This appointment is like putting star of the local softball team into a the starting lineup of a major league baseball team.
All we have is what little we know. What know isn't comforting. She's supports affirmative action and Title IX. She's organized conferences at SMU featuring radical feminists like Gloria Steinem.
Why in the world would she be a better pick than the many articulate conservative originalist judges that have openly spoken out and articulated the benefits of originalism and who have proven track records?
..........Frankly, you're more qualified to be on the court and probably understand and can articulate Constitutional law than Miers. She has no grasp originalism nor as many, including Rush Limbaugh, have pointed couldn't articulate from the bench in written opinions..........
Gross speculation
Lets see... Take the word of a man who has actually argued cases in front of the Supreme Court...or listen to Ol'Sparky.
I think I'll listen to the voice of experience. Sorry Sparky.
And you know this how?
. . . nor as many, including Rush Limbaugh, have pointed
I didn't hear him "point" that. He would have preferred someone else, but doesn't think the "Republican" Senate would give Bush anyone Rush would prefer.
. . . couldn't articulate from the bench in written opinions
BTW, what's your first language? ;-)
"All we have is what little we know. What know isn't comforting. She's supports affirmative action and Title IX. She's organized conferences at SMU featuring radical feminists like Gloria Steinem.
Why in the world would she be a better pick than the many articulate conservative originalist judges that have openly spoken out and articulated the benefits of originalism and who have proven track records?"
Not to mention she was a democrat and contributed to the Gore campaign. Illegal immigration, out of control government spending, increasing social programs for those that don't deserve it, and now Miers. When will you blind Bush supporters wake up?
Freepers seem to be of three competing opinions on that question:
1. Bush turned yellow and ran scared from the Democrats
2. Bush turned yellow and ran scared from the RINOs, and
3. Bush turned yellow and ran scared from the Democrats AND the RINOs.
I have a feeling that the argument will never be settled to anybody's satisfaction.
If you look thru my posts, you will see I am one of the FREEPERS who have questioned the Miers pick, sometimes in stronger language than I would have preferred. But I also practiced law for quite a few years and have a lot of appellate experience, including the supreme court.
One of the big mistakes a lot of the anti-Miers crowd make is on the qualification issue. Miers is obviously a very smart and an experienced attorney. She has all the intellectual and educational tools to be a fine justice. You don't get where she has gotten without that. In the population as a whole, she is upper 1/100th of 1%.
A second mistake is the assumption that constitutional law is some sanctum sanctorum. It isn't. It's a one year course in first year law school. If you have that and the Federal Courts class, and you work hard in each of them, you understand most of the big picture that goes into being a constitutional scholar.
Then when a particular case comes along, you study that area in depth and reach a conclusion. The point is, it isn't rocket science. The parts of constitutional law that are actually difficult are difficult because the case law is incoherent and unprincipled. She can read incoherent and unprincipled cases as well as any other good attorney--if her IQ was 50 points higher than it is, the cases would still be incoherent and unprincipled.
The issue is not whether she can understand the constitutional issues in the cases that come before her. I assure you, she can. Nor is the issue if she can "grasp originalism." She can. The issue is whether she IS an originalist. And that's where I have difficulty with the president's choice.
But I think the anti-Miers crowd should get off the qualifications issue because it is a dead horse.