Posted on 10/08/2005 10:44:49 AM PDT by quidnunc
The Washington Times reports that Karl Rove was "very involved" in President Bush's selection of Harriet Miers to be an associate justice of the Supreme Court. This should put to rest the notion that Mr. Rove is a political genius.
-snip-
The world is made up of doers and kibitzers. We in the chattering classes are kibitzers. Many, like Mr. Will, have convinced themselves that thinking and writing about what other people do is more important than actually doing stuff. It isn't.
Harriet Miers is a doer. She practiced law where it matters most, in the courtroom. She was managing partner of a mega Texas law firm. For the last five years she has been staff secretary at the White House, a more important job than most of her critics realize, and White House counsel, at the intersection between law and policy, and as good a preparation for serving on the Supreme Court as a year or two on an appellate court.
Harriet Miers may not be a deep thinker. We'll find out during her confirmation hearings. But to assume she is not simply because she's a doer is unfair, and almost certainly inaccurate.
Mr. Bush has said Ms. Miers is bright, and a solid conservative. We should judge for ourselves in the hearings. But until then, conservatives owe him and her the benefit of the doubt.
I used to think conservatives were morally superior to the moonbats of the Left. But the reaction to the Miers nomination indicates we are just as petty, petulant, snobbish, short-sighted, self-destructive, and unfair as they are.
(Excerpt) Read more at toledoblade.com ...
Judge Thomas has been a great asset, but not many people watched the President come out of his Maine home and name a man with one year on the bench and think "halleluah - we are saved."
Lets focus on some real politics and let the President do his job - including naming the person who signed off on 35+ judges to be on the court. Lets go after spending, Social Security and electing more Republicans.
Chill. I was just giving you some context, which you seemed to be requesting.
Stick with Harry Reid. Why is his endorsement a problem?
I'd consider that rather basic. After his record of extreme, almost to the point of hysterical, opposition to anyone showing signs of commitment to constitutional principle, he finds someone he seems to like?
???
Umm, we the voters have a "job" to do as well, which is to make sure our public servants are doing their jobs properly.
Slowly: Reid comes out in favor of Miers. Reid knows nothing more than the rest of us. Therefore, he is doing it to CYA.
Just yesterday some FOOL of a Freeper insisted that Miers was "creepy-looking", then posted this.
We have a very beauty biased culture, and study after study has proved that. Attractive people are far more likely to get hired, get promotions, get paid more, and naturally, get dates. That's just a fact. People base their first impressions largely on looks. That is a fact. And Miers looks like a scheming frau that shouldn't be trusted
I very much suspect that sexism is some conservatives' concern. I don't imagine many conservatives were against Bork because of his looks.
Not that I'll actually receive an answer, but your statement did pique my curiosity.
" I very much suspect that sexism is some conservatives' concern."
Many wanted Janice Rodgers Brown. So the sexism charge is a non-starter....
I didn't say "all" were sexist. I said sexism might be an issue with many. When Gillespie said he sensed a whiff of sexism from some of the comments I believe he may have been right.
Really?
So serving as an appellate judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals-the incubator for future Supreme Court justices, and the most intellectually and emotionally demanding of the federal circuit courts-is equivalent to having served briefly as the president's consigliere-after being transferred from another post for which she was not suited?
That's news to me!
In case you haven't noticed, this isn't the AAUW you're dealing with.
Here's my favorite:
"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
Not only does it evidence the mindset of a social worker, it's poorly written too.
Because the Constitution doesn't say anything about a metirocracy.
Section 2: Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
You bitchers say you want strict constructionists, well the Constitution says that the power to nominate SCOTUS judges is the president's and the president's alone subject only to the advice and consent of the Senate.
There's nothing in the Constitution about the confirmation process being subject to a popular referendum
Try not to be a complete idiot, OK? I showed you a clear example of gross sexism against Miers. I'm not trying to "guilt-trip" conservatives.
For God's sake...what a child.
No, I don't think that public opinion should dictate every decision made by our public servants, but when the peoples' wishes are so flagrantly disregarded-in such a cavalier manner as this-then you have to wonder what the value of republican-lowercase r-government is.
Let's Make a Deal!
Monty: Welcome to Let’s Make a Deal. Monty Hall here with you and let’s get started. Hello, and who are you?
John: I am John from Iowa.
Monty: Welcome John, let’s play! Well Jay what do you have for us this week?
Jay: This week we have Supreme Court nominees. Let’s have a look behind door number 1. It’s Harriet Miers! She’s a 60 year old Texan lawyer who has been a close advisor to the President for years. Harriet is a born again evangelical Christian who is unmarried and has no kids. A former Democrat who has drifted towards the Republican party after finding Christ. President Bush has reassured us that you will like her.
Monty: John what do you think?
John: Well President Bush promised me more, so I think I will go with door number 2.
Monty: Not so fast John, remember the gang of 7, those Republicans who compromised with the Democrats and have reportedly told the President not to send a too controversial pick.
John: Right, that does make it more difficult. Do we know anything else about this Harriet Miers?
Monty: Jay what else do we know?
Jay: Not much, unless you count gossip and rumors. Friends tell us she is pro-life and appears to believe in the individual right to bear arms. However there is also indications that she is sympathetic towards affirmative action and has a politically correct view of separation of Church and State. Did I tell you the President says you’ll like her?
John: Do I get to ask Harriet any questions?
Monty: Sure, and she will answer them as long as they don’t have anything to do with issues that might come before the court.
John: Shoot, what good is that then. So this is all I get to know about a Supreme Court lifetime appointment who is going to be a key vote in how our laws and Constitution is interpreted?
Monty: Well that’s it. So what is it going to be, Harriet Miers or door number 2?
John: Well since Bush tells us he believes this is his best choice, door number 2 is going to be worse. Can I take the goat behind door number 3? This process has made me ill.
(seks'iz'em) n.
[SEX+(RAC)ISM]
discrimination against people on the basis of sex; specif., discrimination against, and prejudicial stereotyping of, women -sex'ist adj., n.
I suggest you go to Webster's New World Dictionary and look up the word, because you obviously have no conception of its true meaning.
Yeah, he's a real liberal all right! Brother.
:)
-good times, G.J.P. (Jr.)
"Lets go after spending, Social Security and electing more Republicans."
Yes, let's. I'm glad most of us are on the same side about this. :-)
I was little when Thomas was nominated, but had the type of information that is available now been available then, I probably would have heard about his pro-life and conservative writings and speeches. Our situation is a bit different now because of the New Media and the internet. We may not have been as content with nominees like O'Connor and Warren if we had the same access to information as we do now.
You can use Clintonian parsing all you want or reference a definition that in fact supports me if you want, however, SOME conservatives do have sexism as a problem, as shown in the idiotic comment I posted of the foolish Freeper.
You're acting like I accused you personally of being sexist; don't get hot and bothered because this is not the case. But SOME do have sexism as their motive.
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.