Title: Could Ron Paul be the next president? Source:
CBS URL Source:http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7391241n Published:Dec 11, 2011 Author:CBS Post Date:2011-12-11 11:01:48 by A K A Stone Keywords:None Views:32904 Comments:59
I was for Cain, but now that he's gone I'm w/ Newt. He has bad baggage but he did force Clinton into welfare reform, and was Speaker the last time we had a balanced budget. And I really don't give a rat's ass about his sex life, or how many wives he's had.
Perry is an open borders guy and gives in-state tuition to Illegals. Romney is a Northeast flip-flopping libtard RINO that can't be trusted.
That said, no matter who the GOP nominee is, I will support. We can't afford to let Barry put another radical on the Supreme Court, and that opportunity will happen for whoever is in the White House from '13-'17.
That said, no matter who the GOP nominee is, I will support.
That is EXACTLY why we're in the shape we're in. The globalists own BOTH teams in case you haven't been paying attention. Thank Newt for this economy and the lack of jobs...he rammed NAFTA and GATT through a lame duck congress because he knew if he waited until the newly elected congressman were seated in 1994, it would NEVER have passed. Over 80% of the American people were against these "free trade" agreements at the time, and for good reason...but he couldn't have cared less...he worked with Clinton and MADE it happen. He is a TRAITOR extraordinaire! And if you think, for one second, Newt is going to put a small government, Constitutional judge on the Supreme court, you're smoking crack....THAT would be against EVERYTHING he believes in.
So you think any of the GOP candidate's SCOTUS appointment would just be another Kagan or Wise Latina?
absolutely...global communism is the favor of the day. Why would a big government, globalist put a Constitutional, limited government judge on the court...it's NOT what they believe in. With the exception of Paul...
While head of the State Bar of Texas, Miers joined an unsuccessful effort to have the American Bar Association maintain its then-official position of neutrality on abortion. The ABA had adopted abortion neutrality at its 1990 annual meeting in Chicago after strong opposition by the State Bar of Texas to a pro-choice position. By the summer of 1992, at its annual meeting in San Francisco, the issue was again pending before the ABA assembly. Miers, who had not been involved in the Chicago meeting, supported ABA abortion neutrality in San Francisco.[11] At the San Francisco meeting, the ABA Assembly and House of Delegates voted to take a pro-abortion rights position, and the state bar of Texas dropped its plans to ask the ABA's policy-making body to hold a referendum of the group's 370,000 members on the issue.[12]
On October 3, 2005, Bush nominated Miers to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Miers' nomination was criticized by people all over the political spectrum based on her never having served as a judge, her perceived lack of intellectual rigor, her close personal ties to Bush, and her lack of a clear record on issues likely to be encountered as a Supreme Court Justice. Many notable conservatives vigorously criticized her nomination, and numerous conservative groups normally considered part of Bush's political base planned to mount an organized opposition campaign.
Miers met with senators after her nomination was announced, and in those meetings she was ill-prepared and uninformed on the law.[24] Senator Tom Coburn told her privately that she "flunked" and "[was] going to have to say something next time."[24] In mock sessions with lawyers, Miers had difficulty expressing her views and explaining basic constitutional law concepts.[25] Miers had no experience in constitutional law, and did not have extensive litigation experience; at her Texas law firm, she had been more of a manager.[26] Miers had rarely handled appeals and did not understand the complicated constitutional concepts senators asked of her.[26] To White House lawyers, Miers was "less an attorney than a law firm manager and bar association president."[27]
Early one-on-one meetings between Miers and the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee were said to have gone poorly, and the White House considered suspending them to focus on preparation for the confirmation hearings. In an unprecedented move, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter and ranking Democrat Patrick Leahy also requested that Miers re-do some of her answers to the questionnaire submitted to her by the Committee, noting that her responses were "inadequate," "insufficient," and "insulting" because she failed or refused to adequately answer various questions with acceptable accuracy or with sufficient detail.[28] Miers also privately expressed a belief in the right to privacy to the pro-choice Arlen Specter, only to later deny that she had communicated that.[29] Her answers also included an error on constitutional law where she mentioned an explicit constitutional right for proportional representation; though many court rulings have found that legislative and other districts of unequal population violate the equal protection clause, the right to proportional districts is not explicitly mentioned in the United States Constitution.[30]
