Overreaction over Miers (Vanity for all those who are breaking down)

Earlier this morning, I woke up to the news that President George W. Bush had revealed his second Supreme Court nomination. This was coming off the heels of the appointment of Judge John Roberts to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

I, along with other people, were mostly in the dark about this woman. I, for one, had never heard of her. So, like usual, I came to Free Republic. I have come to see this place as an excellent filter for the news today; in other words, it sifts through the crap, and it does it well.

So I was a bit surprised and shocked when I saw initial reactions from people. I saw posts detailing everything from one end of the 'OH MY GOD DID HE JUST DO THAT?!' spectrum. From 'oh man, why didn't he pick Luttig or Janice Brown?' to 'I HATE YOU BUSH!' I'm not kidding. I was utterly astonished that George Bush's second nominee - Harriet Miers - resulted in such complete, incomprehensible vitriol from the Freepers. For a bit, I was wondering if I had accidentally stumbled into the Democratic Underground by mistake. However, I saw the much more organized layout, and remembered I was in Free Republic.

One of the first things I heard was that Miers was pro-choice. I immediately thought: Whoa; this doesn't sound like a nominee of Bush. Granted, Bush isn't a fiscal conservative, and he needs work on some things...but from a moral standpoint, it makes NO sense for a Christian man to appoint a pro-choice nominee.

I decided to wait a little while longer. It turned out that she's a Christian woman who IS pro-life. It's just that she's never been married, which is why feminist activists were so initially cheery of her (as evidenced this morning). After all, she's a working woman, not bound by the chains of a man at home! Or the chains of a child! Or whatever the feminist rhetoric is these days. Can't bother paying attention long enough. But in any case, the whole 'pro-choice' thing was debunked.

It also came out that Miers had also donated money (1,000 dollars) in 1987 to Senator Lloyd Benson, a Democrat. In the following year, 1988, she donated 1,000 dollars to Al 'I invented the Internet' Gore, who was running on the Democratic ticket for President in that year. Now, I can understand this; it would be quite apparent that anyone who donated money to Gore would raise immediate warning flags.

However, as it later dawned, this whole donation was taken out of context (sort of like Bennet's 'abort black babies' comment was SEVERELY taken out of context to the point where it was labelled 'hate speech' by the MSM). Remember; Al Gore was once considered an okay guy. He was once pro-life (or claimed to be, at any rate). Democrats were once okay guys (before the Leftists overtook them). And let's not forget that all of Miers' subsequent donations were to Republicans. So this argument was also debunked.

THEN there was the AP story with the headline 'Miers Backed Gay Rights'. Now, homosexuality is a big deal. A pro-homosexual person would just be unacceptable. HOWEVER, it turned out that our fears were unfounded. From the article:

"Miers answered "Yes" to the survey question, "Do you believe that gay men and lesbians should have the same civil rights as non-gay men and women?"

It's very easy to misinterpret this question. Considering Miers stance on the Texas anti-sodomy laws (read: she supported them, and she still does), it's clear she isn't a pro-homosexual advocate (remember Roberts? The exact same thing happened, except it was a court case instead of an interview). She merely believes that homosexuals are entitled to the same civil rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution. Nothing wrong with that. However, it's very easy for this be read as 'OMG SHE GONNA GO FOR GAY MARRIAGE OMGOMGZ SHE BAD BUSH SUCKS!'

Here's some quotes from near the beginning of the day, when people were basically chanting 'DOOM DOOM DOOM'.

I am so pissed off and disappointed. My support of the GOP has just waned a lot. What's the use in voting for them? GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

BUSH, AGAIN, HAS CHOSEN A FRIEND OH HIS RICH FAMILY. SHE WILL BE VERY SIMILAR TO GONZALES.

Cronyism on freaking parade, people. Bush had a chance to go down in history with J. Michael Luttig or Karen Williams and he picked a female version of Abe Fortas.

One of the legal analysts on CNN stated Harriet Meirs is pro-choice. I AM SO DISSAPOINTED AND PISSED OFF!!!!!! (Catch the CNN bit? That's a big tipoff as to the validity of the statement.)

All those Christian conservatives that voted for me can just jump off that cliff as far as I'm concerned.

That tree on the far left looks like Al Gore. Hey, didn't you send him money once?

