Posted on 10/04/2005 3:20:22 PM PDT by Richard Poe
HARRIET MIERS OUTSHINES BORK
Unlike the Patron Saint of Originalism, Miers Will Defend Our Freedom
Judge Robert H. Bork has come to represent in many conservative minds the gold standard of legal sagacity against which provincial upstarts such as Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers must be weighed. In truth, however, Bork provides a poor example of conservative jurisprudence. Even as simple a phrase as, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" has long confounded Judge Bork. Harriet Miers suffers no such confusion.
Following a July 1, 1992 incident in which a crazed gunman slew two lawyers and two judges in a Texas courtroom, Miers wrote in the Texas Lawyer, "How does a free society prevent a man from entering a courtroom and opening fire?" (hat tip, David Kopel)
The very liberties we hold dear, such as, "access to public places, the right to bear arms and freedom from constant surveillance" make such crimes possible, noted Miers. Yet, she concluded, "We are not willing to sacrifice these rights because of the acts of maniacs."
By contrast, Robert Bork dismisses the Second Amendment as a useless relic of bygone days. In his 1996 book Slouching Towards Gomorrah he writes that, "The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that there is no individual right to own a firearm" — a statement which is demonstrably untrue. Bork also writes:
"The Second Amendment was designed to allow states to defend themselves against a possibly tyrannical national government. Now that the federal government has stealth bombers and nuclear weapons, it is hard to imagine what people would need to keep in the garage to serve that purpose.''
Perhaps if Judge Bork had found himself besieged by gangs in post-Katrina New Orleans, he might have gained a healthy appreciation for the utility of SKS rifles and AR-15s in modern life. How much more would he have appreciated such hardware, had he found himself surveying the smoking ruins of an American city flattened by nuclear terror attack, devoid of police and swarming with brigands.
But Judge Bork is one of those men who cannot "imagine" what he has not personally experienced. And so the "brilliant" jurist discarded James Madison's handiwork as casually as he would a soiled Kleenex.
If this is brilliance, how exactly should we define stupidity?
In today's American Thinker, Thomas Lifson exposes the snobbery which underlies so many conservative denunciations of Harriet Miers. He writes:
"Thus we hear conservatives sniffing that a Southern Methodist University legal education is just too non-Ivy League, adopting a characteristic trope of blue state elitists. We hear conservatives bemoaning a lack of judicial experience, and not a single law review article in the last decade as evidence of a second rate mind."
The outrage certain conservative pundits have displayed in the face of President Bush's decision to elevate Harriet Miers over their Ivy League classmates may be understandable. But it is not helpful. Nor is it admirable.
Heck, to me it seems the other way around, and increasingly so. If I support President Bush and choose to give him the benefit of the doubt on this nomination (and other issues), I'm a "koolaid drinker" and a "bushbot," or worse.
Can you not follow a conversation on this forum?
There have been at least a dozen if not more threads about Miers, and I have been reading several on and off all day. Your comment was the first one I've seen that mentioned her health.
"There have been at least a dozen if not more threads about Miers, and I have been reading several on and off all day. Your comment was the first one I've seen that mentioned her health."
She wasn't talking about Miers. If you would have bothered to follow the conversation back, you would find out that she was talking about how Dick Cheney was received here on Free Republic in 2000.
I should have gone to bed before attempting to read the thread.
Brain wasn't working, obviously.
I understand.
My problem isn't with Rush Limbaugh.
I just wish FReepers would take a wait and see attitude also. I think many of them will be deliriously happy after the Senate confirmation hearings begin.
I agree.
The knee jerk reactionaries can be a bit smothering, and intolerant can't they??
Most of the time, they just end up with egg on their faces.......and they deserve it!!
The only "dim-witted" people are those who are pre-judging the nomination of Harriet Miers to be a poor choice BEFORE the Senate confirmation hearings even start!!
Give the lady a chance, PLEASE!!!
I doubt if anyone wants to squash dissent or criticism.
What makes me upset is the unfounded criticism of a nominee even BEFORE the Senate confirmation hearings begin.
But, then again, a lot of FReepers actually like being made to look foolish with their over reactions.........
I don't understand the lust for blood either. Especially when you can win the fight without ANY blood letting.
Let the democRATS look like the obstructionists they are, and let the American people see them as the dividers, not the uniters.
Just in time for the mid term elections.....now that is absolutely delicious!!
I'm glad I missed all the wailing and gnashing of teeth over the Cheney as V.P. pick.
But, it proves my point, doesn't it?? You would think that the over-reactors would learn from their mistakes. But, they don't. They just love diving into an empty pool!!
I totally agree.
I also believe a lot of cynicism and pessimism will be erased during the Senate confirmation hearings.
Read my lips: The choice of Harriet Miers will turn out to be one of the most brilliant political manuevers ever made.
The democRATS are tied up in knots, unsure of how to deal with it, and they are totally clueless on how to proceed.
I love it!!
Hey, I'm coming around, there's hope ...
I don't think that anyone has considered the fact that Bush may have thought that this was not the time for a knock down, drag out battle with the left, when he has so much else going on, that demand his full attention. Maybe that is what Rush meant when he said that Bush must have felt that he couldn't depend on the Repulcan legislators to fight the battle for his nominee if there was much of a paper trail.
One other thing.
President Bush has NOT irreparably damaged his base. YOU are doing that, not the President!!
Bump.
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.