Coulter Coming up On Maher

[Dustin Hawkins]

For those with HBO (and who can stomach Maher's nauseating spiel), Coulter will be on with Andrew Sullivan, and... Ben Affleck! Ahem. Anyway...

[dsc]

"I trust Bush on this."

I hope that works out for you. He's disappointed me often enough that the best I can do is "trust but verify."

[uncbob]

I think you missed the gist of my post

[hgro]

Clinton/Lewinsky, Maher/Coulter. No other comment required.

[Ramcat]

"No, conviction won't do it. A person must be tempered in the fire."

Does the fire of a successful life count?
Does the fire of building successful friendships count?
Does the fire of a successful career count?
Does the fire of successful leadership count?

Or is the fire of gotcha rhetoric the most sought after skill we seek?

[Ramcat]

"I think you missed the gist of my post"

Sorry if I did.

[Phsstpok]

I can't understand what's going on. Is the Harriet Miers appointment that has Coulter so riled up?

The President didn't ask for her advice, nor heed it when given unsolicited. Same thing for Kristol.

Buchannen and Malkin have simply hated the Bush White House for some time. Buchannen for decades, Malkin for the last couple of years.

Krauthammer isn't in that situation, but is critical of the nomination, it seems to me, on tactical grounds. It's hurting Bush with "the base," right or wrong, so Bush must dump her. I disagree, and if Charles thinks Bush would do such a thing he must not understand this President.

I'm a contrarian. The louder the critics are against something, from either side, the more I tend to go against their position. Right now the loudest and shrillest voices are those attacking Miers, and doing so with virtually no evidence to back up their positions. I'll wait for the hearings, but I'm leaning towards support. So far I've seen nothing that convinces me she is a bad choice and the things put forward in her support seem very good to me.

For those looking for some positive information I'd start with Hugh Hewitt and the links he proviides, particularly the President Aristotle blog summary from yesterday.

[H.Akston]

The Gipper would spank her for violating the eleventh commandment.

[BCrago66]

The burden is not on the critics. The burden is on President Bush to nominante a qualified candidate, and then to demonstrate her qualifications. He did not, and cannot. A run-of-the-mill attorney, whose most notable achievements were getting involved in the organized left-leaning bar, and running the Texas Lottery Commission, is not Supreme Court material, and cannot become Suprme Court material at age 61.

As for for your "contrarian" business, that's just not impressive. The task is to access evidence and see who is right. Automatically taking the anti-majority position is just as wrongheaded as automatically taking the majority position.

[Phsstpok]

Oh, man, are you off the mark

The burden is not on the critics.

The burden is certainly on the critics to back up their shrill cries of outrage with something more than unsubstantiated opinion.  The only valid argument against Harriet Miers at this point is that she is an unknown.  Everything else is opinion or suspect hearsay and, therefore, worthless.

The burden is on President Bush to nominante (sic) a qualified candidate, and then to demonstrate her qualifications.

Absolutely true.  That's what the confirmation process is about.  We've only just begun that rather lengthy process.  Most of the shrill screamers had made up their minds in 12 hours.  Bill Kristol had mouthed off within 2.  All based on the LACK OF PROOF OF HER BEING "THEIR KIND OF NOMINEE."  Not intellectually honest nor very rigorous analysis.

Basic truism of any logic 101 course: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The fact that you haven't seen any proof of her qualifications yet does not mean that there isn't any.  Making such a bogus assumption rules out any argument.  It's a facile position to take.

He did not, and cannot.

And you conclude this based on what evidence?  Name names.  Provide citations.  Provide dates.  You can't, can you?  It's not out there yet, only contradictory and slanted BS, at this point.  Take the Leaky Leahy "quote" claim that Miers favorite Justice was Warren Burger.  The Moonbat Right crowd leapt on that with much glea, only to find out it is almost certainly the same kind of crap as the BS stuff pushed by the dims about Roberts.

A run-of-the-mill attorney, whose most notable achievements were getting involved in the organized left-leaning bar, and running the Texas Lottery Commission, is not Supreme Court material, and cannot become Suprme Court material at age 61.

That is a preposterous statement.  She has been one of the leading attorneys in the entire Southern United States, certainly among the leading attorneys in Texas, for many years.  She has held leadership roles in her profession and has acquitted herself exceptionally within her specialty, which is contract law.  It doesn't draw headlines, but it is a fundamental part of our system.  We have had far to many ivory tower elitists and pseudo intellectuals on the court.  O'Conner, Kennedy and Souter were all touted by the "experts" as being qualified in just the way you claim is required. Maybe that's why they and their predecessors pulled the "penumbra" crap out of their butts to justify Roe and got away with it.

And her time at the Texas Lottery Commission was to clean out massive corruption by the Anne Richards/Ronnie Earle Austin Democrat machine.  And she succeeded.

As for for your "contrarian" business, that's just not impressive. The task is to access evidence and see who is right. Automatically taking the anti-majority position is just as wrongheaded as automatically taking the majority position.

I don't care if you think my position is "impressive."  That was inserted to make the point that the more critics bleat without evidence, just bile, the less likely I am to listen to them.  As to "access evidence and see who is right," bravo, maybe you do get the idea.  So far

THERE IS NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE SO TO STATE DEFINITIVE OPINIONS AT THIS POINT IS STUPID.

