Posted on 10/07/2005 3:50:01 PM PDT by Sam Hill
However, I am exercised on the Miers thing and your last post didn't help much. The notion that only you and your guild can be entrusted with the plain language of the US Constitution is belied by the havoc your guild has wreaked on it.
I understand that much of the work done by SCOTUS is mundane crap and have a solution for that. A SCOTUS dedicated to the mundane legal stuff staffed by mundane lawyers. And then the new SCOTUS can be staffed by a pool of Americas best and brightest which encompasses some 150 million folks rather than the million or so who have passed the bar exam.
And now for a comment on judicial hearings. I am thoroughly amused by the imminent reversal in a large segment of FR on how judicial hearings should be conducted. As you know I have favored a more vigorous approach with the nominee being required to answer all questions except questions on how a case currently or shortly will be before the court. My amusement comes from the vast numbers of freepers who have acquired that position since the Roberts hearing in which they took the exact opposite position.
The Supreme Court should be reserved for people of exceptional ability and experience--especially on the conservative side.
Compared to lawyers like Luttig and McConnell--who have the exact mix of experience needed to grapple with the toughest of the tough issues and who undeniably possess first-rate legal minds--Miers is an embarrassment, an utter hack. She has no business being on the Supreme Court.
A short order cook has more business being appointed head chef of five-star restaurant.
Your contention is that those in favor of Meirs, then, do not have their heads screwed on with more than one bolt as well? Then why have you been quoting their percentages combined with the undecided?
BTW, for the record, my intent is to provide context. YOU are the one using the ongoing poll to attempt to advantage your argument. It was disingenuous.
Further details for your perusal.
Numbers of voters in Meir's poll at the current moment- 4869
Numbers of voters in Roberts concluded poll- 3737
If you wish to spin an ongoing poll, I will continue to post the comparison.
If you wish to inslut members of this site for having an opinion that doesn't match your own, please, find the strength to refrain.
I do admire seeing a freeper from Oregon - didn't know there were any of those :)
To be honest I don't read up on every appointment the guy makes - but I've certainly had plenty of moments in the last 4 1/2 years or so when I've questioned his judgement. Doesn't mean I haven't supported the guy, but trusting politicians w/ no critical analysis of their actions is never going to be my way of operating.
Before the hearings this site was pretty well divided on Roberts. People saw the real Roberts minus the propaganda during the hearings and he became a popular choice here at that point.
Yes, it's a good sign that 40% of the Freepers will wait until they see the Miers hearings before they decide.
ontos = Ancient Greek for being? ontos-on means then your being is engaged, or active?
His clerks probably wrote the vast majority of that opinion.
But he made the decision to reverse, together with a majority of other justices, who, together with their own clerks, made changes and additions before they would agree to that writing.
The most important job is making the decision. The opinions that come thereafter are the product of many others than simply one judge.
No, you do not get to advance that argument either.
Jim Robinson did not leave a poll on Roberts up for a few months on side until the hearings to tally opinion. This poll was largely, if not fully, concluded before the hearings. If you wish to contend otherwise, ask Jim Robinson or the Administrators for proof as to when it was removed from the side of the board.
Second, that is a myth.
This site was not well divided over Roberts. Ann Coulter was a minority. Please review history, I know the older posts are still recorded on site. You will find few of the bigger names in the conservative movement in conflict with Roberts.
Perhaps the posts gave you that impression, but I am not that quick to form judgements. I am just very skeptical of "top 100" type lists. They don't carry the weight of actual job experience, or a history of scholarship or involvement in conservative causes or philosophy.
Most of us are a bit stuck on the crony issue - I think in this day and age, in a country that became the greatest in the world because anybody can become anything here, having a president appoint his secretary, lawyer, friend, and confidante to the Supreme Court - is just anti-American. My MA is in Latin American Studies - and this resembles what politicians down there do all the time. It strikes me as shameful to have it happen here.
The need for being forthcoming in part depends on whether there is a doubt about qualificaitons. Miers needs to be more forthcoming than Roberts in that sense, although is she can chat away competently about the lay of the land, and what issues will confront her, and what the competing considerations are, and what precedents will confront her and why, she passes the Torie test. She will get more of that than Roberts, and she shoould. In the case of Roberts, everyone knew he could get a base hit or more each and every time, so they spent more of their time, reading his writings, or demanding that he reveal his hand as to how he would rule. It was of course a total waste of time. He just said the word Ginsberg, when it got ugly.
