Posted on 10/05/2005 10:29:24 AM PDT by new yorker 77
She's polite. Shy. Smart. Modest. Hard-working. Goes to church. Helps the poor. She immediately won the praise of the leader of the Democrats in the Senate. And yet she may end up making Justices Scalia and Thomas look like a couple of card carrying lefties.
I'm exaggerating for effect, of course, but the point is that despite the dramatic tearing of flesh that has gone on in some conservative quarters over the last 48 hours, the indications are that Bush has chosen someone who is extremely culturally conservative. Based on what little we know at this point, he's also chosen someone who favors the Patriot Act, wider presidential authority and an aggressive national security posture.
I understand the disappointment on the right. Conservatives wanted a first-rate legal and ideological gladiator to go do battle with liberals in the Senate. Instead, Bush gave them the Church Lady.
But gladiators don't receive - nor should they expect to be given - any mercy from their opponents. A humble, accomplished, God-fearing woman is a different proposition. Those who know this process understand that the first few hours and days are absolutely critical in shaping the image of the nominee for the public. Thus far, aside from the griping of conservatives, Miers' public image is developing rather favorably and isn't being radically influenced by attacks from left-wing interest groups the way other nominations would have been.
George Will argues this morning that these types of political considerations are unimportant. Qualifications are all that matter and, according to Will, Miers isn't remotely qualified:
The wisdom of presumptive opposition to Miers's confirmation flows from the fact that constitutional reasoning is a talent -- a skill acquired, as intellectual skills are, by years of practice sustained by intense interest. It is not usually acquired in the normal course of even a fine lawyer's career.
I find this line of reasoning deeply elitist and unpersuasive. Will is setting a standard (years of practice of constitutional reasoning sustained by intense interest) that would exclude a vast number of people who would make perfectly fine justices (including Senators like Orrin Hatch) as well as a number of those who've served ably on the court (including William Rehnquist who spent 16 years in private practice in Arizona and then only 3 years in the Nixon administration before being nominated to the Court).
I also find Will's complete and total deference to constitutional scholarship unsettling. Yes, we want talented, high-caliber appointments to the Court which represents, we should remind ourselves, a co-equal branch of government. It's not at all convincing to say, if you follow Will's logic, that a court made up of nine of the country's most eminent, ivy-league pedigreed constitutional scholars is going to be any better for America than a Court composed of justices who have demonstrable talent of varying legal backgrounds and perspectives. And it is undeniable that Harriet Miers is an accomplished lawyer.
So where does all this leave us? I suspect most Republicans and conservatives will become more comfortable with Miers as we move forward and most Democrats, including Harry Reid, are going to find themselves with an increasing urge to sink her nomination.
One way of doing that is to attack her religious convictions and to imply they make her unfit to serve. This is a very perilous strategy. The other way for the Democrats to derail Miers is to argue that she is unqualified due to a lack of experience and/or intellectual-horsepower. Still a tough case for the Democrats, in my opinion, though certainly a lot easier to make when conservatives are already out there doing it for them.
.
Ok, you asked for it!
Source: E.W. Bullinger, D.D. "Number in Scripture", Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49501, 1984.
(1) "As a cardinal number it denotes unity: as an ordinal it denotes primacy...So with the deity. The great First Cause is Independent of all...
The First Commandment and great commandment...(p.50)
(2) "But Two affirms that there is a difference- there is another; while One affirms that there is not another! This difference may be for good or for evil. A thing may differ from evil and be good; or it may differ from good and be evil. Hence, the number Two takes a two-fold colouring, accourding to the context. (p91).
...
(10) It has been already pointed out that ten is one of the perfect numbers, and signifies the prefection of Divine order, commencing, as it does, an altogether new series of numbers. The first decade is the reprsentatvie of the whole numeral system, and originates the system of calculation called "decimals," because the whole system of numeration consists of so many tens, of which the first is a type of the whole."....
Noah completed the antediluvian age in the 10th generation from God.
The Ten Commandments contain all that is necessary,and no more than is necessary, both as to their number and their order, while the Lord's Prayer is completed in 10 clauses.
(p. 243)
This is but a sample of the mystery of numbers not taught in schools but known and studied by the founding fathers.
GWB's choice doesn't stun or disappoint this conservative.
"GWB's choice doesn't stun or disappoint this conservative."
It stuns and disappoints this one.
And bunches more. I needn't name the big names.
So, we're seeing a civil war open up here.
And the Democrats will be the winners.
We could avoid it.
One side needs to back down.
Roger that ~ the East Coast Ivy League School elitists would be good start!
But neither side will back down.
So we are going to destroy our party in the process, and hand victory to the enemy.
"big names?
hahahahahahahahaha!"
You're right, actually. Commentators and lobbyists are not big names.
There are just millions of us little insignificant names.
Cleary we are a joke and don't matter.
"hahahahahaha"
And we'll try not to let the door hit us on the backside on our way out.
Ask the elitist snobs!
The President gets to choose and he chose her!
That works for me!
Yes, that door does swing both ways. And it's swinging.
The GOP may pick up moderates and liberals to replace the losses in its conservative base if this fiasco continues to play out like it looks like it will.
Women live longer than men, so realistically she's only 52 or 53.
2. She has zero judicial experience. Sure it can be a plus, but she has been a corporate litigator which to me does not signify that she has had the opportunity to review or educate herself on Con Law issues.
Judicial experience isn't a prerequisite for a SCOTUS appointment.
3. There are literally scores of more qualified candidates with a proven reliable record.
There will be one or two more SCOTUS departures before Bush's term expires. You obviously have never played poker.
4. This pick makes GWB look weaker than he already is. It makes him look like he is afraid of a fight.
This pick cements Bush's legend as a risk-taker and will make him stronger as another SCOTUS departure becomes inevitable.
5. She was Reid's first pick. Enough said.
Reid was spinning to discourage conservatives - he is now having doubts about her and will be against her as soon as he receives the talking points from the left-wing orgs. Bush has called his bluff and Reid got hosed.
6. She has no record of ever being a conservative. Yes, she has.
Has she ever been part of the Federalist Society? Written law review articles? Volunteered or worked for conservative causes or candidates other than GWB?
Irrelevant to being appointed to the SCOTUS. (Ann Coulter, is that you?)
7. Trust me is not good enough in this case.
You don't trust Bush? How many times have Bush told people he is a man of his word? He knows Meiers, you don't. Big difference.
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.