Sleep well Harriet

Before I start. I am a conservative and have been once since I was a little kid in 1960. I haven’t changed. So, here goes.

Poor Harriet! Doesn’t it just make you angry? It sure does me. The idiot conservative elite made a stand just to prove they could. These bunch of hypocrites who go on and on about appointees not getting the right to be voted up or down are now so proud of themselves for doing the same thing. What a group they are: Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, Charles Krauthammer, Bill Crystal and the rest of the conservative elite “talkers”. Talkers they are because that is all they are, is talk. They only stand for principle until that principle becomes a problem for them.

But, here is the real problem. These ideologues believe that you can only properly serve on the Supreme Court if you are, a lawyer, a judge or a constitutional scholar. Well I have news for them. You don’t. Why? Because the Constitution is a document written in English. It wasn’t translated from ancient Greek or Hebrew. It’s just plain old English. Any literate person can read the document and know there is no Right to Privacy, no Separation of Church and State and no right to take land through eminent domain for private use, among others. How do I know? The Constitution doesn’t contain these rights. Try it yourself. Find an electronic copy of the Constitution and search for the word privacy. It isn’t there. You don’t have to be a Constitutional Scholar to read it. But you do have to be Lawyer/Judge/Scholar to misread it or make up some of their wacky rulings. But then again our Chief Justice Roberts thinks the Right to Privacy is in there. And the rightwing nuts think he’s a genius. His claim to fame is arguing the Constitution in front of the members of the asylum of which he is now part.

There is something else you should know. The Constitution isn’t law. It is a series of rules. These rules are there to control Congress from usurping your rights as stated in the Constitution and the Rights of the States. If these were indeed laws there would be penalties involved in violating the Constitution. Too bad, cause that would have put a lot of congressmen in jail. This negates the need for lawyers. The justices have little to do. They listen to a short argument that is supposed to explain why somethings are or aren’t constitutional and then they read the referenced part of the constitution and make a ruling based upon what the constitution says and not what it doesn’t say. Then six months later we get another unbelievable ruling. This should be all very simple, very open and shut and not at all complex. They don’t even have to deal with precedents. What happened before doesn’t matter because the idiots who ruled before made their own stuff up.

Unfortunately, for Americans, the Justices have a tendency to make stuff up. Just like the right to abortion. It’s based upon the right to privacy, a right that doesn’t exist. Wow, talking about making things up.

The Constitution is a great document. It is so great that it permits you to change it. If the liberals and conservatives in Congress want a right such as the Right to Privacy, then Congress should pass an amendment and send it to the states for ratification and then shut up. Wow, what an idea. (Not just the amendment but also the shutting up part).

I’ve got a good idea. Let’s pass an amendment making it impossible for a lawyer/judge/scholar to become a Supreme Court Justice. Now that is democracy in action.

Sleep well tonight Harriet and remember don't turn your back on the conservative elite.

Oh face a fact, the woman was no conservative, no great mind, and from her gibberish laden writings she also lacked common sense. She was a big frog in a small pond and a political hack.

Meirs should have turned this offer down flat and we should never have heard word one about it. I was once offered a job title for which I am not qualified, I turned it down flat. OK, so it wasn't a lifetime appointment, but it was a sop, and therefore to be always and utterly rejected. If for no other reason than to spare oneself embarrasment.

This country will not suffer without her on the Supreme Court. Let Bush fulfill his promise to those who supported him.

We're not the left, we demand excellence.

Early in our nation's history, the Supreme Court appointed itself as the guardian and interpreter of whatever the constitution says, without any authorization to do so from the constitution. That might not be so bad, except that we now have a nomination process which allows the nominees to reveal nothing about what they believe, and if they are confirmed, there's no recall procedure if we the people can't stand what they do on the bench. I never will endorse any nominee to the Supreme Court, because I never really know what I'm endorsing.

I am displeased by some of the comments I have heard attributed to Mrs. Miers, particularly comparing anti-abortion protesters to terrorists. But isn't digging something up someone may have said in 1993 or 1989 sort of comparable to digging up a 1970s drunk driving conviction on the eve of the 2000 election? What I would have liked here would have been hearings where she could speak for herself. It seems really odd to me that at the end of this firestorm, I still haven't even heard this woman's voice.

I was particularly displeased by Trent Lott's comment to the effect that no one will remember who Harriet Miers is in a month--a really snotty thing to say about someone who will continue in her duties as the president's White House counsel.

I've read the constitution several times. It's not long, and it's not particularly complex. But we've now lawyered it up to the point that even conservatives claim that only a small number of lawyers from Ivy League schools actually understand it. Isn't that what the pharisees did to the Old Testament? I would like to have a constitution and a tax code I could comprehend.

One final point is in order. Like most conservatives, I desperately want Roe v. Wade overturned, but I am convinced it will never be done by stealth nominees, who will be as cowardly on the bench as they are during their confirmation hearings. Legislatures will never reacquire the right to limit abortion on demand at all, unless courageous men and women are willing to tell the Barbara Boxers to their faces that the murder of the unborn must be stopped. So I hope conservatives will get the sort of nominee they want, but I doubt that it will happen.

I'm quite fond of President Bush as a man. But as a president, he has a fatal flaw. He is willing to go after terrorists anywhere, but he always avoids conflicts with Americans. He isn't even willing to say no to people who want to spend $250 billion to rebuild a city below sea level. He wants to govern us all with a hug and a handshake, which makes him my favorite president. But it also makes me angry, because some people just aren't worth hugging. I appreciate his politeness, but I want a president who, once in a while, is able to kick someone's rear end without feeling bad about it.

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.