But as the day went on, reports came out showing that things were NOT as bad as people hoped. Numerous interviews came out showcasing people who knows Miers personally. She is an avid Christian woman who has been involved in the judicial practice for the better part of 30 years.

The American Center of Law and Justic (ACLJ) - sort of like an anti-ACLU - has given her the thumbs-up, describing her as 'an excellent choice who represents the conservative mainstream of judicial philosophy of interpreting the Constitution, not re-writing it.' According to Texas Supreme Court Justic Nathan Hecht (a conservative pro-lifer, FYI), her biblical views, social views, and legal views are all in line with the original intent of the original writers.

Of course, you all have a right to be concerned when people like Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid give her their approval. But here's the thing; think about this. What if they merely said this in order to split apart Bush's conservative base? If that was their intent, it worked like a charm. And let's not forget that Roberts charmed a few Democrats before working his magic in the hearings.

Think what you will about President Bush. Sure, some of his policies are questionable (rebuilding New Orleans under sea level?). Some of his policies are outright treasonous (CLOSE THE BORDERS!). But Bush is a good, Christian man at heart who has gone through a lot during his Administration...and with three years left, to boot.

Let's not forget the Democratic mindset; they WILL NOT ACCEPT ANYONE WHO IS OUTRIGHT CONSERVATIVE A LA LUTTIG OR BROWN. They would've raised such a horrendous FUSS. However...Roberts and Miers completely bewildered people on both sides of the aisle. The two nominees don't have a very outspoken profile in terms of their philosophy and dealings. As such, both sides are confused.

However as time goes, it's becoming more and more like the Roberts' case. In my humble opinion, Bush has shown himself to be a downright genius with these nominees. Instead of picking outright conservatives that would inflame the Left, he picked 'conservatives-in-disguise'.

After all, Ginsburg (former ACLU watchdog and overall purveyor of Leftist filth) is getting on in years. After this, she may decide to throw in the towel, thinking that Bush isn't nominating the hard-ball Conservatives like she (and most everyone else) thought (had it been otherwise, she would've hung on, refusing to let her seat be taken by an 'evil conservative caveman'). She retires. BAM: bring out Janice Rogers Brown.

We still have to wait and see. No one knows how Roberts or Miers will serve on the Supreme Court of the United States. However, committing suicide and destroying ourselves from within (a la the Democratic Party) does no good whatsoever.

She has attended and served at a conservative evangelical church for more that 10 years. She tithes from her income. She is supported by a pro-life Christian justice who says that she holds the standard evangelical view on abortion. She fought to have the pro-abortion plank removed from the American Bar Association. She was the president of the Texas Bar and voted one of the top 50 most influential lawyers.

Wait. Wrong one (although it does help one feel better about Miers, no?). THIS is the one I wanted: Am I on the DU board?

Don't tear yourselves apart fellow Freepers. Doing so only hurts Conservatism in the long one. Patience is rewarded, after all.

Well keyboard warrior. Thanks for your input. I will give it the merit that it deserves. None.
If getting things done means endless compromise and a lack of willingness to push your position, then you are a "grownup" without character.
"STFU"? You have no manners and no class. I KNOW you don't have the courage to say that in person. Keyboard warriors never do.

"Well keyboard warrior."

That term more correctly goes to the person advocating a fight, but who will not participate in that fight to any meaningful degree--namely, you are the "keyboard warrior" here.

"Thanks for your input. I will give it the merit that it deserves. None."

I'm crushed.

"If getting things done means endless compromise and a lack of willingness to push your position, then you are a "grownup" without character."

Name the EXACT compromise here. There isn't one.

""STFU"? You have no manners and no class."

Neither does the passive-aggressive coward (specifically, you) who insists on saying "let's you and him get into a fight."

"I KNOW you don't have the courage to say that in person."

Did little voices in your head tell you that? Well, they're wrong on this one.

"Keyboard warriors never do."

You're right. Keyboard warriors like you who want fights never have the stomach to partake of what they advocate. They usually run for cover right after suggesting the fight.

Miers' views on RKBA are dead-on originalist--namely, it is an individual right, and a "precious liberty" (her words). And that, IMNHO, is the whole enchilada in one package, look no further, and my, weren't the Democrats stupid to praise her without knowing a damn thing about her background?

