Repukes really trying to screw us over on Miers!!

[LynneSin]

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Conservative_Republican_senator_hints_he_could_1004.html
Conservative senator hints he could lead fight against nominee
RAW STORY

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) questioned Tuesday whether Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers has a “firm commitment” to what he called the framers’ “original intent” of the Constitution, saying that President Bush’s knowledge of her “heart” didn’t end the need for tough questioning, Roll Call reported on their website Tuesday afternoon, RAW STORY can reveal.

I can see it now - These fundie senators like Brownback start harping about how they don't like Miers because she isn't 'conservative' enough and now a few dems start thinking "Well if they think that then maybe she's ok"

Then she gets on the court and we know she's anti-choice and we lose RoeVWade. Guess who wins:

The fundie senators like Brownback who are fighting her.

This is all a ploy. It's well documented that Miers is fiercely anti-choice. Not good enough for me - we need a moderate on that seat! One who respects the LAW and not decides with their mal-functioning brain cells

[TlalocW]

1. I don't think we lose RoeVWade

Haven't five of the current justices - Ginsburg, Souter, Kennedy, Breyer, and Stevens voted against restricting abortion rights before? We more than likely replaced Rehnquist with a fellow anti-abortionist, and if Miers gets on then she replaces O'Connor who sided with pro-choice advocates more often than not. We're still 5-4.

TlalocW

[LynneSin]

3. RoeVWade we were 6-3 and had Kennedy

but SeptaVCasey we were 5-4, Kennedy supports stronger restrictions to abortions.

So we MAY still keep RoeVWade, but what about some of the cases heading to the Supreme Court for this dumbass fake issue like 'Partial-Birth' Abortion (something never considered unless the mother's health was in danger or extreme issues with the child).

[bowens43]

2. Any nominee from this administration will be anti-choice.

That's a given. Each nominee will get progressively more conservative and with each nominee the likelihood of a successful filibuster will lessen.

The hard core right wingers want us to filibuster. They know that if we filibuster Miers the nuclear option will be used to prevent a filibuster of the next nominee.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

4. You're damn right it's a trap.

But let's be honest - you expect the American public to be smart enough to see that? This isn't about our leadership falling into it - no one really thinks Bush is naming a known moderate to the court.

The problem lies with the one incorrect thing you said in your post - she's NOT well documented at all. From what I've seen, all we've got is a bunch of hearsay - second and third hand accounts as to what she believes. I've read next to nothing from HER that indicates that she's staunchly anti-choice, or staunchly anything for that matter.

Like it or not, none of what I've seen so far is enough to wage an all out war on her. We aren't going to convince anyone that isn't on DU that she's an extremist based simply off the fact that Bush nominated her or that some pretty much unknown wackjob thinks she's a far right conservative. Unless we can convince people that we're justified in fighting (and one way or another, it's a losing battle anyway because we have no power), THAT would be a bigger trap to fall into. That is the real trap of all this - Bush wants us to fight against a phantom nominee just to prove we're the obstructionist he says we are, that we'll fight against anything just for the sake of fighting. That marginalizes our voice like nothing else.

[Rowdyboy]

5. If enough Republicans oppose her, it just might cause enough Democrats

to join them in embarrassing this POS so-called president.

At least I hope so. Even so, her replacement will likely be worse knowing how twisted Dubya is.