No dark sarcasm in the classroom.
Sorry, I couldn't help myself.
If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!
Posted on 10/07/2005 9:57:33 AM PDT by quidnunc
To hear the howls from conservative commentators following President Bush’s nomination of Harriet Miers, you would think that Bush just sold a seat on the Supreme Court to someone who’s a cross between Ann Richards and Barney the White House pet. Half the critics aren’t certain that Ms. Miers shares their views or will vote the way they want on key issues. The other half complain that Ms. Miers has no qualifications to be on the Court, having been neither a judge nor a scholar. All of the critics assume that it is more important that their preferences for appointment to the Court be respected than that the President’s choice be given presumptive weight.
The critics should take a deep breath, count to ten, exhale — and stop whining.
Let’s start with the qualifications issue. Having spent 30 years in academia, including 14 years as a dean, I have strong respect for those who have enough passion about legal concepts to write and speak about them. I also have enormous respect for the work of judges, and have many extraordinarily able friends on appellate courts who would have topped my own list of best nominees for the Supreme Court. Ms. Miers wasn’t my pick, and wouldn’t have been if I had been choosing, because she doesn’t bring to the Court demonstrated excellence in the skill set that I value most for that position. But it’s not my decision to make, and none of my own credentials gives me the right to tell the President who should sit on the Court. They do, however, give me standing to answer some of his critics.
First, it’s wrong to say that Ms. Miers’ only qualification for the court is friendship with the President. Of course, her close association with the President put her in a position to be selected. Just as, for example, Robert Jackson’s close association with Franklin Roosevelt led to his appointment to the Court. Yet Miers isn’t some childhood friend of the President’s who was nominated out of friendship alone. She is a close associate who has worked for and with the President for years, providing legal services, advice, and counsel on policy and personnel matters — someone the President has seen at work day in and day out for years. She’s someone whose views and values the President knows and whose legal skills have benefited him for more than a decade.
-snip-
1. Given the complexion of the Senate which is made up of shrill, road blocking Libs and weak kneed "my career comes first/you need me " Republicans (remember, I said after they failed to convict Clinton in his impeachment trial that we were in for a long period of time where Conservatives would be marginalized by even those in our party and we'd have to try to get what we want surreptiously)it's doubtful that a known quantity Conservative judge with a paper trail would be confirmed. Would I relish a fight to expose the opposition (D and R) for who they are? You bet. But would it be in our long term best interests ? No.
2. My reading of the Constitution indicates she is qualified.
3. This could turn out to be a bad pick but if she's replacing O'Connor how bad can she be to make herself worse? And she could be better or even a whole lot better.
4. Experience in the law is experience in parsing the meaning of the law. Someone without a lot of this type experience just may be more loyal to the Constitution than others who've debated it's intricacies ad nauseum for years.
5. In the end we have to trust Bush. He may have peculiar ideas about immigration ( long term strengthening of the party) and spend too much money (medicare drugs) but he's done pretty good on most issues.
Dear friends, you have a right to say what you want (within the rules of the forum), and I support your passion. But I am also getting tired of the word "whining." What may sound to whining to some, it may be the most important statement your or anyone can make... a very important thing it must be said, in my opinion. Right? I'll say LET'S WHINE ALL WE WANT... in other words let's talk - Withou insulting each other.
I agree that complaining and discussing does not always equate with whining, however, the instantanious complaing with little knowlege of this nominee's background was on the childish side.
I want to know more about her philosophy as well but since Bush has worked with her for over a decade and used her as his own attorney, I would imagine he knows it.
That disqualifies the author right there, when he has to prop himself up with credentials that are meaningless anywhere else than academia. He needs to confine himself to campus grounds where he wont get lost.
The question of qualifications has been answered scores of times on these threads and elsewhere since Monday. For you to pretend otherwise is profoundly dishonest. You should be ashamed.
What about her qualifications or experience deem her "unqualified"?
I'm assuming you don't think Miers is "qualified." I may be wrong.
However, if she has good, conservative common sense and virtues, wouldn't she be preferable to a "well qualified" liberal?
I was very unhappy Monday when I heard Bush nominated Miers. I'm a Janice Rogers Brown fan. But I'm coming around to the present circumstances...weak knees in the Senate, etc. I also think Bush pulled one over on Harry Reid, getting him to support Miers.
