Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 10/4/2005 9:14:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/4/2005 9:23:05 PM EDT by NYPatriot]
The GOP faithful do not allow dissent or criticism of Pres. Bush (he's infallible, don't you know), so no doubt that George Will will be accused of being a "Bush basher" from now on!

www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/georgewill/2005/10/04/159414.html



Miers is the wrong pick

Oct 4, 2005
by George Will

Senators beginning what ought to be a protracted and exacting scrutiny of Harriet Miers should be guided by three rules. First, it is not important that she be confirmed. Second, it might be very important that she not be. Third, the presumption -- perhaps rebuttable but certainly in need of rebutting -- should be that her nomination is not a defensible exercise of presidential discretion to which senatorial deference is due.

It is not important that she be confirmed because there is no evidence that she is among the leading lights of American jurisprudence, or that she possesses talents commensurate with the Supreme Court's tasks. The president's ``argument'' for her amounts to: Trust me. There is no reason to, for several reasons.

He has neither the inclination nor the ability to make sophisticated judgments about competing approaches to construing the Constitution. Few presidents acquire such abilities in the course of their prepresidential careers, and this president, particularly, is not disposed to such reflections.

Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that Miers' nomination resulted from the president's careful consultation with people capable of such judgments. If 100 such people had been asked to list 100 individuals who have given evidence of the reflectiveness and excellence requisite in a justice, Miers' name probably would not have appeared in any of the 10,000 places on those lists.

In addition, the president has forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution. The forfeiture occurred March 27, 2002, when, in a private act betokening an uneasy conscience, he signed the McCain-Feingold law expanding government regulation of the timing, quantity and content of political speech. The day before the 2000 Iowa caucuses he was asked -- to insure a considered response from him, he had been told in advance he would be asked -- whether McCain-Feingold's core purposes are unconstitutional. He unhesitatingly said, ``I agree.'' Asked if he thought presidents have a duty, pursuant to their oath to defend the Constitution, to make an independent judgment about the constitutionality of bills and to veto those he thinks unconstitutional, he briskly said, ``I do.''

It is important that Miers not be confirmed unless, in her 61st year, she suddenly and unexpectedly is found to have hitherto undisclosed interests and talents pertinent to the court's role. Otherwise the sound principle of substantial deference to a president's choice of judicial nominees will dissolve into a rationalization for senatorial abdication of the duty to hold presidents to some standards of seriousness that will prevent them from reducing the Supreme Court to a private plaything useful for fulfilling whims on behalf of friends.

The wisdom of presumptive opposition to Miers' confirmation flows from the fact that constitutional reasoning is a talent -- a skill acquired, as intellectual skills are, by years of practice sustained by intense interest. It is not usually acquired in the normal course of even a fine lawyer's career. The burden is on Miers to demonstrate such talents, and on senators to compel such a demonstration or reject the nomination.

Under the rubric of ``diversity'' -- nowadays, the first refuge of intellectually disreputable impulses -- the president announced, surely without fathoming the implications, his belief in identity politics and its tawdry corollary, the idea of categorical representation. Identity politics holds that one's essential attributes are genetic, biological, ethnic or chromosomal -- that one's nature and understanding are decisively shaped by race, ethnicity or gender. Categorical representation holds that the interests of a group can only be understood, empathized with and represented by a member of that group.

The crowning absurdity of the president's wallowing in such nonsense is the obvious assumption that the Supreme Court is, like a legislature, an institution of representation. This from a president who, introducing Miers, deplored judges who ``legislate from the bench.''

Minutes after the president announced the nomination of his friend from Texas, another Texas friend, Robert Jordan, former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, was on Fox News proclaiming what he and, no doubt, the White House that probably enlisted him for advocacy, considered glad and relevant tidings: Miers, said Jordan, has been a victim. She has been, he said contentedly, ``discriminated against'' because of her gender.

Her victimization was not so severe that it prevented her from becoming the first female president of a Texas law firm as large as hers, president of the State Bar of Texas and a senior White House official. Still, playing the victim card clarified, as much as anything has so far done, her credentials, which are her chromosomes and their supposedly painful consequences. For this we need a conservative president?

