READ MY LIPS: THOMAS AND SCALIA

Me | 10-7-02 | Me

[Urbane_Guerilla]

But super-deep thinking is not necessarily the prime requisite of a strict constructionist. A strict adherence to the Constitution is. The Constitution is written in plain language, arguably to keep it accessible to the masses, who are not generally super-deep thinkers.

Tyvm for # 306. You are right, I did not know that about the Scalia/Thomas quote, altho I don't think it alters my point (except rhetorically).

Scalia and Thomas are similar because their opinions are more simply written than the others on the court. Simpler writing is the result of deeper thinking, IMO: it is like Dimaggio making it all look so easy. But "simpler" is a relative term, and any SC decision nowadays is a complex product.

I guess we will hear about Miers experience as a lawyer, and hope we hear it in detail. But I also guess that we have heard nothing substantive so far because there is nothing substantive.

[Eva]

I have seen so many articles, criticizing Meirs for being a closet liberal, starting with the reports about the donation to Al Gore, and ending yesterday with the article about her sponsoring some women's career seminar (claiming that she is really a closet radical feminist). Everyone neglects the fact that it was Meirs who helped select all the candidates that conservatives would have rather seen nominated. The fact is that the conservatives just don't have the power that we would like to think that we have, to get those hard line conservatives on the court.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

A. They do have the power, they just don't have the will.

B. Even if President Bush were only able to push through a bland, nondescript empty vessel, there were dozens of names that stood out above that of Ms. Miers.

C. Your argument illustrates the fundamental inconsistency at the heart of the pro-Miers camp. You assert that there is no evidence that she is not a conservative, yet in the same breath you lament the fact that it is impossible to get a conservative through the confirmation process. Well, which is it?

[wardaddy]

botjuice all round from reagan and bork bashing moderates who think they own this forum

i fart in their general direction

[Dont_Tread_On_Me_888]

Excellent analogy. After the 2008 General Election, we will be hearing national commentators making the same "Bush I 'No New Taxes' and Bush II 'Scalia or Thomas" analogy.

This indeed is George Bush's "No New Taxes".

It really matters no more how Miers will turn out (a disaster in my opinion as well as Bork's). The fact is Bush chose not to appoint a Luittig, a Jones or a Brown, or one of that mold.

Betrayal.

[Cincinna]

"That is a reasonable belief, and perhaps the most powerful argument in support of the nomination. But again, it is speculation, and contradictory. W is saying (in effect) that Miers will be a Thomas or Scalia. As such, why are we to believe she is more acceptable to squishy senators, when she will be a Thomas or Scalia without any evidence of her ability, unlike Luttig or Brown?"

The key is no paper trail, which is why she will be confirmed and Luttig or Brown would not.

[Texas Songwriter]

I had not thought of the parallel, but I think the correlation is one to be considered. When Bush I said no new taxes, his base relied on his good word. When Bush II said "in the mould of Scalia and Thomas", we simply do not know. Either way, in politic, perception in reality and the loss of the base and its devotion to Bush II has really been hit. No one got to thank Bush I or excoriated Bush I about Souter...because Bush I was out of office by the time it became evident what he had given us. Bush I says he is sorry about Souter, but we are the ones who have to live with his decisions.

I hope Ms.Meirs is what the President says she is, but only time will tell. We will not be able to thank him or excoriate him by the time the truth is revealed in her decisions.

The frightening thing to me is the erosion of the conservative base which may be irretrievable even if Ms.Meirs were to withdraw her name from contention for the seat. The last time it happened that the base was so demoralized we got 8 years of Clinton. I do not know if Bush and the republicans can energize the base for '06 and '08 if this perception persists and Hillary is waiting in the wings for her stage call.

[John Lenin]

I'm more up in the air about her confirmation and will wait until the Senate hearings to make a more informed decision. As it looks now she is a shoo in if she doesn't blow up in the confirmation hearings.

[TheForceOfOne]

You are a rational person who stays calm under trying circumstances, it is a quality to be admired.

I was quite surprised by the reaction of the board, I expected better and not because of the choice but because I thought the facts would come before the emotions.

Conclusions drawn from first reactions are usually incorrect. Its like the old saying love is blind, its because emotions rule over common sense blinding one from the facts.

If she was a bad choice time will tell and we shall gather the facts in the mean time. President Reagan was treated this way on many occasions yet today we miss him dearly and honor his contributions to our great nation.

President Bush will have a legacy we can be proud of but there will be things we wished he had done better. I don't like the border problem or several other issues but with persistence whether it be this president or the next Republican president we can solve these problems.

The border has been a silent issue or shall I say an issue that failed to gain steam for a long time but now we have the MMP, pundits, talk show hosts, and the Internet to drive this issue. Things have changed but just like a bill on Capital Hill they move slow. I think were going to be alright.

[DLfromthedesert]

Oh yeah, we've seen the cojone-less leadership in the Senate. Ever hear of the "gang of seven" ?

[Iris7]

"Our own," to my mind, are those who understand and are grateful for the blessings of liberty we have.

I have been fighting this fight since 1965, and pretty steadily. If you really want to fight against those who would destroy the liberty we enjoy today (so little compared to a few generations ago) you would be welcome.

Fighting the Left has been and is tooth and nail, no mercy, no surrender. There is no room at all for sentimentality. The Left has been winning for a long, long time, and are within a short distance of victory. The GULAG is darned soon unless the anti-Leftists are one heck of a lot more successful than they have been for the last century or so.

Warfare, fighting, is first, and foremost, a pragmatic affair. The mission comes first, above our feelings, opinions, lives, or honor. Wants or fears.

[jdhljc169]

bump