Posted on 10/02/2014 11:17:03 PM PDT by right-wing agnostic
When in 1962 Edward Moore Kennedy ran for his brother's seat in the Senate, his opponent famously said that if Kennedy's name had been Edward Moore, his candidacy would have been a joke. If Harriet Miers were not a crony of the president of the United States, her nomination to the Supreme Court would be a joke, as it would have occurred to no one else to nominate her.
We've had quite enough dynastic politics over the past decades. (Considering the trouble I have had with Benjamin and William Henry Harrison, I pity the schoolchildren of the future who will have to remember who was who in the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton presidential alternations from 1989 to 2017.) But nominating a constitutional tabula rasa to sit on what is America's constitutional court is an exercise of regal authority with the arbitrariness of a king giving his favorite general a particularly plush dukedom. The only advance we've made since then is that Supreme Court dukedoms are not hereditary.
It is particularly dismaying that this act should have been perpetrated by the conservative party. For half a century, liberals have corrupted the courts by turning them into an instrument of radical social change on questions -- school prayer, abortion, busing, the death penalty -- that properly belong to the elected branches of government. Conservatives have opposed this arrogation of the legislative role and called for restoration of the purely interpretive role of the court. To nominate someone whose adult life reveals no record of even participation in debates about constitutional interpretation is an insult to the institution and to that vision of the institution.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Six threads on the same subject in under a minute.
You have given a whole new meaning to the term “SPAM.”
Six 2005 articles in a row?
You just signed up for this?
Zot..?
You need to be zotted ASAP
It’s just weird, is all.
There is a pretty big fail at the end of that sentence
IBTZ. Go lick a fresh fomite.
OK, I have to agree with all the others here; why are you posting multiple threads with the same exact topic on each one?
Just FYI, a personal blog would suit you S-O-O-O much better than taking up valuable bandwidth here.
Think about it. Please.
Why so many old Ms. Miers articles?
Is Harriet Miers your great-grandmother or something?
“This process relies on an honor system, Chen said.”
No different than our immigration system. The judge tells you to report back in several months for committing a felony (Illegal Entry, to be specific), and what do you know - they never seem to make the follow-up.
Withdraw This Nominee (A Look Back At The Harriet Miers Supreme Court Nomination)
10/3/2014 1:17:03 AM · by right-wing agnostic · 12 replies
The Washington Post ^ | October 7, 2005 | Charles Krauthammer
The Case Against Harriet Miers: The Baseball Analogy (Harriet Miers Nomination Revisited)
10/3/2014 1:16:52 AM · by right-wing agnostic · 1 replies
ProfessorBainbridge.com ^ | October 6, 2005 | Stephen Bainbridge
Can This Nomination Be Justified? (A Look Back At The Harriet Miers Nomination)
10/3/2014 1:16:47 AM · by right-wing agnostic
The Washington Post ^ | October 5, 2005 | George Will
Defending The Indefensible (Harriet Miers Revisited)
10/3/2014 1:16:28 AM · by right-wing agnostic · 1 replies-—————wow
bttt
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.