If the woman turns out to be an idiot, we'll all know. If, at worst, she votes with Scalia and Thomas consistently, I'll be pleased. Let Scalia write the opinions.
The question of qualifications has been answered scores of times on these threads and elsewhere since Monday. For you to pretend otherwise is profoundly dishonest. You should be ashamed.
_____________
Ashamed?
I think not...not today, anyway. I voted for Jimmy Carter and I am ashamed about that one.
So, you're saying the threads posted here prove she is unqualified? I think she's qualified, but many do not. I'm just asking them why they don't think she is not.
I haven't seen ANY threads that prove she is unqualified.
Agreed. Practical experience trumps judicial theory. I figured this out after hearing my husband (an experienced trial lawyer) discuss a case with another friend who is a law professor with about 10 minutes of experience in the private sector. After listening patiently to how it should work, my husband told the prof how things actually went down in the courtroom. it was enlightening.
There is no reason to doubt Harriet Miers's qualifications or conservatism. If you doubt that, please read Beldar's posts and Hugh Hewitt's posts on these matters. President Bush has made outstanding selections for Judges, probably better than President Reagan, so why should we doubt him now. By not at least waiting for the hearings, the whiners (or turncoats, or whatever term anyone likes) are doing the same thing that was done by Ted Kennedy and the other Democrats who voted against Justice Roberts: saying that they, rather than the man who won the election, should get to decide the judicial philosophy of Supreme Couret nominees. And don't suggest the problem is qualifications. Almost everyone who objects to SMU Law grad Miers would love Baylor Law grad Pricilla Owen as the nominee, but a few years on the Supreme Court of Texas and a piddly opinion on interpretation of a parental-notification statute are not worth more (and are probably worth much less)than Harriet Miers's experience as qualifications for the Supreme Court of the United States.
The issue is not about HER!!!!!... She is a fine person indeed, but far far less than what we expected for the SC... and not just any supreme court mominee, but a GIANT HISTORICAL POSITION... which should have been given to someone of the brilliance and EXPERIENCE of someone like Roberts, or close to it.... And this is just the begining... the other aspect of this, is the fact Bush, did not want to FIGHT!... he compromised to satisfy the RINOs and the RATS, etc, etc, etc.... and I am sure there other angles on this that I am not smart enought to see.
Others may say, ok I am practical, if she talles 'yes' on all the important issues to us... that's all it counts!
Well... NO. This is about more that just 'snicking' someone throught at any price. NO, this was about, in Rush's words, TO MAKE A STATEMENT, to change the culture, etc, etc, etc.
Qualification defined as one who is already proved to be an experienced part of the circle of judicial activism?
Perhaps he didn't have to.
Yes..you and all your friends have determined that she is a complete retard. (snicker ~tee hee ~ snort)
Wasn't Harriet Miers the lead attorney in the litigation to resolve emminent domain claims after Bush's benefactors had put together his deal with the Texas Rangers?
-----
Let us hope she was. One of the jobs of a rational SCOTUS (not in the majority hands of the LIBERAL ACTIVISTS on the court) after she is there, is to turn over the HEINOUS ANTI-FIFTH AMENDMENT decision of the libs!!! This precedent has to be crushed out of existence, for America!
Well said.
Nothing has shown her to be unqualified for the position.
A year after her tenure when started, the same people who fear for the unknown through lack of trust of our POTUS, may be praising her.
At the same time, it has already been proved before that the most qualified by the knowledge of their past, showed a track record to be a unsubstantiated concern to take when it comes to appointing one to a position for life.
You know, and think I can 'understand' your position... but as far as my position, there is something stronger inside me... that makes feel... well, deeply dissapointed. I do pray, that you are all right, expecting her to be an Scalia or close to it... if that happens, that will mitigate my anxiety a lot... but if it goes the other way... oh boy! - Well, Happy Friday :)
You know, and think I can 'understand' your position... but as far as my position, there is something stronger inside me... that makes feel... well, deeply dissapointed. I do pray, that you are all right, expecting her to be an Scalia or close to it... if that happens, that will mitigate my anxiety a lot... but if it goes the other way... oh boy! - Well, Happy Friday :)
No dark sarcasm in the classroom.
Sorry, I couldn't help myself.
If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.