Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: flashbunny
I predict george will will be attacked on this thread like never before.

He deserves to be, for making statements like this:

It is not important that she be confirmed because there is no evidence that she is among the leading lights of American jurisprudence,

That applies to Clarence Thomas, to William Rehnquist, and to many other justices from the past.

How come it is a requirement to be a "leading light of jurisprudence" to be on the Supreme Court?

43 posted on 10/04/2005 7:48:30 PM PDT by sinkspur (Breed every trace of the American Staffordshire Terrier out of existence!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: sinkspur

well, when you have 56 votes in the senate and control of the presidency, why settle for less?

Reverse the situation: If the dems had 55 senators, plus the VP, and of course the presidency, would they nominate a stealth candidate and say "trust us", or would they nominate the most liberal candidate they could find?


56 posted on 10/04/2005 7:51:20 PM PDT by flashbunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]

To: sinkspur
That applies to Clarence Thomas, to William Rehnquist, and to many other justices from the past.

We can at least say that both Rehnquist and Thomas were both more qualified - and had been in positions, moreover, which forced them to begin exploring and developing coherent views on constitutional law - than Miers. Miers' experience is almost entirely in commercial law.

Even Thomas - who plainly was an affirmative action pick by Bush - had spent a year on the federal bench.

Will lays it on thick with this "leading light" rhetoric. But the fact remains that Miers is the least qualified nominee since Abe Fortas. And like Fortas, her chief qualification seems to be that she was a close friend of the president.

Maybe she'll somehow turn out to be a great justice. The problem is that we're being asked to take that almost entirely on faith. Many more qualified originalist jurists and scholars were passed over. Disappontment is not unreasonable.

Chances to appoint Supreme Court nominees don't happen every day. Espeially not for "swing" seats.

109 posted on 10/04/2005 8:09:35 PM PDT by The Iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]

To: sinkspur

BECAUSE SHE IS A WOMAN AND NONE OF THEM WILL SAY THAT. Sorry for screaming.


116 posted on 10/04/2005 8:13:11 PM PDT by Snoopers-868th
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]

To: sinkspur
I'm almost glad that the "penumbra" of conservative elites are showing me what stuck up snots they are so I can realize these guys do not really have any tolerance for me, much less an extremely accomplished attorney like Miers.

George Will wouldn't know a brilliant attorney or judge if they sat on his big fat head. But then we can't all be brilliant baseball writers, and act affected all the time, and look laughably smarmy in bow ties.

117 posted on 10/04/2005 8:13:32 PM PDT by Williams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]

To: sinkspur

I'd like to see George Wills' towering intellect analyze George Stephanopolis' qualifications to host a TV talk show. While he's at it, Wills could also throw in his justification for continuing to show up Sunday mornings on it.


864 posted on 10/05/2005 2:32:58 AM PDT by Carolinamom (Weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning......Psalm 30:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson