Posted on 10/07/2005 3:23:50 PM PDT by quidnunc
The latest snark among conservatives opposed to the Miers nomination has been generated by this paragraph this story in the Washington Post:
In an initial chat with Miers, according to several people with knowledge of the exchange, Leahy asked her to name her favorite Supreme Court justices. Miers responded with "Warren" — which led Leahy to ask her whether she meant former Chief Justice Earl Warren, a liberal icon, or former Chief Justice Warren Burger, a conservative who voted for Roe v. Wade . Miers said she meant Warren Burger, the sources said.
Here's what Polipundit was told happened:
"Miers was asked about Justices she admired. She responded that she admired different Justices for different reasons, including Warren — interrupted by Senator Leahy — Burger for his administrative skills.
Reasonable people could ask whether Burger was a great administrator, but the comment is taken out of context by the Washington Post. Miers didn't express admiration for his jurisprudence."
Burger was not a great intellect, but he was a fine administrator. An example of this is something for which he is often criticized, his vote in support of Rove v. Wade.
Burger understood that there was a majority for this decision, so he voted with the majority so he could assign the opinion. He assigned it to his friend Harry Blackmun, who wrote an opinion so abominably reasoned it is begging to be overturned when there is a majority on the Court with the stones to do so.
You guys are dreaming. Bush is doing this in part to stick it to the intelligensia like Will and Kristol. No way he pulls her.
LOL!!!! "Mama said life's like a miers nomination, you never know what youre gonna get"
----
Thanks ... you made me think of my next Souter Joke:
"Souter is and Souter does."
Bush's approval ratings aren't as low as the medias...or that of the US Congress. (they always leave those parts out)
"You guys are dreaming. Bush is doing this in part to stick it to the intelligensia like Will and Kristol. No way he pulls her."
So you are saying that Bush, before the nomination happened, thought about it and said to himself "You know, this will really tick off the conservative columnist egg-heads ... Cool, let's go for it!"
Not a chance.
She's 60, if she servers until she's Steven's age, that's 25 years on the bench, that's pretty long term.
The reason to trust the administration is because the've done an outstanding job of choosing judges thus far. There is no reason not to trust them.
LOL
One week ago several republican senators said "don't send them up, we don't have the votes."
So Bush finally gets the guts to stick it to someone, and it's Kristol and Will?
God forbid he sticks it to the Democrats.
The problem with sticking it to Will and Kristol is that they'll enjoy it and ask for more.
Cheap joke, actually, I respect Will. He's wrong about this, but I respect him.
Bush is doing this to appease the left. It's the same old new tone nonsense. I say again ... if Bush is so tough on terrorists, why isn't he as tough on Democrats? The goals of terrorists and Democrats are the same.
He's appointing a pro-life Christian to appease the left?
Believe it. Bush wanted Gonzales and all the bashing of his best buddy pissed him off. The Kristol crowd reminds Bush of the snobs he hated at Yale. He likes the idea of putting a "regular" person on the Court.
If Bush gets the Dems to laugh along as he gets a socially conservative justice on the court, they will have been stuck. They just don't know it yet.
Thank-you.
All the more qualified candidates are pro-life, so why does Bush picked the least qualified? You have no arguement.
I guess my point of departure is that I expect MORE from an associate justice than mere social conservatism.
Hell, I'm a social conservative and I have no place on the the Supreme Court (although those robes are kinda snazzy).
" Bush wanted Gonzales "
... ah, but doesnt that prove the Bush skeptics *right* in dis-trusting the Miers choice?!? Gonzalez is *not* a Scalia/Thomas pick, and the conservative base told him that. If he wanted a hispanic, he needed to pick Garza. Gonzales was the disappointing pick I was expecting; Miers is a disappointing pick I wasnt expecting.
"He likes the idea of putting a "regular" person on the Court."
He should have picked me then. No wait, my IQ's too high. :-)
My argument is with your claim that Miers somehow appeases the dems. She has at least two qualities that drive dems nuts. Funny way to appease them.
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.