Posted on 10/04/2005 3:35:22 PM PDT by maximusaurelius
3) unless Miers demonstrates in her hearing that she has "hitherto undisclosed interests and talents pertinent to the court's role," the Senate has a duty to reject the nomination to prevent this or any other president "from reducing the Supreme Court to a private plaything useful for fulfilling whims on behalf of friends"; 4) the Miers nomination vindicates the principle of tokenism under the rubric of diversity; writes Will, "for this we need a conservative president?"
(Excerpt) Read more at citizenjournal.com ...
Thank you. All I can say is OUCH!!
Will really nailed this one IMO.
My apologies - missed it when it was up earlier.
You are indeed helpful a helpful informant.
Ha!
Thought I was!
Was I supposed to quote myself?
Or do I need to source it?
If she's so well-known then explain the magazine's total unawareness of her the other 30 years. Rather than show her fame, this magazine business indicates pretty clearly that she has only a marginal claim to being a top lawyer.
Reread what I wrote. The difference is George Bush (not his advisers) selects his staff and nominees from people he knows. George Bush Sr. selected Souter based on a recommendation. George Bush's cabinet is ample evidence that he knows how to pick people. Souter is evidence that picking someone you don't know can bite you in the ass.
Usually when people say "Who cares", there's an implied answer that suggests they're speaking for more than just themselves.
Give me a break.
Her only even remotely relevant experience is that of WH counsel--a job he gave her.
If you honestly believe she'd have even been on his radar screen had he not know her, then you're crazy.
No need to apologize, just wanted to warn you that he yanked it util a source publication was cited and exerpted.
It is going around in e-mail. That is what was posted.
Yeah, he knows how to pick people, including people named Norm Mineta, Paul O'Neill, and Christine Todd Whitman.
You are kidding right? Maybe you will understand this analogy. Suppose People Magazine selects Jennifer Aniston as one of the top 10 most beautiful women in 1997. Then, in 1998 and 1999 it doesn't. But suddenly, in 2000 she is back on the list. Does that mean she suddenly got ugly in 1998 and 1999 and then pretty again in 2000, or did the magazine just consider other people.
This is my last post on the topic.
OK, I'll say it and it Will be ugly, George of bowtime fame is an elitist asshole.
Oh, who was that guy at Treasury who was so hot?
Look. You can't stand it that numerous conservatives are saying that this selection stinks. You are labeling them as elitists, trolls, kooks or traitors. It seems like we've got a fractured conservative base. Fractured on account of an unpopular choice. You're gonna need these elitists, trolls and traitors one day very soon. You better be careful, Johnnie.
And I'm quite sure that George Bush trusts George Bush to make the nomination that George Bush wants. I asked you what should make the rest of us trust him, and you responded by pointing out all the other people he's associated himself with. That only begs the question of what makes them people we should trust.
To put the question more directly, how does his selection of them reflect on his ability and willingness to select a justice who really will have all the qualities that Souter was advertised as having?
You're damn right it is, because you're floundering. Once you start comparing a law journal to People Magazine you're clearly running out of ways to go, though if that's what you believe it does give an excellent reason to disregard any information to be gleaned from this journal's listings.
"I pointed out she has twice been named to the top 100 most powerful attorneys in the nation"
You know Rokke, you keep posting this statement. Could you give us a source for it so we know it's accurate?
When Bush introduced her, he said: "She has been recognized by the American Law Journal as one of the most powerful lawyers in America."
I can't source that either. In any case, her power--if any--comes from her association with the President I would imagine. But maybe you've got the proof that has eluded me.
Bush said that she is the MOST qualified person for the job. Do you honestly believe that?
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.