READ MY LIPS: THOMAS AND SCALIA

Me | 10-7-02 | Me

[JerseyHighlander]

Great arguments you've made the last several days KKC. Really, very helpful to open debate.

[TheForceOfOne]

I haven't the slightest problem with those who wish to collect information on Miers, it provides some insight about the unknown before the conformation hearings we will witness soon.

I do have a problem with those who prematurely condemn her and demand she step down without merit. I have a problem with those who stand on the soap box and scream they're voting for Hillary and other such nonsense like the party is doomed, all is lost, its pure lunacy and should be disregarded.

They wish to condemn her for Orwellian thought crimes she hasn't even had the opportunity to commit. They demand impossible promises, and hold no faith in judgment by our president when he has chosen wisely a high percentage of the time.

Let the cards fall where they may, and hope for the best. This may not be the last nominee by our current president as he may gain the opportunity of selecting a third Justice.

[McGavin999]

Ahhh, so if you don't join the little club you get smeared when someone nominates you for USSC, is that it? Perhaps she didn't have time for club activities because she was too busy working.

[TheForceOfOne]

Moonbat alert!

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

Miers may turn out to be "in the mold" or Thomas of Scalia.

It's possible, but not plausible.

Then again, Gary Hart "may" win the 2008 presidential election.

I don't think either scenario-though theoretically possible-has more than an extremely remote chance of ever occurring.

[TheForceOfOne]

As in smirking chimp?

Sniff sniff

[Urbane_Guerilla]

And, yes, you are, indeed, a dolt.

I may very well be a dolt. I have been humbled by reading Hugh Hewitt, disagreeing with him (in my mind) and then eventually realizing he was right all along.

That may happen here, in some respect. But in another respect, it will not. W is not my personal leader. He is not a man who believes in constitutional government. I am not bound to believe him.

The Miers decision was one some folks anticipated for 30 years. It came down to a moment. With an opportunity to completely and perfectly respond to the moment, W instead decided to nominate a retainer who was a cypher.

After that moment, I do not care. It was a smirk moment. Apart from how it all turns out, it was a moment of selfishness and betrayal.

I have always appreciated and respected your remarks Sink, but in this instance I disagree with you.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

Yet another (unconvincing) justification for her failure to express any strong political or philosophical convictions in the public square.

She didn't refuse to join the Federalist Society because she was "busy working," but because she didn't believe in its goals.

It's that simple.

[msnimje]

She may turn out to be a justice in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. We just don't know enough yet.

You are right, we do not know how she will turn out.
But we do know she is not a nominee in the mold of Thomas or Scalia.

[quidnunc]

MississippiMan wrote: {He had even less of a judicial paper trail than MsMiers.} Uh, Clarence Thomas was a JUDGE, no? Ms. Miers has never been a judge, right? I'd love to hear the logic behind your statement.

Thomas was a judge in the DC appeals court for only a short time, and he didn't write ant law review articles either.

At the time he was as much of a cipher as Ms Miers.

[ArcadeQuarters]

Watch out for the Bushbots
.

[RobbyS]

Thomas but not Scalia. Again: Thomas was derided as a cynical choice because of the thinness of his resume.

[quidnunc]

How could Republican senators vote against Miers when the voted almost unanimously to confirm Ginsburg and Breyer?

Anybody doing that would be eaten alive during their next election campaign

[RobbyS]

You have a GAL like Thomas. But let her speeak for herself. That's the purpose of the hearings.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

No he wasn't.

The fact that you insist upon repeating this timeworn canard-ad nauseum-should indicate how manifestly weak your argument is.

[Lancey Howard]

She may turn out to be a justice in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. We just don't know enough yet.

That's right. OR.... she may turn out in the mold of Souter.

See, this is why everybody is so disgusted with Bush. There was no need for the slightest uncertainty.

[MEG33]

You sound trollish..

[RobbyS]

And what was Thomas resume when he was nominated? Thiner than that of a hundred other possibilities.

[sinkspur]

But we do know she is not a nominee in the mold of Thomas or Scalia.

How many times does the National Review article, from 1991, which states that Clarence Thomas was "an unknown, more in the mold of David Souter" have to be posted?

Clarence Thomas was an affirmative action pick, and, like Miers, was characterized by GHWBush as "the most qualified candidate available." That description was derided by liberal and conservative media.

Clarence Thomas was as much a cipher as Harriett Miers.

[RobbyS]

And again: Souter did not work with Bush senior; Bush hardly knew the man. He took the word of Sununu and Rudman. His resume proved to be NO indicator of his future decisions.