Link Posted: 10/4/2005 9:52:12 PM EDT
What's the matter.... we're already resigned to the inevibility of Miers' confirmation?

Link Posted: 10/4/2005 9:58:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NYPatriot:
What's the matter.... we're already resigned to the inevibility of Miers' confirmation?



Dont you know? You gotta change the party from within.
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 9:59:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NYPatriot:
What's the matter.... we're already resigned to the inevibility of Miers' confirmation?




She is Borked before her hearing. Pro-life? Born-again Christian? Pistol owner?

Not to mention she is an auslander.
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 10:10:31 PM EDT
After listening to Rush on FoxNews tonight I am convinced that the right-wing nuts want a complete and total show down with the Dems over a supreme court nomination. Anyone to the left of John Birch is unacceptable to them. They (Rush, Will, Buchanan, Coulter, et. al.) want to invoke the nuclear option to finally put the liberals away for good.

I have complete confidence in President Bush in nominating Miss Miers for the Supreme Court. He has known her for more than 10 years and he knows what her convictions are. Do you really think he would nominate someone that is not in line with his views? In my opinion, this is a stealth nomination that will take the libs by surprise. President Bush knows what is at stake with this nomination.

From what I hear she is on our side when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. She is a member of a Dallas evangelical church and has participated in anti-abortion campaigns.

She has no paper trail and will not telegraph what she truly believes.

I know that all of this doesn’t mean anything right now but 10years down the line, y’all will see what I mean.

For those who say she has no judicial experience, consider the former Chief Justice Rehnquist. He was never a judge before being nominated the SCOTUS and he did just fine.
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 10:23:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FLGreg:
After listening to Rush on FoxNews tonight I am convinced that the right-wing nuts want a complete and total show down with the Dems over a supreme court nomination. Anyone to the left of John Birch is unacceptable to them. They (Rush, Will, Buchanan, Coulter, et. al.) want to invoke the nuclear option to finally put the liberals away for good.



Oh... so Rush, Will, Coulter, etc... are "right-wing nuts" now. How very interesting, because I have always viewed them as standard bearers for the Conservative movement.

Like I said... the GWB true believers can not tolerate even a hint of criticism of their "perfect" president, even from well respected conservative thinkers & commentators.

... And who says that there are no Republican sheeple?
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 10:29:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FLGreg:
I have complete confidence in President Bush in nominating Miss Miers for the Supreme Court. He has known her for more than 10 years and he knows what her convictions are. Do you really think he would nominate someone that is not in line with his views? In my opinion, this is a stealth nomination that will take the libs by surprise. President Bush knows what is at stake with this nomination.




That's what scares me. Since he has become a lame duck, he has become more reckless and unpredictable. Many of his views no longer represent his base.
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 10:33:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PeteCO:
That's what scares me. Since he has become a lame duck, he has become more reckless and unpredictable. Many of his views no longer represent his base.




You mean like illegal immigration, social welfare spending, massive budget deficits, the War on Porn, or the ATF barrel ban?
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 10:37:30 PM EDT
personally i was hoping for Janice Rogers Brown, maybe she'll be #2 after miers gets borked.
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 10:54:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/4/2005 10:56:06 PM EDT by NYPatriot]
Hey FLGreg, I guess you had better add Michelle Malkin to your list of "right-wing nuts" who have committed the mortal sin of criticizing GWB.
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 1:57:12 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/5/2005 2:00:34 AM EDT by tugboat]
If you read Ann Coulter's OPEDs, she has been pretty critical of GWB.
news.yahoo.com/s/ucac/20050929/cm_ucac/bobshrumwithagoodcause

Rush is also critical to a much lessor degree.
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 2:25:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By FLGreg:
Do you really think he would nominate someone that is not in line with his views?


You mean that she favors lax borders, abridging freedom of speech, and unlimited government giveaways?

