Posted on 10/05/2005 8:58:10 PM PDT by quidnunc
Explain, please, why criticism of President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court does not fit hand-in-glove with the proposition that Bush is a boob.
You know, the line holding that in contrast to such bright lights as Al Gore and John Kerry, the Bush bulb glows dim.
Indeed, that he is incompetent, the never-married Ms. Miers is a crony and a lightweight, and her appointment — ideologically — a missed opportunity rivaling Bush I's nomination of the never-married David Souter.
Or Dwight Eisenhower's nomination of Earl Warren, Richard Nixon's of Harry Blackmun, Gerald Ford's of John Paul Stevens (even now, perhaps the court's most liberal justice), and Ronald Reagan's of the disappointing waffler Anthony Kennedy.
The Miers nomination could prove even worse — and after so much invested hope among moderates for someone who would turn the Court onto a more consistently sober course, most notably on such issues as abortion, single-gender marriage, and free expression.
And certainly, at first glance, Harriet Miers lacks the heft of many in the judicial monastery — e.g., J. Harvie Wilkinson, Karen Williams, and Michael Luttig of the Virginia-based Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, or Chief Justice Leroy Hassell of the Virginia Supreme Court. She lacks bench experience and (as principally a corporate lawyer) longtime grounding in constitutional law, and in her hearings she likely will not demonstrate the dazzling erudition and legal acumen of the new Chief Justice, John Roberts.
But.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at timesdispatch.com ...
I'll claim that. She's not been a judge and has been "down among the common folk". She hasn't lost touch with real people as most judges do. Lawyers deal with real people. If she's confirmed, I hope she stays clear of the elitist attitude of judges.
Please, please Bush-bashers, PLEASE keep attacking him and the nominee! It will reduce the criticism from the Left while, in the end, mattering not at all among Senate Republicans. Then, once she's on SCOTUS -- SHOCK AND AWE, BABY!!
I agree with this "troll" too. I'm spending a semester in Berkeley, CA. On my jogs, I see all the "Hate Bush" bumper stickers on Volvos known to man. I am tempted to rip one off and put it on my car.
Will he nominate his personal accountant to replace Greenspan?
That's exactly why Bush chose stealth candidates, because of the RINO senators and their weak majority leader.
That's not only a cheap shot, it's ignorant. Miers is White House Counsel, not his family lawyer. Belittling her position is uncalled for. She was managing partner of a major law firm and deserves respect.
Her Mama's still kicking at 91. If Harriet pushes it that far, she will have outserved Sandra Day O'Connor.
His personal accountant might be "deserve respect" too!
It doesn't matter that she wasn't a judge. But it sure would help her if she had clerked for a Supreme Court Justice or tried cases in front of them.
How utterly UNoriginal. Parroting Ann Coulter. What a dumb ass comparison.
You people want a fight --- the hell with the nominee getting torn to shreds and then defeated.
JMJ, you can't see past your nose.
I'm perfectly capable of independent thought. I had thought of this before reading Ann Coulter's column. I totally disagreed with her about Roberts.
I predict that Meirs will withdraw her nomination next week, which will be good for everyone. We don't need bush league designs to rule the day.
Maybe he could appoint the WH decorator as Secretary of the Interior or the WH mechanic as EPA administrator. Sorry.
Nobody questions it is his choice to make.
Sure you did...lol.
She won't withdraw. No reason to withdraw because you and the DPC are pitching hissy fits along with pundits who are aching for a fight too --- gives them fodder for columns and books.
Thank you for calling me a liar. That is a very pleasant way to have a meaningful discussion. I hope you enjoy the rest of your evening.
I've known a few judges and they can be more in touch with common folk than high-octane lawyers in large law firms. When I was in law school Scalia and Thomas came for a few days and they went out for beers with the first and second year law students.
Yes. It does. And I said why.
But it sure would help her if she had clerked for a Supreme Court Justice or tried cases in front of them.
Help? How? All I care about is that she agrees with the Constitution as it was written. No "Living Document" bullcrap. And no "hidden laws or rights" that aren't even implied.
Agreed. I'm sorry too. And I don't need Ann Coulter to program my brain about how this is a possibility.
They're conservatives. How many TRUE conservatives are snobs?
William H. Rehnquist was never a judge and he was a very good justice. But he had a background with the court (clerked for a Supreme Court Justice) and he was the Assistant Attorney General for the United States giving him the opportunity to deal the SCOTUS a great deal.
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.