Comments on: Surprise Number One: The Conference Call

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 17 Oct 2005 18:31:43 +0000

Dennis, one might even suggest that at least some of the anti-Miers crowd is engaging in a bit of hypocrisy here to kill a nomination they don’t support…I’d never suggest that, of course, but someone might…

By: Dennis

Dennis — Mon, 17 Oct 2005 18:16:25 +0000

This story actually strikes at the heart of what I don’t get about those on the right who are screaming the loudest. The issue seems to be that the Democrats will make hay with this and say the Republicans are trying to undo Roe v. Wade, send women back to the kitchen, etc.

But if the president were to nominate one of the more obvious conservatives that are the darling of the right, wouldn’t the Democrats do the same thing to that person? I mean, if third-hand claims that Miers is anti-Roe could be enough to sink her, why should we think a candidate who is more obviously anti-Roe has a chance?

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 17 Oct 2005 15:40:24 +0000

Commissar, I feel quite sure that the committee will have no problem getting around any obstacles in asking the question. Should the Texas justices be called to testify, they will surely be asked, “Did you make that statement?” and “On what basis?”…

By: AJStrata

AJStrata — Mon, 17 Oct 2005 15:27:17 +0000

Fund and Frum and others are missing the point – they lost this battle with the base.

4-1 and 8-1 against?

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/794

Gimme a break. It is not the size of the soapbox that matters – its what you do with it the get’s results. These folks have been playing with fire and are getting burned.

By: The Commissar

The Commissar — Mon, 17 Oct 2005 15:25:06 +0000

Re: Hearsay.

Hearsay is not admissible in a trial seeking to establish guilt of a crime. In a Congressional proceeding to determine a nominee’s fitness, it may be. I’m sure there’s a known answer to my question, “Is hearsay an admissable part of sworn testimony during a confirmation hearing?”