In my opinion, this is a stealth nomination that will take the libs by surprise.

Just like David Souter and Anthony Kennedy did?
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 2:40:19 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/5/2005 2:52:16 AM EDT by 199]
On this one, Will sounds like a liberal.

How many current SCOTUS judges met the standards he’s listed?

And - far more importantly - do we really need some “great” constitutional mind on the bench who will find all sorts of new things in the constitution?

I’d rather see some unpretentious individual who will simply interpret the constitution as intended by the founding fathers (Clarence Thomas comes to mind).

The real “sheeple” in this instance just might be those who unquestioningly accept the opinions of traditionally conservative writers!!
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 2:50:47 AM EDT
No matter who GWB nominates, someone is going to BITCH, no matter what GWB does, someone is going to BITCH, no matter what I post, someone is going to BITCH, EVERYONE BITCHES
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 4:01:41 AM EDT
Conservatives have been critical of Bush from the beginning because Bush is not a conservative. He seems to have Christian values, but has not governed according to conservative principles.

This is not entirely his fault, as he has faced more bitter and partisan opposition than any president in modern history. It does take some cooperation from the other side to govern, and he has received very little. The Democratic party has had absolutely no interest in working with him. In fact, they have spent 5 years on a constant crusade against him and everything he does. The pressure this creates cannot be ignored.

Still, it doesn't seem that Bush is governed internally by conservative principles. Campaign Finance Reform, for instance, was a deal breaker for me. He signed into law without contest the SINGLE worst attack upon the first ammendment EVER. He made it illegal for me and a group of friends to pool our money and buy advertising time within 60 days of a federal election that criticizes a candidate for federal office. That is inexcusable. A conservative is not going to toss out Constitutional principle for some media induced fad.

The action did not suprise me, however, as the entire nation seems to have gone insane, believing that the 1st ammendment was written to protect pornography and people like Howard Stern, while having nothing whatsoever to do with actual political speech by citizen groups. Yet another demonstration of how the left has been allowed to re-define the Constitution in their own image to cater to the most base and purile urges of men, and how that makes a REAL and TANGIBLE degredation of our freedom. The left redefines freedom as being lawless and amoral, and then sets about the dismantling of REAL freedom, which is what allows men to govern their lives and regulate government power. It was not written so that we could see boobies on TV, though the average person on the street will tell you such things are "freedom of expression" while turning their nose up at the idea that political speech is supposed to actually be free.

He has not used the veto ONCE in his entire presidency. Now part of that can certainly be attributed to the fact that his party controls both houses of the legislature and would hand him favorable legislation. Still, there have been things tossed to his desk like CFR and the pork-laden highway bills that have been rubber stamped. The same goes for many bills that are more liberal than anything CLINTON would have proposed. Some said that this was part of a "strategy" to take Democrat complaints off the table. Conservatives were left wondering how in the world advancing the other sides causes and ideas HELPED to promote conservative principles and ideas. Many have tried valiantly through the years to define such moves as being good for us by constructing elaborate chains of logic and leaps of faith in the hopes of avoiding the simpler and more believable truth: George W. Bush is not a conservative and does not govern by conservative principles.

I had my misgivings about Bush when the entire Bush for president campaign began. In the Virginia primary, I voted for Alan Keyes because I had no doubt Keyes would govern according to conservative principle. I knew it was a vote cast into oblivion because Keyes will never be elected to anything. Still, I hoped that the rest of the nation had better insight into Bush than I did when selecting him to be the nominee. I voted for Bush in 2000 because whatever his faults, he was a lot better than Gore. And he had campaigned as, or had been made by his campaign to APPEAR to be a Texas conservative. Indeed, his record as governor of Texas seemed to be very conservative.

I voted for Bush in 2004 despite my disapproval of his first term. Bush has done some good things to fight terrorism, but things like the federalization of all TSA employees, the signing of CFR, the pre-emptive caves to the enviro-looney contingent and the like left me with no illusions about what I was doing. I was voting for Bush simply because John Kerry would have been a DISASTER for America that would have cost a terrible price in blood. Loosing in Iraq, which is what Kerry was determined to do, would certainly not improve our circumstances.

