Topic: "You can trust her, she's catholic..."

[Abraxas]

Well, the Bush administration may have finally shot itself in the foot. Bush himself may have just reaked some political mayhem... but he will squeeze out of it. They always do: Rove, Frist, DeLay, Bennet, Libby... the list goes on.

Any way, Bush has stated that emphasis on Miers' faith is important because it is important to her background... or lack there of. According to Bush:

People are intrested to know why I picked Harriet Miers. They want to know Harriet Miers' background. They want to know as much as they possibly can before they form opinions. And part of Harriet Miers' background is her religion."

So this line of reasoning begs the question; why was it so crucial to NOT ask questions regarding John Roberts' faith? According to some republicans, asking Roberts about his faith would be tantamount to testing his faith as a Roman Catholic.

Why is it so important to Bush that everyone know her religous standing? Is it possibly because no records that could possibly exist will show her actual OPINON about anything? Seeing as she is a lawyer, her job is to state why her client is innocent (or why someone else is guilty) and that, as a lawyer, her opinion means less then that of Mariha Carrey's or Celine Dion's.

Is it possible that Bush is so afraid of how she will manage any senate inquiry that he needs to make it clear that she is "pro-life" and will play the crucial role of turning Roe v. Wade? Is he that worried that his own conservatives in the senate won't elect her?

But fortunately some republicans are not so stupid... or sadistic, which ever way you look at it. The president of the Catholic group Fidelis, Joseph Cella, has said:

How Miers lives her faith should have no place or bearing in her confirmation hearings. Faith is too precious to be used as a trumpet or as a sword by those who either support or oppose a nominee.

Smart guy. I like him.

Of course, according to Lady Bush, the reason there is so much static in regards to Miers' nomination is because she is a woman. Is she kidding. Each party was HOPING for a minority... and women are a bit of a minority, atleast on the supreme court. Both sides would have put Gonzales on in a heart beat, but Bush decided to elect a rich white woman... Oh well.

*quotes were taken from the NY Times and USA Today*

[Archon_Yggdrisil]

Bush just does too much buddy-hiring to be trustworthy.

[Sgt. Sota]

You may have just shot yourself in the foot by over analyzing a sound bite. You can't take a look at four sentences and say "He picked her because she's Catholic, and that's why she's a good candidate".

About the squeezing out of trouble, I should think DeLay would get out of trouble considering the crime he's charged with wasn't a crime when he did it, on top of the fact it took three grand juries to get an indictment.

[Abraxas]

Then give me one reason WHY Bush is nominating Miers. The only thing I can think of is he owes some kind of favor and she is conservative enough to fill the seat of a conservative nomination to the supreme court. The only thing the Senate Judiciary Comittee is going to have access to IS her religion, seeing as no documentation exists that expresses anything about her. All documents while she was a lawyer are protected under client privelage.

And OK... I knew someone would bring up the fact that the law didn't exist until after DeLays "crime". But what about everyone else?

[Sgt. Sota]

Well for everyone else, let me know what they've been indicted for and the evidence, I can't watch all the political bickering closely.

Bush picked Miers because he's tired of the bickering. He picked someone that no one could find anything bad about, hoping that no one would object to a "flawless" candidate. He over looked her total lack of credentials apprently.

Bush is protestant, if he was going to pick someone based solely on religion, wouldn't he pick another protestant like him?

[Abraxas]

I wrote catholic... I meant Evangelical Christian... same thing to me. A radio host was assured by Cheney that she belongs to a church which is "universally pro-life". Again, why is this sooooo imprtant?

Frist traded his HCA inc. stock about a month before it sufferd a 9% drop. The charge is in regards to a conflict of interest (I think his father and brother own HCA inc. or something). The economics board just subpenoed (way wrong... but I think you know the word I mean) for documents, so nothing as of yet.

Libby and Rove are both in trouble for the same thing, in regards to Valerie Plame/Wilson and Juddie Miller. On going investigation (as we have heard MANY times) so no documents have been released yet either.

Bill Bennet is not under any kind of investigation... he just said some really dumb things. Granted, they were taken out of context and sounded a bit worse than he intended, but he should not have said anything in regards to the abortion of black babies and the corolation it would have to the crime rate.

verbatum

You could abort every black baby and compare it to a drop in crime rate. It is immoral and wrong, but your crime rate WILL go down.

I just don't understand what Bush was thinking when he nominated such a "No Name" to the bench...

[InfinityCircuit]

Both sides would have put Gonzales on in a heart beat, but Bush decided to elect a rich white woman... Oh well.

Actually Gonzales would probably not have been approved as he wasn't supported by members of either party, as far as I know.

[Captain Hajime]

what a let down, i was hoping it has something to do with Chatholic co-ed or something!

Warning Pot shot at Bush.

Bush couldn't pick a qualified person even if you hand resumes from top student of Harvard.



Edited for language
Have a nice day

[Abraxas]

Its not even so much an issue that I personally don't like her... Its just I am sooooo baffled as to why he chose her in the first place. I can not see any real political reason why he chose her... and don't tell me their may be no political subdifuse (everyone knows what word I mean... right?) because there always is.

[Abraxas]

Well... its official. She has said (as evident by a '89 questionaire) that she would support anti-abortion legislature in TX. She even admitted she would exert her "influence" to initiate pro-life awarness. If she is willing to take the rights of Texans away, what is to stop her from doing it to all American people?

This is WHY Bush nominated her. She is his unquestionable turn around for Roe v. Wade. Soon, controceptives will be banned... I am afraid...

Granted the questionaire is 16 years old, but what is to stop her from still believeing in what she wrote?

[Archon_Yggdrisil]

The fact of the matter is that our civil rights are defined by the judges, not the politicians. That's what scares me when I see this woman. She will decide the rights of millions.