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.
It says "shall not be infringed." That is absolute. And Bork walks away from that absolutism.
Right on Dirt!
No it's not help
Especially when their only argument against her is "we don't know anything about her"
Question
How is one to learn if they are not willing to hear and listen?
You're right....I think I'll go back and take names. :)
"LOL. You aren't smart enough to figure out that it is your problem?"
No, it's not. Your stupidity is your problem. If you insist on being stupid, there will be consequences. Those consequences are your problem, and no one else's. No one else can be held to account for your stupidity; no one else has any responsibility to correct your stupidity.
Check this out!
Thomas's high tanding today shouls be a lesson. His qualifications at the time he was inaugurated were, at least arguably, less than Miers. But people do "grow". The heck he had had to endure has probably made him a better judge than he would have been.
You should not be worried. She is right. Lack of mental health care leaves a great many people on the streets who are potentially dangerous to themselves and others. Lack of prenatal health care leads to babies born who will sometimes have serious problems and not be able to achieve in this world, thus needing to go on public assistance.
Low self esteem in one thing that drives young people to join gangs and to commit crimes.
Until we address the social ills that incubate the causes of criminal behavior, we will do nothing but fill up the court system and the prisons.
Oh, and yes, I am a conservative.
reasonable criticism ???
Yes that is fine .. but calling her gay and ugly is not reasonable criticism
I'm not saying you said that ... it's just a general statement that has been made
Sadly for me, I signed up on Dec 16, 2001. But I could imagine the infighting going on here at the time Cheney was tapped to be Bush's VP nominee. I'll bet the charge of "cronyism" probably entered into the debate a number of times.
I do recall the media going to bat and bringing up the "oil buddies connection" charge.
Too old.
Too sick.
Too close to Nixon/Ford/Bush 41.
Too close to Halliburton.
And a lot worse.
Oh, goodness how true.
Still remember the intense caterwauling from critics on the Right about the budget deficit, growth of government entitlements, the growing US trade deficit (and Reagan's claim that it was a sign of American strength not weakness), failure to kill off Dept. of Education, his "protectionist" trade policies (Canadian lumber tariffs and Japanese electronic tariffs), his pro-free trade policies (his vision of NAFTA), and Reagan's "capitulation" to Gorbie on nuke reduction--going soft on Commies because he was in trouble over Iran-Contra ... As Zell Miller says, I could go on and on and on.
The operative phrase of the second amendment simply acknowledges the inherent right of the people keep and bear arms. The first phrase is simply a justiciation for the operative phrase. Why Bork hems and haws about that is beyond me but I know he does, I've heard him speak on the topic, as reluctant as he was to do so.
Right. "Reasoned criticism" does not involve such vacuous and outrageous charges as "she's gay", "she's physically unattractive" or such idiotic statements like "I have no clue about her,.... therefore I conclude that she's eminently unqualified for the position", in light of all the known facts.
Those who know her or have worked for her, have made some pretty resounding pronouncements and high endorsements of her accomplishments. I am particularly impressed with the fact that she's headed a law firm, and received her law degree and become a lawyer in an time and age in this country when it was hard for women to receive such degrees [read: All Boys Club]. To ignore THAT, ranks as "sexist".
My family underwent a Donner type experience when GWB picked Cheney...it was hilarious. About 7 of us- all registered Republicans mind you- got into un uproar of major dimensions. Cats n dogs I tell ya...
This week we have agreed not to discuss it til we listen to the hearings- we all live in different parts of the country..got on the phone and when the fur began flying we made a pact!
I agree. Brit Hume had an attorney on tonight who has known Miers since they were law clerks many years ago. He said that she is extremely intelligent, no nonsense, well educated in a fine law school; and, he listed many of her accomplishments. He also said that everything she has done, she has done on her own. This fellow is a Democrat, too. She must be good for a Democrat to side for her. However, he did not say that were he in Congress, he would vote for her. He said he would want to hear her answers to the questions. He said any Democrat seeking to embarrass her had better be prepared, because she surely would be.
That would be former Texas Democrat Congressman Martin Frost. They clerked alongside one another in Texas, he with a Liberal judge, and she with a Conservative judge.
LOL! No surprise there!
Totally forgot about that. Another doozy was the period following Bush's first debate with Kerry, when his candidacy was summarily declared finished by many here. The passage of campaign finance reform was also a helluva lot of Freeper fun.
Lots of other big and small skirmishes, but, frankly, like fights with my better half, I end up eventually forgetting what in the heck all the fighting and shouting was about. We should start putting together a list of these intense internecine battles on FR for the sake of perspective and history.
While I personally agree with those among the founders who expressed that intent, I doubt that they intended for the Federal government to have the power to prevent State and local government from imposing restrictions, for example on cannon. Certainly "well regulated" implies the power to maintain order and discipline. There is no restriction in the language, for example, as to whether they could be State issued weapons (which, for reasons of compatible ammunition might have been a good idea). Note that in many Western towns in the 1880s it was illegal to carry even openly. I doubt anybody argued it too much (could be fatal).
In a modern context, as I hope you know, I SUPPORT private firearms ownership with minimal restriction (such as violent felons on parole or private ownership of frag weapons). The point I've been trying to make is that I have doubts that the Second Amendment was ever all we would like it to be.
you seem to equate liberals with libertarians... when they are stellar opposites... one is for big gov't the other is not... liberals and republicans seem to be closer in ideology than libertarians these days.
teeman
libertarian and proud, conservative at heart
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.