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]
WASHINGTON -- Senators beginning what ought to be a protracted and exacting scrutiny of Harriet Miers should be guided by three rules. First, it is not important that she be confirmed. Second, it might be very important that she not be. Third, the presumption -- perhaps rebuttable but certainly in need of rebutting -- should be that her nomination is not a defensible exercise of presidential discretion to which senatorial deference is due.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
I can not argue with your logic. You make a lot of good points. It also made me laugh.
I noticed that too. We're told that Miers conservative credentials will become clear at the confirmation hearings. We're also told that Bush couldn't nominate a strong conservative because one could never get through the senate.
Which is it?
Well, I think I understand what you're saying, but I'm not used to reading broken English. You stand with the libs in the party. You attack the conservatives. Do you realize that? You are no different than Hagel, Snowe and McCain.
Maybe Pro-life is the only criterion right now.
Sort of like Honorable William Rehnquist? Oh damn..... LOL
And you base that on what?
I agree. However, your desire to have her approve constitutional legislation and strike down unconstitutional ones hinges on one question:
Can she adequately and reliably tell the difference? That's part of what George Will was arguing - that her credentials, training, and intensity are not enough to ensure that.
If she can't adequately tell the difference and defend her position, she'll be influenced by her more scholarly, and possibly liberal, peers' opinions.
I think it's almost a sure thing that she'll start out of the box as a constitutionalist. But will she stay that way?
Not just 2. Read the entire thread, Bush is dumb, Bush has joined the left wing, Bush=cronyism, and I could go on and on. This is being read by many at Kos and DU and they are laughing their asses off. Fact is, this thread sounds a lot like DU, just cleaner language.
If I had a dollar, for every single hysteric post saying that they'll never ever vote for XXXXX ( fill in the blank...there are so many different ones )again, I'd be wealthier than Bill Gates and the boys who own GOOGLE; combined.
So having no qualifications makes her the most qualified person for the Court. Now, that is a ringing endorsement!
I've got a better argument. Constitutionally speaking, she is totally qualified. (The Constitution is silent on judicial qualifications.) Her qualifications are at least as good as if not better than a sizeable number of the 109 people who have served on the court since 1789. Here's one recent example:
He served in World War II with the Army Air Corps. When the War ended, he entered Stanford University and graduated in 1948 with both an undergraduate and master's degree. He earned a second master's degree from Harvard University in 1950 before enrolling in Stanford Law School. After graduation in 1952, he served as law clerk to Supreme Court Associate Justice Robert H. Jackson for one term. He settled in Phoenix, Arizona, the following year and practiced law for 16 years until 1969, when President Richard M. Nixon appointed him Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice. On October 21, 1971, President Nixon nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Who is he? The late Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who spent most of his career in private practice, before serving briefly as an Assistant Attorney General and then being nominated to the Supreme Court.
Here's another example (there are plenty more):
Lewis F. Powell, Jr., Associate Justice 1972-1987. Lived most of his life in Richmond, Virginia. He graduated from Washington and Lee University in 1929 and from Washington and Lee University Law School in 1931. In 1932, he received a master's degree from Harvard Law School. Powell entered practice with a Richmond law firm, where he became senior partner and continued his association until 1971. During World War II, he served in the United States Army Air Force in Europe and North America. After the War, Powell resumed his law practice. He served as the President of the American Bar Association from 1964 to 1965 and of the American College of Trial Lawyers from 1968 to 1969. In 1966, he served as a member of President Lyndon B. Johnson's Crime Commission. On October 21, 1971, Richard M. Nixon nominated Powell to the Supreme Court of the United States. Powell served on the Supreme Court for fifteen years. He retired on June 26, 1987, at the age of seventy-nine.
One last example, just to drive the point home:
Arthur J. Goldberg, Associate Justice 1962-1965. Graduated from Northwestern University in 1929 and received his law degree in 1930. Goldberg was admitted to the bar and joined a law firm in which he specialized in labor law. He first gained national recognition by representing the Chicago Newspaper Guild in a 1938 strike. Goldberg served as Chief of the Labor Division of the Office of Strategic Services in Europe during World War II. After the war, Goldberg returned to his practice and became counsel to both the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) and the United Steelworkers of America. He played a major role in the merger of the two largest national labor organizations in 1955 (AFL-CIO). President John F. Kennedy appointed Goldberg Secretary of Labor in 1961. The following year, on August 29, 1962, President Kennedy nominated Goldberg to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Harriet Miers is qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. The Constitution is silent on judicial qualifications and, instead, entrusts the President of the United States with making the decision as to qualifications. In other words, the Constitution says "trust the president."
Admittedly, we don't know a great deal about her, but from what we do know, she is a conservative.
As far as I can see, she is being pilloried by a lot of elite conservative snobs and their easily stampeded followers simply because she doesn't have an elite education and prior judicial experience on a U.S. appeals court, where her political leanings might have become an open book.
It would be based on her deep, well articulated, long-held judicial philosophy.
We got lucky with Rehnquist. Sometimes people win the lottery - it doesn't mean that investing in lottery tickets is a sound practice.
Why not nominate a known quantity for such an important position?
Hannity said his people did much research and couldn't find a single piece she had written. It's there somewhere, but apparently, not easy to locate.
I am counting senate votes. What votes are you counting?
Yeah, right. Why didn't I think of that?
I feel your pain, SandyInSeattle. Apparently many FReepers, new and perhaps old, have checked out, jumped ship, gone overboard, gave up the ghost, fallen for the first negative thought that flew over their heads, have become plagued with DU syndrome.....'nuf said. Disgusting, absolutely disgusting.
The Barnett piece was silly. She's not unqualified as a constitutional matter.
HA! I too read that, twice, and just laughed.
Sounds good to me.
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.