On Harriet Miers: Dear Laura Ingraham (AKA Helen of Troy): Shutup And Talk

JoeClarke.Net ^ | 10/11/2005 | JoeClarke

[joeclarke]

Dear Laura Ingraham (AKA Helen of Troy): Shutup And Talk

Just as your book Shut Up And Sing disqualifies actors and singers from exhibiting their political preferences because of their lack of expertise, I am asking you to call off the dogs on Harriet Miers. I am not merely a mind numbed loyalist to President Bush; I am only asking that you do criticize Harriet Miers, but not as obsessively - 7/24 - as you have. IOW How about another subject, Laura? You cannot see that you are becoming the elitist that you accuse everyone else of being. Who are you? A very fine radio conservative commentator, who should be trusted to pick the best, most strict constructionist Supreme Court candidate. Yes, you, and yours, have been the most faithful Conservative backers and deserve to be heard. OK, we have heard you - over and over and over again. "Trust us," you cry. But why?

We are not asking that there be no debate, but rather that you, and the rest of the pack, moderate the attacks - which you even deny you are doing. You all are begging your audience not to "just trust" the president on the issue, yet we are implored to trust you and your gang of faithful conservatives including Bill Kristol, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bill Bennett, et al. and half the Senate which you may have swayed. Does it not scare you that Senate Republicans are so easily swayed by media pundits yelling and screaming?

Please, explain why we should trust you radio people over the President's decision. I do disagree with President Bush on spending and immigration, but does that disqualify him from making a decent Supreme Court pick? I hope there is no angst over this nomination only because both the President and Miers are both Born Againers. Peggy Noonan, a good Catholic, has already taken swipes at Bush because of his overreligiosity.

No, you really don't have to shutup, but how about not obsessing over this crucial subject? You even have Bork borking Miers.

[RTINSC]

Trust the President or trust a radio talk show entertainer? Tough decision.

[David Isaac]

If I may, I would like to counted among the "elite" who object to the nomination. Though my wife and I together, through many hours of labor, make a very modest income and I attended a public university, I would still take a stand with those who have been lumped together as elite, less than wise (if not ignorant) naysayers to the President's choice. This group has long stood for real conservatism, not the kind practiced by the Bush dynasty.

I do not blame the victims of the bombing, instead I blame the bomber. And I pray that conservatism will survive this latest wedge that has been driven into it's heart.

[sirchtruth]

This group has long stood for real conservatism, not the kind practiced by the Bush dynasty.

Then you would be out of power for a long time and your "Real" conservatisim would mean diddly-squat. At least Bush, can get some things done, like appoint people to the SC who interprets the constitiution not make law...

Bush got elected because he's a President to ALL the people not just conservatives.

No hardcore conservative can get elected just like no hardcore dem...Get a clue!

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

OF all the punidts, Laura may be among the most qualified to speak on the SC. She clerked for Clarence Thomas. And doesn't make her an "elitist."

I would expect you to write a similar letter to Lindsey Graham who told everyone concerned about this nomination to just shut up.

BTW, who are you to be telling anyone what to do? Another worthless vanity.

[NittanyLion]

Here we have a preachy vanity by someone who fancies himself to be a political sage, demanding that another person who fancies herself to be a political sage stop preaching.

I hope I'm not the only one able to appreciate the irony of this post.

[David Isaac]

Fortunately for me, I don't need a clue. Ihave my ears, my eyes, and a knowledge of history.

[GarySpFc]

Do you know who is considered by almost all to be the greatest justice to ever serve on SCOTUS? Did you realize this person had only briefly studied law? Did you know he did not have any judicial experience when he was appointed chief justice, and yet he is considered the person who had the most influence on Constitutional Law? Have you ever heard of John Marshall?

John Marshall-Biography

Experience: No prior judicial experience. Marshall held many political offices at the state and national levels.

John Marshall was born in a log cabin on the Virginia frontier, the first of fifteen children. He was a participant in the Revolutionary War as a member of the 3d Virginia Regiment. He studied law briefly in 1780, and was admitted to practice the same year. He quickly established a successful career defending individuals against their pre-War British creditors.

Marshall served in Virginia's House of Delegates. He also participated in the state ratifying convention and spoke forcefully on behalf of the new constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation.

Marshall contemplated several offers to serve in the Washington and Adams administrations. He declined service as attorney general for Washington; he declined positions on the Supreme Court and as secretary of war under Adams. At Washington's direction, Marshall ran successfully for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives but his tenure there was brief. Adams offered Marshall the position of secretary of state, which Marshall accepted. When Ellsworth resigned as chief justice in 1800, Adams turned to the first chief justice, John Jay, who declined. Federalists urged Adams to promote associate justice William Paterson to the spot; Adams opted for Marshall.