You, conversely, want a big, spectacular fight. You don't want a conservative judge on the bench, you want to be entertained.

Actually the more I thought about it I was wrong to call you a keyboard warrior. You simply are a name calling punk. Yes, a punk fits you better. My original post indicates a fight, though not for reasons of 'entertainment'. If you bother to reread my original post-or have someone read it to you and explain it- you might understand. What you responded with was condescending smears and name calling. This last post from you continues the same intellectual poverty from your first post to me. Coward? you aren't fit to lick my boots.
But, one last time I will dignify a scumbag like yourself with bothering to smack you down like the punk you are.
The very sentiments I expressed were echoed by:
Rush Limbaugh today
Ann Coulter
Michelle Malkin
Rich Lowery
David Frum
Mark Levin
Randy Barnett
Hugh Hewitt
Bill Kristol
.......etc.
But they all must pale to your intellectual arguments.
So far you have told me to STFU, and now, you call me a coward.
Don't bother to respond. I have just shown everyone on this thread what a complete moron you are. I posted on a thread about how picking someone with no judicial track record will hurt with the chances of the GOP in 2006 as compromise does not inspire devotion. The above thinkers have echoed the same line of reasoning and you have responded with inane, immature name calling.
I repeat. You are a punk. More than likely also a DU troll.

"Coward? you aren't fit to lick my boots."

Yes, you're a coward. You refuse to put yourself at risk, and demand that others do so for you. That is a working definition of cowardice, coward.

"The very sentiments I expressed were echoed by:"

...a bunch of chattering-class conservatives who were shown to be completely ignorant of what was going on in the Bush White House. Of course they're angry.

BTW, who would you prefer to have on the court, a pro-RKBA Harriet Miers or an anti-RKBA Robert Bork?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1496621/posts

Punk. Put myself at risk? What do you know of me? Nothing. But you name call and smear. Demand what of others? What do I demand that I won't do myself? You know nothing yet you open your mouth. How pathetic you are. So you dismiss all the main known conservatives in the media based on you own inflated view of yourself. You are not able to debate ideas.
Yes, I was right. You are a punk.

"Put myself at risk? What do you know of me?"

That you're not willing to do that.

"Demand what of others? What do I demand that I won't do myself?"

You demand that others charge into a fight for your personal amusement; you refuse to actually run for office, get elected, and then charge into those fights yourself. That's too much like real work for your taste, I guess.

How do you know I don't hold office or have in the past?
You don't. You just name call. What do you know I do for a living? You don't. You just name call.
Why do you think that the fight is for amusement? I already debunked that. The original post by me indicated nothing of the sort.
In the end you just spout off knowing nothing. You add nothing. You are, and remain, a punk.

"How do you know I don't hold office or have in the past?"

Because you show an abject ignorance of how the system works; a officeholder (present or former) would know more than you.

"Why do you think that the fight is for amusement?"

Because supreme excellence is to win without fighting.

IrishCatholic, I understand where you're coming from. I would've preferred Luttig or JRB...however, the point of this thread was to show that Miers is NOT the death knell a lot of people have made it out to be.

And to you and BeHoldAPaleHorse, please quit the bickering.

You are wrong. I have held office. Proving once again you really don't have a clue about what you are talking about. Now that is quite amazing for someone that professes to know more than Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and most other well known conservatives.
You have proven deficient in manners, character, ideas, reasoning, and overflowing with self congratulations on your own opinions. Having spanked you continuously on this thread I grow tired of pointing out your failings. Don't bother posting to me again, I will be forced to continue showing you how pathetic you are.

"You are wrong. I have held office."

Name the office and the dates, because I, for some strange reason, suddenly do not believe you. Yes, I will say it: I think you are lying. It is far too convenient a statement.

"Now that is quite amazing for someone that professes to know more than Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and most other well known conservatives."

Argument from authority is a logical fallacy.

You really are stuck on stupid.
If I tell you what city and what dates I held office then how hard would it be to find out other information that I do not wish to put out on the Internet. Don't you think that is why we have screen names? Why don't you put your name and address on your home page? It's blank isn't it?

Now what you believe or not is of complete disinterest to me as I already believe you to be a worthless punk. I think I have made that pretty clear, haven't I?