Bush is a moral man, and I believe a good man, and he has done some good things as president. I cannot, however, say that I am satisfied with the results of his presidency. Yes the left is coming unglued, but they are a bunch of looneys anyway and that was bound to happen. The left began their descent into total insanity with Bork and picked up speed during the Clinton administration. They are facing massive internal problems.

But the Republican party despite being in power in the Presidency AND both houses of congress for the first time since Lincoln, is in even worse shape. The Republican party talks a good game, but when they are given the license to govern they don't produce consistently conservative results. We must remember that the Dems had control of Congress for most of the 20th century, and that watershed change could not be expected overnight. But certainly by this point the CASE for such change at least should have been made clearly and forcefully, and yet it has not.

The Republican party has been blighted with limp-wristed Republo-crats like Lincoln Chaffee and has spent all of its time trying to keep them placated and happy. The snag is that the Lincoln Chaffee lovers of the world are NOT the ones getting Republicans elected. It is the people who want the judiciary reigned in (which Congress has not done much to accomplish) that want tort reform, that want an end to abortion as birth control, that want an end to the government's campaign agains the 1st and 2nd ammendment, that want a reduction in the staggering tax rates that are consuming our wealth, that want government's greedy hand slapped and taken out of every aspect of our lives, who are giving Republicans office.

So why does the party spend so much time trying to keep silly people like Chaffee from being uncomfortable? Let him leave. Republican control of the Senate is a nice thing to have, but not at the expense of the reason why 90% of the Republican senators are sent there in the first place. Let him bolt and vote for the other side. He does that anyway! Ditto with the White House supporting Specter for another term. That was a huge misstep by the White house, one we are paying for in the very area many people gave for supporting Bush in the first place: Judges.

Bush has had to face some nasty challenges as President. Natural disasters like nothing in American history, terrorist attacks, and the challenges of the modern world and modern politics are things that would give the greatest of presidents a tough time. Still, Bush is not one of our greatest Presidents. His presidency has been far better for the nation than a Gore or Kerry presidency would have been, but it rather seems to be weakly slowing the tide rather than turning it and advancing.

Link Posted: 10/5/2005 5:07:15 AM EDT
George Will isn't the gun owners best friend. He has spoken out against the Second Amendmend and he has spoken in favor of it. Frankly, I don't know what he believes.
There's an awful lot of sturm and drang coming from the Right over the Miers nomination, but all I care about, really, is the Second. I'm not at all convinced that a well known "Beltway" Elite Conservative is necessarily the gun owners best friend. A lot of these elites on both the Right and the Left have little but contempt for gun owners. And this goes in spades when we start bringing up the subject of semiautomatic rifles.
I'm not so sure that this "good ol' girl" from Texas isn't our best move.
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 5:26:20 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/5/2005 5:26:55 AM EDT by NYPatriot]
Well said John_Wayne777!


Conservatives were left wondering how in the world advancing the other sides causes and ideas HELPED to promote conservative principles and ideas. Many have tried valiantly through the years to define such moves as being good for us by constructing elaborate chains of logic and leaps of faith in the hopes of avoiding the simpler and more believable truth: George W. Bush is not a conservative and does not govern by conservative principles.
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 5:36:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By FLGreg:
After listening to Rush on FoxNews tonight I am convinced that the right-wing nuts want a complete and total show down with the Dems over a supreme court nomination.




We're going to get it with meiers ... openly anti-abortion = dems will go into total meltdown to stop her.
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 5:36:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By NYPatriot:


... And who says that there are no Republican sheeple?



I can't believe I'm reading that here.
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 5:43:12 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Coolio:
George Will isn't the gun owners best friend. He has spoken out against the Second Amendmend and he has spoken in favor of it. Frankly, I don't know what he believes.
There's an awful lot of sturm and drang coming from the Right over the Miers nomination, but all I care about, really, is the Second. I'm not at all convinced that a well known "Beltway" Elite Conservative is necessarily the gun owners best friend. A lot of these elites on both the Right and the Left have little but contempt for gun owners. And this goes in spades when we start bringing up the subject of semiautomatic rifles.
I'm not so sure that this "good ol' girl" from Texas isn't our best move.