No the president came up with more than that. I even posted it for you. You're taking the president out of context.
I'll post the full context -- again.
Before state and federal courts, she had tried cases and argued appeals that covered a broad range of matters.
She's been a leader in the American Bar Association and has been recognized by the National Law Journal as one of the most powerful attorneys in America.
Harriet's greatest inspiration was her mother, who taught her the difference between right and wrong and instilled in Harriet the conviction that she could do anything she set her mind to.
Inspired by the confidence, Harriet became a pioneer in the field of law, breaking down barriers to women that remain even after a generation — remain a generation after President Reagan appointed Justice O'Connor to the Supreme Court.
Harriet was the first woman to be hired at one of Dallas' top law firms, the first woman to become president of that firm, the first woman to lead a large law firm in the state of Texas.
Harriet also became the first woman president of the Dallas Bar Association and the first woman elected president of the state bar of Texas.
Pray for W and Our Troops
By the way, I didn't say that. What I said is that it was not simple, and those who say it is, are almost always not lawyers. Non lawyers who are smart, and take up the constitution as a hobby, and have good judgment, are certainly qualified as lawyers are, and more qualified indeed than most, to be taken seriously when it comes to Constitutional jurisprudential debate. But it isn't simple, at least not usually, and particularly when it comes to deciding how to rule on the next case. Simple cases don't often come to SCOTUS, for obvious reasons. They pick what the they choose to rule on.
I haven't. Not once. Point out where I did. Let me quote myself: "A VAST majority of Freepers either agree with Miers selection, or are waiting for more information." Let me highlight a word in there for you...or. That denotes two separate options. I'm not combining anything. I am pointing out that a "fracture" does not exist. How can it when 40% of Freepers who took the poll haven't even made up their mind yet?!!? You are trying to refute a point I'm not even trying to make.
With regard to your numbers of people who took the poll...so what? The more people who respond to a poll, the better the data. The fact that more people have already responded to the Miers poll merely indicates more people are following the story. And the fact remains that 40% of them haven't made up their minds yet.
"If you wish to inslut members of this site for having an opinion that doesn't match your own, please, find the strength to refrain."
Good grief. If I've insulted you I've insulted myself, because I happen to fall outside the 40% who are wisely waiting for more info. I can't help it that neither of us have the intellectual integrity to make a decision based on a complete set of data rather then the crap floating around out there currently.
"We all can be active in some way to address the social issues that foster criminal behavior, such as: lack of self-esteem or hope in some segments of our society, poverty, lack of health care (particularly mental health care), lack of education, and family dysfunction." Harriet Miers
Miers is an embarrassment, an utter hack.
________________________________________________________
How do you know that? She can't be any worse than Ginsberg or Stevens...both of whom will hopefully go gently into the good night soon before the next election. I am sure she has shown her mettle dealing with the President's matters in the WH.
Then maybe we can get Luttig and /or McConnell.
It should operate-under ideal circumstances-as a meritocracy.
This nomination is a gross repudiation of everything that conservatives, Republicans, but even more simply, Americans, stand for.
Funny. Up here in AK it might be a little the other way around if it weren't for the environmentalists - although many of them are packing heat, so they aren't exactly your standard liberals.
This has been by far the most civil thread I've participated on regarding the Miers nomination. Time to close up the laptop for the night, as my guy thinks I'm nuts w/ all my freeping lately. BTW he's a lawyer who is reserving judgement for the hearings.
Thanks to all for a good discussion, and good night to you.
I agree with you.......
I'm seeing too many "right wingers" whine about his. They are just disappointed because they wanted a fight with the Dims.
I still believe the President learned the lessons of his father.
I also think the "right wing" media has gone a bit overboard with their opinions. Kristol and Krauthammer are doing nothing but reinforcing the weirdos from the left.
I'm totally disgusted that the Republican party "eats it's own".............over and over again.
But do you realize the Catch 22 here. George HW Bush is lambasted for picking a justice he didn't know well (Souter), while George W Bush is being lambasted for picking a justice he knows exceptionally well. I'm not directing this at you personally, but I believe many of the arguments people have against Miers are similar to the whole "gravitas" issue surrounding Bush's search for a running mate. Someone throws a cool word or catchphrase out there, and everyone else jumps on it because is sounds cerebral. Frankly, I'd prefer Bush pick one of his cronies. Heck, I wish he'd have picked Cheney. For that matter, I'd like to see Don Rumsfeld sitting up there in a big black robe.
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.