My bad

I meant to say that I hope the next nominee is a "Scalia/Thomas" or "Roberts" clone. Did not mean to imply that Roberts was a clone of Scalia/Thomas (I have heard that Roberts, though conservative in his judicial beliefs, approaches them differently from Scalia/Thomas).

Ah, 'tis better.

Based solely on preliminary opinions, I would be more open to a Roberts-clone than a Scalia-clone (Thomas-clone is redundant here, I think).

 

[ClaireZ]

You nor Harpuia don't get where I am coming from....

BTW, b/c a forum says you must believe someone is this or that you actually do in your heart without doubt?

What if this forum stated you must believe GWB is Christian b/c it told you to? How many Christians around here flame GWB and judge him as God stating there is no way on earth he is a Christian b/c they do not believe he is based on actions?

This forum cannot force you to believe anything. I am sure Erwin would hope we are intelligent enough to make our own assumptions based on our own opinions/ convictions. Sure the symbols help initially....

Yes, I do take it in my heart without a doubt that they are a Christian unless they say otherwise. Who am I to question someone's salvation?

As for GWB --I might not like his particular actions, but I don't doubt his Christianity as long as he says he is a Christian.

There are people here every day that stun me with thier intolerance and what I perceive as thier hatred for others, but I don't doubt thier Christianity, just the emphaise they place on some Scripture vs. other Scripture.

But we are way off topic here. Back to the White House Counsel, and her late nomination, and of course speculation on whom the next choice will be.