I am not sure about the pick, but I am sure I am a little disgusted at some of the conservative elite I am hearing from. Yesterday, on Hannity's show I actually had to turn off Ann Coulter (I HAVE NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT DOING THAT!!!) because she said that Miers was the wrong pick...and that even if Miers ruled exactly as conservatives wanted every time it was still a bad pick. Why was it a bad pick? because she wasn't an Ivy League Law School Graduate (<--paraphrasing). That kind of crap is not helpful.
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 5:52:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Red_Beard:

Originally Posted By FLGreg:
After listening to Rush on FoxNews tonight I am convinced that the right-wing nuts want a complete and total show down with the Dems over a supreme court nomination.



We're going to get it with meiers ... openly anti-abortion = dems will go into total meltdown to stop her.


huh? i thought she was pro-abortion but anti-embryo testing??? she remains a dangerous enigma...suffice it to say, with bush stabbing us in the back we are just that >< much closer to civil war...
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 5:54:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ar15bubba:

Originally Posted By Coolio:
George Will isn't the gun owners best friend. He has spoken out against the Second Amendmend and he has spoken in favor of it. Frankly, I don't know what he believes.
There's an awful lot of sturm and drang coming from the Right over the Miers nomination, but all I care about, really, is the Second. I'm not at all convinced that a well known "Beltway" Elite Conservative is necessarily the gun owners best friend. A lot of these elites on both the Right and the Left have little but contempt for gun owners. And this goes in spades when we start bringing up the subject of semiautomatic rifles.
I'm not so sure that this "good ol' girl" from Texas isn't our best move.



I am not sure about the pick, but I am sure I am a little disgusted at some of the conservative elite I am hearing from. Yesterday, on Hannity's show I actually had to turn off Ann Coulter (I HAVE NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT DOING THAT!!!) because she said that Miers was the wrong pick...and that even if Miers ruled exactly as conservatives wanted every time it was still a bad pick. Why was it a bad pick? because she wasn't an Ivy League Law School Graduate (<--paraphrasing). That kind of crap is not helpful.



Some of the criticism against Miers is indeed uncalled for.

I don't hold it against her that she is not one of the "leading legal minds", whatever that means. Ginsburg is one of the "leading legal minds" and she is a complete loon.

What disturbs me about the pick is that it smells like a "please don't hit me" pick. I could be wrong in my assesment, but I doubt it.
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 6:31:54 AM EDT
Not just George Will. Ann Coulter's latest column, while not as articulate as Will's, also comes out against Ms. Miers. Laura Ingraham has also been pummeling the president on his nominee for the past two days.
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 6:45:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By FLGreg:
After listening to Rush on FoxNews tonight I am convinced that the right-wing nuts want a complete and total show down with the Dems over a supreme court nomination. Anyone to the left of John Birch is unacceptable to them. They (Rush, Will, Buchanan, Coulter, et. al.) want to invoke the nuclear option to finally put the liberals away for good.




And this is bad because.....?



My biggest gripe with this nomination isn't that she's not a judge, or that she has no paper trail, or any of that. I have some confidence that the President will pick wisely. What bothers me is that he COULD and SHOULD have picked a REAL, KNOWN Conservative (paper trail or not), and not left the question open.

IIRC, both Anne Coulter and Laura Ingraham are lawyers. Had he picked either (despite that neither have served on the bench), I'd be dancing on the ceiling right now.

This woman MAY be as right-wing as we all hope she is (people who turn from Dem to Republican are often the MOST conservative. Remember Reagan?) But why risk it, or make the base feel they got screwed?

I just don't get it. Janice Rodgers Brown would have sent the base into the stratosphere, and the left into orbit around Jupiter. We could have put a stake in the heart of the DNC once and for all ("Oh, so you're attacking a black woman, now?"), and secured the court for years. Instead, we rolled the dice.