Now as to the asinine statement on argument from authority, do you get your medical advice from a plumber? How about having your car repaired by a hairdresser? The people I cited study politics and the commentary. For them it is their job. The only thing you can come up with is gotchas, name calling and smears. Once again I am forced to have you display your shortcomings to all. Aren't you tired yet of being stuck on stupid?

"If I tell you what city and what dates I held office then how hard would it be to find out other information that I do not wish to put out on the Internet."

Very well, I hereby assess your claim to have held public office as bulls***.

"Why don't you put your name and address on your home page?"

I'm not the one fraudulently claiming to be an officeholder.

"Now what you believe or not is of complete disinterest to me as I already believe you to be a worthless punk. I think I have made that pretty clear, haven't I?"

Yes, you've made it clear that you are a bald-faced liar who calls others "punk."

"Now as to the asinine statement on argument from authority, do you get your medical advice from a plumber?"

Doctors can and do make mistakes in advice that can have fatal consequences for their patients. They are not infallible.

"The people I cited study politics and the commentary. For them it is their job."

And you simply parrot their arguments without critical review of your own, which leads you into making the same mistakes they make.

"Aren't you tired yet of being stuck on stupid?"

Let me know when you tire of being stuck on being a stupid liar.

What you assess in your demonstrably limited ability is of no importance. You also are unable to respond to the point. You haven't put your personal information out, why should I?
The fact I have held office, and that information is permanently at the county elections office and in the city records, is public information. But I don't broadcast it. Especially to a punk that has called me a coward, liar, and told me initially to STFU.
Prove that I am fraudulently claiming anything. Prove it. You made the slander. Now prove it. You once again call me a liar. Prove it. You can't, because it is true. So the only thing left for you is to act like a three year old.

The fact that I placed my argument on this thread before those nationally known conservatives made their statements including Rush Limbaugh today, shows the reasons were my own. Reasons you haven't even tried to refute.

Every time you post to me I smack you down like the rude characterless punk you are. THAT I have proven. You are a troll. You present no ideas, you argue no points of view. You simply name call.

"The fact I have held office, and that information is permanently at the county elections office and in the city records, is public information. But I don't broadcast it. Especially to a punk that has called me a coward, liar, and told me initially to STFU."

STFU, you cowardly liar.

"Prove that I am fraudulently claiming anything."

I don't have to; you have to prove that you were elected to public office. You have refused to do so.

"You made the slander. Now prove it. You once again call me a liar. Prove it. You can't, because it is true."

Your refusal to support your claim of being elected to public office proves the lying and the cowardice in one easy pass. G'day.

Well, heck. Since you continue to push the name calling. I will call you out on this. I Will disclose my information to an admin moderator so he can decide. I will provide the location and dates of my office holding to him, not you or out on the public thread. That will maintain my privacy.

But since you have proven yourself to be without any redeemable merit, I have a price. IF the admin mod says I am a liar and have no proof I am banned from Free Republic forever. IF, as I contend, I have held public office, then you have continuously slandered me. You are to be banned from Free Republic never to pollute civil discussions again with your smears.

Well, got yourself caught on this one didn't you? We will see who is the coward.

"Well, heck. Since you continue to push the name calling. I will call you out on this. I Will disclose my information to an admin moderator so he can decide. I will provide the location and dates of my office holding to him, not you or out on the public thread. That will maintain my privacy."

Sorry, once you claim that you have held elective office, you have forfeited your right to privacy. If you suddenly opt to hide behind "privacy," then your claim is meritless.

"But since you have proven yourself to be without any redeemable merit, I have a price. IF the admin mod says I am a liar and have no proof I am banned from Free Republic forever. IF, as I contend, I have held public office, then you have continuously slandered me. You are to be banned from Free Republic never to pollute civil discussions again with your smears."

Uh-huh. And now I'm supposed to trust TWO anonymous people who are engaged in sidebar conversations.

I mean, you refuse to trust George Bush, but he's got a name and he's in public. Why am I supposed to trust you just on your say-so?

You claimed public service; kindly provide proof.

"Well, got yourself caught on this one didn't you? We will see who is the coward."

We already have, coward.

"Seriously you two; stop bickering. Especially you, mr. PaleHorse. You're essentially only name-calling; if neither of you have anything to add to the topic (as in about Miers), please calm down."

OK.

Bottom line: the last time we had this strong an RKBA record on anybody was Louis Brandeis in 1916.

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.