Posted on 10/11/2005 6:14:59 AM PDT by Sometimes A River
COVINGTON, Louisiana (Reuters) - First lady Laura Bush joined her husband in defending his nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday and said it was possible some critics were being sexist in their opposition to Harriet Miers.
"That's possible, I think that's possible," Mrs. Bush said when asked on NBC's "Today Show" whether criticism that Miers lacked intellectual heft were sexist in nature. She said Miers' accomplishments as a lawyer were a role model to young women.
...
Mrs. Bush, who had publicly supported the nomination of a woman to the high court, noted that Miers had been president of the Texas Bar Association.
"I know Harriet well, I know how accomplished she is, I know how many times she's broken the glass ceiling herself. She is a role model for young women around our country," she said.
And should it, it'll kinda put a dent into the Dem's usual, and future, "promote" women as a sex kind of stuff. Their "for character" while slamming "sexism in the Repub Wing", could backfire in future "staging events". Time will tell. If they do this, it could be hell on their "female" quota usual platform.
oh, this is not about moi anyway ... was really asking your further pontification on how, other than not having prior judicial exp, is Miers equally qualified as Marshall?
It was L Bush that make the sexism charge.
Are we supposed to remain silent?
And, Bush made the nomination, not us.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1499585/posts
Pukin nails it once again! ALWAYS trust in Pukin!!
Yes, I see your point. You are trying to make a non-issue into a divisive one. Everyone needs to lighten up and get some facts instead of fanning the flames.
Incidentally, your examples were really silly -- there is a big difference in being thought "sexist" versus a pedophile or wife-beater.
That would be nice, but when will we get 'actual facts'? The Senate hearings will consists of a bunch of questions asked by moronic Senators followed by an evasive answer. What will you learn from that? We will not know anything more about her judicial philosophy until she sits on the bench.
Her implications were that those who oppose Miers are sexists.
Just as it is my imlication that you are a ________, if I say it's "possible" that you are a _________.
Certainly it is an order of magnitude worse, but an unsupported accusation is still an unsupported accusation. It was Laura who is fanning the flames.
I only inquired to your MOS as we have a life long friend (almost family, wife calls him cousin) who was career army and spent about 17-18 of his 27 years (or was it 28?) in SF, he was 18E. For about the first 9-10 years he was in the 5th Group then ended in the 10th Group when he retired. With intermittent TDY assignments in DC (which he can't talk about and we don't ask).An aside, do you still carry your coin with you at all times - just in case? ;-)He semi jokes (I know it hurts though) that he has more time in grade as an E-8 than anyone in the history of the US Army. For one reason or another (like maybe Clinton) he never got that star and final promotion to E-9. He went to Sergeant Major school and everything.
So anyway that's why I was curious, no offense meant.
If they're concerned about that, then they will simply name-drop: "rather than nominate an accomplished legal scholar from the mainstream of America, such as [female name, female name, token male name]," or "while I could have supported a number of mainstream, highly-qualified judges, including [female name, female name, token male name], Mr Bush instead chose an underqualified crony who may or may not take us back to the Dark Ages" - and so on..
I want to know what rock you've been living under that would make you think the Democrats would hesitate for even a moment over Ms Miers sex. It always amuses me when I see comments like this about women or minority nominees. Why don't you go back and see how many Democrats voted to confirm Janice Rogers Brown (hint: he was a man). Get a clue, people!
That's funny I was going to say that it was a case of hysteria, paranoia, or Republicans eating there own....
Again, if someone wonders that about me then they don't know me and I don't care what they think anyway. I certainly don't feel threatened by the statement that "it is possible that he is sexist" because anyone who would think that about me is low on my list anyway.
Some civility in this debate would go a long ways. More than half of the Bush supporters are up in the air on this appointment. Insults are not persuasive.
Aside from that, if Miers had something like the following in her resume, I suspect most Republicans would be supporting her - instead what we have is a political cipher which is exactly what 30 years of Supreme Court politics has taught conservatives to distrust.
Following advice given to him by Justice Felix Frankfurter, Rehnquist began his participation in the Republican Party. He became a Republican Party official and achieved prominence in the Phoenix area as a strong opponent of liberal initiatives such as school integration. Rehnquist campaigned for Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater during the 1964 elections. During that time, he befriended Richard Kleindienst, another attorney from Phoenix. When Richard Nixon rose to the presidency a few years later, he appointed Kleindienst deputy attorney general of his administration. Kleindienst sought Rehnquist for the position of deputy attorney general in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. When Justice John Marshall Harlan retired in 1971, the Nixon administration chose Rehnquist as Harlan's replacement.
You are really reaching on this. Laura Bush answered a question from someone who asked if it was possible. What could she say, other than "Yes, it is possible". Maybe she could/should have added "but not probable"...This is the sort of question that the press has tricked people with for years, like "When did you stop beating your wife?" or "When did you stop hating Mexicans?" etc. There is never a correct answer.
Nope you're not qualified --- but I am. I got straight A's in Commercial Law when I was a senior in H.S.
I killed when it came to Tort Law & Contracts.
:-)
(I agree with you whole heartedly. This "non judicial experience" thing is utter nonsense)
Laura Bush shows her true colors. Reads DU...Gets tatics from DU.
It is not a lazy charge.
It is specifically in response to the accusation against Miers that she lacks "intellectual heft."
She was the head of 400 lawyer firm, the head of the Texas bar, one of the top rated 100 lawyers, and top 50 female lawyers.
The accusation that she's not intelligent is the thing that's lazy her. And in response to that laziness, Laura Bush saw a possibility of sexism to explain it.
Laura's line of reasoning is rational.
To be sure, though, I don't really see why the Democrats would oppose the Miers nomination all that strenuously, anyhow, because from their perspective this is about the best they're gonna get. The only reason for them to oppose is just knee-jerk anti-Bush sentiment on the left, and the potential for weakening the president (as if he's not doing a great job of that all on his own).
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.