Rush is right. It was a choice that reflects weakness.
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 6:46:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:

Originally Posted By FLGreg:
In my opinion, this is a stealth nomination that will take the libs by surprise.


Just like David Souter and Anthony Kennedy did?



Yup.
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 7:57:01 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ar15bubba:

Originally Posted By Coolio:
George Will isn't the gun owners best friend. He has spoken out against the Second Amendmend and he has spoken in favor of it. Frankly, I don't know what he believes.
There's an awful lot of sturm and drang coming from the Right over the Miers nomination, but all I care about, really, is the Second. I'm not at all convinced that a well known "Beltway" Elite Conservative is necessarily the gun owners best friend. A lot of these elites on both the Right and the Left have little but contempt for gun owners. And this goes in spades when we start bringing up the subject of semiautomatic rifles.
I'm not so sure that this "good ol' girl" from Texas isn't our best move.



I am not sure about the pick, but I am sure I am a little disgusted at some of the conservative elite I am hearing from. Yesterday, on Hannity's show I actually had to turn off Ann Coulter (I HAVE NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT DOING THAT!!!) because she said that Miers was the wrong pick...and that even if Miers ruled exactly as conservatives wanted every time it was still a bad pick. Why was it a bad pick? because she wasn't an Ivy League Law School Graduate (<--paraphrasing). That kind of crap is not helpful.



That's really funny, bubba.
I was listening to the same program and I had exactly the same reaction as you; "click".
I think part of it is just the pressure to produce ratings. Anger, strident opinion, these are the things that radio is made of these days. For me, it's a real turn off. I try to stick to the facts. I try to be open minded. If any of the conservative pundits would actually explain to me CALMLY why the alternative SCOTUS nominees of which they are so fond, would be better for me as a gun owner, I'm happy to listen.
So far, I've listened to Bill Bennett, Sean Hannity, Michael Smerkonish (sp?), Michael Medvid, many others on cable TV and the radio, and their guests, and so far, I haven't heard anything concrete as to why I as a gun owner should be so upset about President Bush's nomination of Ms. Miers.
But everybody wants to be the POTUS. The thing is, I never voted for any of the pundits. I voted for GW.
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 8:09:24 AM EDT
Going out on a limb here, could idea that the Malkins and Coulters are against Miers actually help her get nominated?

I'm sure there are liberals out there that say "If Ann Coulter hates this person, I automatically love her..."

Just a thought.
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 5:13:34 PM EDT
It's surprising how many Bush sycophants we have here. I voted for the guy too, but he has given a big old "fuck you" to his base.
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 5:21:37 PM EDT
He's kind of doing this sort of thing but going a step further IMO. I'm pretty sure her legal horsepower will be equal to many on the court. I doubt any of the setting justices could handle a Microsoft case by themselves.

Link Posted: 10/5/2005 5:23:03 PM EDT
George Will is right. President Bush severely dropped the ball on this one. We needed a brilliant, conservative legal mind with a proven track record, and he nominated a stealth candidate who happenned to be a friend of his. She may be a nice lady, she may be a a good lawyer, shit, she may even be conservative, but we needed a mental heavyweight who is a strict constructionist. Friggen disheartening as heck.
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 5:23:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/5/2005 5:24:48 PM EDT by nightstalker]

Originally Posted By macman37:
Going out on a limb here, could idea that the Malkins and Coulters are against Miers actually help her get nominated?

I'm sure there are liberals out there that say "If Ann Coulter hates this person, I automatically love her..."

Just a thought.



You're just plain evil....

not only that but Harry Reid is on record as approving her. I saw the quote today and it was from a statement less than a month ago.
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 5:58:11 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 9:45:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By HiramRanger:

Originally Posted By jkstexas2001:
we needed a mental heavyweight who is a strict constructionist. Friggen disheartening as heck.



