Posted on 10/04/2005 7:33:33 PM PDT by jdm
Edited on 10/04/2005 7:41:50 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
He went to a top 1 law school.
Well put!
Because the "intellectuals" are elitists who think anyone who is not one of them doesn't deserve any respect.
Prior to his nomination Scalia was a professor at the University of Chicago and worked for the Heritage Foundation. I guess that made him an elitist.
I would rather have one of these elitists on the Court than a good woman whose only qualification is that she's loved by the President.
And we can be sure of this because...
"There's a reason things happen."
There's a reason George Will is a columnist for the New York Times.
There's a reason George Bush is President of the United States.
It's disappointing to see so many respected conservative pundits stooping to it.
That's right it's because she's a WOMAN! Last time I saw a mouth like that it had a hook in it.
Ah bet she's spoiled to. Wants everything. Like my wife, for her birthday she wanted something that went from zero to 200 fast. Didn't care what it was. So I got her a bathroom scale.
((SARCASM))
Your moniker is Trout Mouth??
Oh boy...
That, to me, is enough.
"The hearings are for show. Nothing will come out that will somehow make her more qualified or create new and undiscovered constitutional writings out of thin air."
I certainlyh got something out of the Roberts hearings - I got that he was smarter than any of the Senators.
If she bugs out, I think that hurts the president as well. I really don't think there's any choice for the administration but to carry this out to the finish, which IMHO will be her confirmation. She's the one, for better or worse. Hopefully better.
Either an extensive academic career or an influential stint on the federal bench - preferably the appeals court - or both. I don't think that's so much to ask. Something that demonstrates that the candidate has spent a lot of time thinking, in a rigorous environment, about the nature of constitutional law and developing a coherent philosophy about how to understand and interpret and apply it. Otherwise, we have we spent the last twenty years grooming such jurists?
Miers ran the Lottery Commission and a law firm. Very nice. But the administrative skills those jobs require a re vastly different from the jurisprudential skills needed on the bench.
If so, how come? I thought we are not supposed to extrapolate from the original meaning of the Constitution.>/i>
I confess I have no idea what you're talking about here.
If John Marshall's non juridical background was sufficient for qualification, then that's good enough for Harriett Miers.
Come on, Sink. You can do better than this.
In 1800 there wasn't much opportunity for anyone to have had experience on the federal judiciary or have spent much time thinking about it. There also was not much federal law to interpret.
Nonetheless, Marshall was already clearly - by his contemporaries' measure - one of the most brilliant political intellectuals of his generation.
Miers doesn't have Marshall's excuse. And there's no evidence she's especially brilliant.
There *is* plenty of evidence that she's been a good friend and lawyer for George Bush. Bush is in essence asking us to buy a pig in a poke.
Maybe she'll prove me wrong in the coming weeks. But none of that will change the reality of how she got the job.
Will's column is eloquent, as always, and brutal. Well argued.
I personally have decided, not that it matters to anyone, that the nomination should be opposed. Chiefly because I agree with Will that this is not a serious nomination on Bush's part.
Granted, she'll probably be confirmed and probably work out. She's probably a fine person. Appears to be smart and to be a hard worker and tough minded. Appears to be pro-life, etc. etc.
I'm even buoyed by the reports that she became a Republican after she became a Christian.
However, bottom line is this:
Just like I don't think it's wise to take a new Christian convert and appoint them to lead a major ministry (because they are not yet solidly grounded), I don't think it's wise to take a recent convert (a decade being "recent" in her long career) conversion to Republican and put her on the Supreme Court. Not when you had so many seasoned qualified rock solid conservatives to choose from.
My opinion.
What kind of silly logic is that? George Will may not have the resources to run for President (if he even ever wanted to).
I give up. I absolutely give up.
Logging off...
I'm supporting both.
Bush has not disappointed in ANY of his Federal judicial appointments. I have no reason to believe he is taking leave of his senses when it comes to the Supreme Court.
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.