Wait for the hearings.  Get it?

 

[BCrago66]

One of the most definitive indications of an insecure and inferior mind is the use of all caps, giant letters, colors, etc., as devices to mask the fact that the subject has nothing to say, and does not know how to frame an argument.

You've just spent a considerable part of your morning saying nothing; but maybe that's not a terrible thing, because your time is not valuable.

[Phsstpok]

One of the most definitive indications of an insecure and inferior mind is the inability to actually respond to any points made, but merely resort to insult and personal attack.

use of all caps, giant letters, colors, etc., as devices to catch the attention of someone too dense to get the point.

Bleat, scream, shout, harangue, vomit forth all you want. All you're doing is spitting on anyone who doesn't march in lock step with the buchannenbot "I hate Bush" mentality.

It's all about evidence. Until there is some, anyone who puts forward a definitive opinion, for or against, is stupid.

You have stated a definitive opinion against, waiting for evidence be damned. QED.

[indcons]

Thanks for your reply. I have never had any respect for Buchanan, that Holocaust denier. Malkin, IMO, makes reasonable points most of the time and tends to be on the right side of issues like illegal immigration, etc. I think we need people like Malkin to question the politicians in power.

Oh....btw, I agree with you that Miers is being attacked because she has a faint paper trail as a jurist (obviously). I think it is premature to condemn her but at the same time, I can't understand Pres. Bush's assertion that she was the best conservative judge he could find. That said, any division among us will only help the perverted leftists.

[dsc]

"Or is the fire of gotcha rhetoric the most sought after skill we seek?"

There is a world of difference between "gotcha rhetoric" and valid argument presented effectively, under pressure and on cue.

But we are venturing far afield.

The central point is that there were fifty better choices than Miers, and Bush passed on them because he was afraid of the battle that choosing one of them would have precipitated.

[firequarrel]

I understand the abstraction part now. Miers is the scholarly devil. She's everything the conservative pundit class has been screaming for, the "Church Lady" as Maher called her. The abstraction is the scholarly pundits didn"t really want church lady. All along when they were talking about the "culture of death", keeping God in schools and the Ten Commandments in the Courts. They were just pandering to the fundies who buy their books. Now they're afraid Miers will actually quote them in her legal opinions saying privacy doesn't exist in the Constitution or the "culture of death" really is responsible. Oh my. LOL

[va4me]

Does anyone know why Coulter said she'd pop a bottle of champagne if Karl Rove is indicted in the Plame case?

Also, I was kind of shocked to see Affleck attack the Democrats over their nutty gun positions with regard to concealed carry.

[Phsstpok]

I've been very down on Buchannen since Ted Turner decided he was the type of spokesman he wanted on CNN representing "the conservatives movement." I've always considered both of them to be clowns. I've long been suspicious of Novak for the same reason.

I really like Michelle Malkin and agree with her on almost everything, particularly immigration. I just think she's taken the Bush White Houses failure to agree with her on that issue personally and it comes out as rather angry, rather than reasoned. She may be right, but the way she goes about attacking this White House puts me off. Same with Ann Coulter.

I'm beginning to think there actually may be some method to the seeming madness behind GWB's pick of Miers. It's probably wishful thinking, but I can see a scenario where she IS the best qualified conservative to achieve what he wants to achieve.

The key is the whole "diversity," emphasis. I don't think that has anything to do with her being a woman. Instead it's the very lack of "qualifications" that her harshest critics are complaining of.

I've mentioned this in several posts, but O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter all had perfect "qualifications," in terms of opinions on lower federal or state courts as well as specialty education and law review articles, that pointed to them being "conservative Constitutional scholars." If you read their opinions before they got on the Supreme Court you'll understand why they were chosen.

Miers is not a Constitutional Scholar. She's a contract lawyer, someone who worries over commas and codicils. In fact that's one of the harshest criticisms of her from Frum. She would not find much that was persuasive in an argument based on "the penumbra" of a document. If the document doesn't say it, or you can't make a very strong demonstration of fact from other references, then it's not part of the "contract."

I think that's the point of view that the President wants to introduce to the court. For example, I doubt very seriously if Miers would have voted with the majority in Kelo. But more than that I feel it is very likely that she could have successfully argued, from the point of contract law, against it, and changed the majority.

[va4me]

Ben Affleck is gonna destroy Jennifer Garner's career. He's a curse!

Affleck really shocked me, he challenged Maher's attacks on religion and defended concealed carry gun laws. Maybe he really is running for VA Senate?

[Miss Marple]

I see you found the thread. I just read your reply to me, so I was late looking for the article to ping.

[Ramcat]

"The central point is that there were fifty better choices than Miers, and Bush passed on them because he was afraid of the battle that choosing one of them would have precipitated."

There may be better choices as far as you and I are concerned.
(I admit to my disappointment)
However, I believe the central point is that to the President she was the best choice because he trusts her.
Don't you think the President anticipated the calls of croynism, intellectual inferiority, etc.?
Some things are just that simple.

[duckln]

that Holocaust denier

You can find enough to disagree with and 'hate' Buchanan for, but please, why idiotic lies.

Pat never I say never denied there was a Holocaust.

Shape up or ship out!