And how the fuck do you know she is NOT? The fact is you are all just speculating. You are being pablum fed by intellectual elites and you are going back for seconds. The people who know her, have worked with her and know her legal mind and moral compas support her. The people who are bashing her wouldn't know her if they fell on top of her... yet you gladly eat their opinion up. Fucking pathetic.



You need to chill. She supported gay rights, when asked by people seeking to find out her views. Please show me in the Constitution where it mentions that. You may be more pathetic than I am, because I have read about her and her views myself, have you?
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 3:43:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By jkstexas2001:
George Will is right. President Bush severely dropped the ball on this one. We needed a brilliant, conservative legal mind with a proven track record, and he nominated a stealth candidate who happenned to be a friend of his. She may be a nice lady, she may be a a good lawyer, shit, she may even be conservative, but we needed a mental heavyweight who is a strict constructionist. Friggen disheartening as heck.



I am extremely uncomfortable with all this "mental heavyweight" type talk. Realize, folks, that the "elite" products of academia are largely responsible for turning the judiciary into a left-wing ram-rod. When you get into academia you find that there are some wonderful people doing wonderful work, but in the humanities you also find the intellectual equivalent of pop stars...

Ms. Mier's academic past does not bother me. The fact that the President knows her well does not bother me.

What truly bothers me in all of this is that we don't seem to have the stomach to try and advance conservative ideas. Ms. Miers may well be one of the best jurists to ever sit on the bench, but we are trying to slide her into place without much of a fight. I certainly don't like a nasty fight for the sake of fighting, but one of the problems with the judiciary is the stranglehold the left has on who gets nominated. I want to see the day when a President can appoint someone with years of experience and a proven track record that sticks to what the Founders said and intended, and to have that person sail through with a solid majority.

It seems to me that because we are not engaging the fight right now, when we have a Republican President and a Republican majority in the legislature, that we will be doomed to find stealth candidates from now on.

Liberals are the ones who use slight of hand and rhetorical trickery to get their way. We ought to be better than that.

Clarence Thomas, when asked about judicial philosophy, said that he always tells people that they have 2 choices: He can study the writings of the founders and their commentary on the magnificent system God gifted them to create, seeking to understand every nuance and to rule according to what they had in mind when they created the best governmental system in the known world, or he could just make stuff up according to what he wanted to do.

He related that even those most stridently opposed to his personal philosophies had to admit that there was wisdom in doing things the founder's way.

THAT is what nominees should say. That is what we should be seeking. What I find disturbing in all of this is we are allowing the perpetuation of a system in Congress where someone who had made such strong statements and who has a consistent record of using that principle to rule on matters of national destiny is immediately tossed out on their ear.

Many people need to stop watching so much "news". I use quotes around the word "news" because the tripe served up on TV and talk radio is a few facts engulfed in a massive ammount of "analysis" (remember that you can't spell "analysis" without ANAL, which is where most of the pundits pull their ideas from...) These pundits live the beltway life, and that makes them almost instantly looney. Conservative OR liberal, if one becomes to absorbed in the Beltway game, they loose all perspective and begin to spiral into the rediculous. The personal attacks leveled against Ms. Miers BY SO CALLED CONSERVATIVES are a perfect example of this, and demonstrate that the left does not have a patent on being idiotic.

The objection here is not Ms. Miers herself. The objection is that we have spent years trying to get a Republican majority and President specifically to wrest control of the third branch of government from the hands of those who would be our masters, and we have a democratic party who is so thoroughly irrelevant that in the last election their SENATE LEADER was removed because he was an embarassment to his state. In the name of all that is holy, that lunatic Howard Dean is the DNC CHAIRMAN.

They are positively OUT OF THEIR MINDS.

If there is a better opportunity to contrast the proper philosophy of government against the loony-ness of the left, I would be hard pressed to identify it.

The objection is that we have a moment in history that is not likely to come again, a moment where we CAN make the arguement and CAN appoint whomever we see fit (because we CAN remove the filibuster from their arsenal) and yet we seem unable or unwilling to sieze the day.

