Fawn, if you think that this was/is bad, I can say with absolute authority that it has been WORSE on other subjects. Much, much worse.
If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!
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.
I don't know you, and mean no offense. Yet I must speak frankly.
Your attitude reminds me of that of Christopher Columbus' mutinous crewmen whose patience wore out before land was cited.
Was Columbus perfect? Far from it. Was he correct in his geographical calculations? No. He was wrong.
But he was a man of destiny. Those who trusted him and followed him shared in his glory. Those who heckled him are remembered today only for their weakness and faithlessness.
Without trust, there can be no leadership. Without leadership, nothing gets done.
In voting for George W. Bush, we delegated to him a number of powers, among them the power to act as our representative in the appointment of Supreme Court justices.
I will not micromanage President Bush or second-guess him in his execution of that duty.
Selecting Supreme Court justices is the president’s job, not mine. I trust him to do his job. He has my full confidence. He has earned it.
So, not only did you not respond to my premise of the President appointing strong, conservative judges, who will NOT legislate from the bench, you now claim to speak for ALL conservatives.
Are you always this stubborn and delusional when you are proven wrong??
Can you give me ONE example of President Bush nominating an activist judge??
I didn't hink so...........
I wouldn't qualify supporting Bush as dissent on Free Republic! Also, I wasn't merely alluding to this nomination. There are other issues (ie the border/immigration, spending, etc) that I think FReepers have asked some reasonable questions about and gotten hammered by fellow FReepers. I'm a big fan of Bush. I organized rallies during the 2004 elections for the President. That doesn't mean that I shouldn't question his actions or inactions right? As far as this nomination, I think it's reasonable, with so many other seemingly more qualified, PROVEN, conservative jurists, for Bush's pick to be questioned...
Venom, vitriol and vituperation. Viscera set for spasming for any reason or for no reason...
Wow. This putz needed a good Borking.
Sure, if you're one who believes that the 2nd Amendment states that there's no individual right to own firearms.
I don't.
How about you?
The greatest president of the 2nd half of the 20th Century, Ronald Reagan, didn't do anything constructive about the borders or illegal immigration, either. In fact, he made matters worse by signing the Immigration Reform Act of 1986, the first amnesty for illegals in our history. He put a moderate like O'Connor on the Supreme Court due to pressure to name the first woman justice. He made other mistakes, but on balance was a truly great president.
However, it's just as well the internet wasn't around in during his terms in office, because the screeching and caterwauling from the right over some of his policies would have been deafening.
The term "well-regulated" in this context refers to smooth and effective functioning. A well-regulated chronometer is one that keeps uniform time. The Second Amendment says that an effectively-functioning militia is necessary. It states that the people have a right to keep and bear arms, presumably in furtherence of that goal.
Compare the construction of the Second Amendment with that of Congress' copyright power. In the latter case, Congress' ability to grant exclusive ownership of works is only authorized to the extent that it promotes progress in science and the useful arts. In the former case, the right to keep and bear arms is partially for--but not restricted to--the purpose of maintaining a well-functioning citizen army.
Bork is nothing but a Statist. Any law that the Congress passes is good enough for him, simply on the basis that such a law must represent the "will of the majority." Bork apparently gives not a damn about the rights of the minorities of this country (NOT racial minorities, but those in the minority on issues of opinion or ideology), and is terribly UNconcerned about the possibility of a tyranny of the majority. I wasn't at the time, but for several years I have celebrated the fact that he was not confirmed - the Republic is better for it.
I don't know what kind of justice Miers will make, but I'm glad that she's no Bork. I am encouraged by her statement regarding guns, which I had seen nowhere else. Maybe she will end up as a female Thomas or (2nd choice) Scalia (who's got a little bit of the Statist in him).
Agree. ....certainly his (high) intelligence isn't in dispute. But I disagree with him on a fundamental position.
I now know three things about Harriet:
1. She has at least READ the Second Amendment and from an article written long ago had a nominal idea of what it means.
2. She goes to Church.
3. She's known the President for 20+ years.
Still not 100% sanguine about her, but I know one more thing about her than I did an hour ago.
"...The greatest president of the 2nd half of the 20th Century, Ronald Reagan..."
Agreed
"...Ronald Reagan, didn't do anything constructive about the borders or illegal immigration, either. In fact, he made matters worse by signing the Immigration Reform Act of 1986, the first amnesty for illegals in our history..."
At that point, Al Qaeda was not, to the best of our knowledge, trying to smuggle sleepers and weapons across our borders as they assuredly are now.
"He put a moderate like O'Connor on the Supreme Court due to pressure to name the first woman justice...."
O'Connor was an Ivy League law grad and had bench experience. Also, in the 25 years since her nomination, the pool of women, minorities or whomever else you might want to see represented on the Supreme Court (other than the white males) has grown significantly. Certainly, there are enough qualified individuals that you aren't FORCED to pick somebody with virtually no record and who's best justification is 'I know her'.
Fawn, if you think that this was/is bad, I can say with absolute authority that it has been WORSE on other subjects. Much, much worse.
If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!
> Could it be he's over-educated himself? Thinks too damn much? Is out of touch with the common man?
Reminds me my grandfather used to warn against the dangers of too much formal education. He called it "uberstudiert," which in German means "over learned". I guess I survived though... even with myself as a PhD, he still requested that I give the eulogy at his funeral... an honor that I have cherished more with each passing day.
Actually, that is exactly what they had in mind. The colonial provoked the the Revolutionary War by parading the town square with cannons. The equivalent today would be for the Ohio Unorganized militia to circle the State House at Broad and High with Bradley tanks. I think that should be legal, as long as they pay for wear-and-tear on the roads. Frankly, most of the roads near downtown (ca. 1995) would have been improved by having Bradley tanks driven on them.
Orange barrels forever!
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.