Marshall's impact on American constitutional law is peerless. He served for more than 34 years (a record that few others have broken), he participated in more than 1000 decisions and authored over 500 opinions. As the single most important figure on constitutional law, Marshall's imprint can still be fathomed in the great issues of contemporary America. Other justices will surpass his single accomplishments, but no one will replace him as the Babe Ruth of the Supreme Court!

http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/legal_entity/13/overview

[bu9418]

I am really having a hard time understanding the outrage over this nomination. Now I realize that the Supreme Court, and most other courts have been used to make law, but the slamming of Harriet Miers, even by the experts has me puzzled. I understand the Supreme Court is the final say, the law of the land (which is bs from a constitutional standpoint anyway), but a hell of a lot more law is "created" at the federal district and appellate levels than are at the Supreme Court. Bush apparently has done a fine job with his judicial appointments, and perhaps the lawmaking will at the District level is rampant that at the SCOTUS level. It just doesn't make sense to promote a Bush appointee to the supreme court simply because they are perceived to the be the conservative "smoking gun".

The nomination of Harriet Miers is no more important than an appointment to the 9th Circus, IMO.

The fallacy of this argument from both sides is the attached moniker "swing seat" or "swing vote". I wish all the politicians, pundits, constitutional scholars and evangelicals would shut up and realize that there is no room for a "swing vote" when applying the constitution to a case before the court. It is wishful thinking at best for the left, and its getting annoying to say the least.

markbureau
http://www.markbureau.us

[hispanichoosier]

Please, explain why we should trust you radio people over the President's decision.

Because the market is probably one of the best BS detectors every created. Radio talkshow hosts have to face the Arbitron ratings each month, which directly affects their advertising and ability to stay on the air. Thus, the hosts' research and reasoning have to stay sharp month after month. President Bush, on the other hand, never has to face the electorate again.

[buckeyeblogger]

I'm not inclined to agree with a NittanyLion about anything, after Saturday -- but here I do.

[buckeyeblogger]

I don't believe that Ingraham's book disqualifies actors from talking politics, it just says that it's (at the very least) not very interesting -- nor entertaining.

Ingraham on the other hand is paid for her opinions on the radio. I'm in complete agreement with her and the others about Miers.

Also, I would suggest not eating your own with comments like "Helen of Troy". Just because there's a group that disagree with this pick doesn't make us traitors to the cause. Party loyalty only goes so far.

[NittanyLion]

Haha! At least it was a good, well-played game...besides, we deserve a break after the last few years!

[buckeyeblogger]

It was well played by the guys in navy and white, for sure. You guys executed well and took advantage of our 2 turnovers, especially Troy's pick in the 1st half.

Everyone in Columbus is in a malaise about this year in general and our overall offensive output for the past few years. The consensus is that Tressel needs to fire our OC and get a guy that can really scheme on offense with the talent we have..our current OC stinks.

I, for one will be rooting for Penn State against scUM this weekend.

[NittanyLion]

I, for one will be rooting for Penn State against scUM this weekend.

Hehehe...there aren't too many times I root for the Wolverines, that's for sure!

[ContemptofCourt]

John Marshall was in the VA House of Delegates when they debated the adoption of the Constitution.

John Marshall studied law at the hands of the Founding Fathers.

John Marshall's childhood education was bolstered due to his parent's friendship with George Washington.

Its all in bold, so it must be important...

[meandog]

Trust the President or trust a radio talk show entertainer? Tough decision.

...not for me. I trusted one Bush when I heard "READ MY LIPS, NO NEW TAXES" and got burned. Once burned, twice cautious...especially when it comes to the promise "I will only nominate judges in the mold of Thomas and Scalia."

[ridge]

The Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan has done numerous studies on views of the world. In one case, they create a perceptual map of all the countries. The United States occupies a very unique position. It is traditional and individualistic. Now are you arguing that the United States isn't conservative?

Bush didn't get elected to appease moderates and liberals.

[Ol' Sparky]

Please, explain why we should trust you radio people over the President's decision. I do disagree with President Bush on spending and immigration, but does that disqualify him from making a decent Supreme Court pick?

Because Republican candidates have been nominating stealth candidates to the Supreme Court for 25 years and three of the four nominated have ended up being liberals?

Only a dunce would support a strategy that has failed repeatedly and not demand someone with a proven track record of originalism be nominated instead.

It is impossible to win the battle when too many are this stupid.

[Ol' Sparky]

The nomination of Harriet Miers is no more important than an appointment to the 9th Circus, IMO.

What an incredibly stupid statement. Can the Supreme Court reverse any decision made by the 9th circuit and any other circuit court? Yes. So, a Supreme Court vacancy is more important. Duh.