Conservative principles have NOT been upheld or advanced very much by the Republican party. It seems to be busy trying to out left the left in an effort to deflect criticism from them, which has not worked. Instead of making the arguement and advancing the ideas that conservatives believe, the Republican party seems to be so busy trying to win the next skirmish that they are missing the opportunity to win the war.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 1:28:40 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 1:43:37 PM EDT
JW777, great post. I agree 100%.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 1:55:44 PM EDT
Ann Coulter is ragging on Miers' nomination because Miers went to law school at SMU. According to Coulter, SMU Law isn't on the radar of top rated schools. Nevertheless, if Miers is a legal lightweight I'm okay with her as long as she looks over at Scalia and Thomas and asks, "How are you boys going to vote on this one?" and then follows along.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 1:55:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ar15bubba:

Originally Posted By Coolio:
George Will isn't the gun owners best friend. He has spoken out against the Second Amendmend and he has spoken in favor of it. Frankly, I don't know what he believes.
There's an awful lot of sturm and drang coming from the Right over the Miers nomination, but all I care about, really, is the Second. I'm not at all convinced that a well known "Beltway" Elite Conservative is necessarily the gun owners best friend. A lot of these elites on both the Right and the Left have little but contempt for gun owners. And this goes in spades when we start bringing up the subject of semiautomatic rifles.
I'm not so sure that this "good ol' girl" from Texas isn't our best move.



I am not sure about the pick, but I am sure I am a little disgusted at some of the conservative elite I am hearing from. Yesterday, on Hannity's show I actually had to turn off Ann Coulter (I HAVE NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT DOING THAT!!!) because she said that Miers was the wrong pick...and that even if Miers ruled exactly as conservatives wanted every time it was still a bad pick. Why was it a bad pick? because she wasn't an Ivy League Law School Graduate (<--paraphrasing). That kind of crap is not helpful.



I saw that too, and I think Ann misrepresented herself, as the nominees she prefers did not go to Ivy League schools either (I.E. J.R. Brown went to UCLA). In fact, all the best that he could have picked didn't go to Ivy League schools.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 2:01:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/6/2005 2:02:46 PM EDT by magnum_99]
I LOVE it that criticising a republican means you are a liberal.


Bush is no conservative or patriot.

He's a middle of the road lefty dedicated to big money, big power, and the "global economy."

He won't close the borders.

He don't insist on English only.

He wants immunity for illegals.

He backs weak nominees based on HIS personal relationship with them rather than qualifications. (and see also Gonzales and the 2nd Amendment).

He has badly mishandled the war (i.e. not tough enough--and now even the pentagon is opposing him on issues like treatment of prisoners, and troop strength).

His spending is out of control.

He's a disaster for all conservative patriots who expected a hard right turn after the election, and got Bill Clinton-light.
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 2:04:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FLGreg:
I am convinced that the right-wing nuts want a complete and total show down with the Dems over a supreme court nomination. Anyone to the left of John Birch is unacceptable to them.



Are these the same right wing nuts that are involved in the vast right wing conspiracy that Hitlery Klinton speaks of?
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 2:10:50 PM EDT
I would like to take this opportunity to suggest that NYPatriot be burned at the stake.




Link Posted: 10/6/2005 2:15:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By magnum_99:
I LOVE it that criticising a republican means you are a liberal.


Bush is no conservative or patriot.

He's a middle of the road lefty dedicated to big money, big power, and the "global economy."

He won't close the borders.

He don't insist on English only.

He wants immunity for illegals.

He backs weak nominees based on HIS personal relationship with them rather than qualifications. (and see also Gonzales and the 2nd Amendment).

He has badly mishandled the war (i.e. not tough enough--and now even the pentagon is opposing him on issues like treatment of prisoners, and troop strength).

His spending is out of control.

He's a disaster for all conservative patriots who expected a hard right turn after the election, and got Bill Clinton-light.



That about covers it. Other than the dumb ass "No Child Left Behind." BS
Link Posted: 10/6/2005 2:46:24 PM EDT
Top Top