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.
I still maintain this list qualifies her for a seat on the Court of Appeals.
I would say it qualified her for a seat on the Supreme Court, but she's too close to the Administration in general and to Bush in particular. By all judicial ethics, she'd have to recuse herself anytime a policy she worked on as a Bush admin staffer came up. Add into the fact that she is Bush's personal lawyer, and the foul stench of cronyism surrounds this nomination.
The last time a President nominated his personal lawyer, it didn't turn out so well. The unanimous viewpoint is that Abe Fortas was quite unqualified for his position.
I like Bush's idea of getting a corporate attorney and not a judge. I just am not comfortable with Miers, since she is too close to Bush. It smells like an oligarchy.
Sorry. I have yet to hear a single comment regarding her gender.
my statement stands. If it was as bad as you say, we would be hearing such comments on talkradio and reading them on the internet.
My point on that post was not to defend her credentials as a pick for Scotus, my point was about Laura Bush's charge of sexism.
Laura said that sexism might explain the charge that Miers' lacks intellectual heft.
Her credentials say she is anything but an airhead.
Laura was looking for an explanation why someone could charge such an accomplished woman with being an intellectual lightweight, and concluded that it could be sexism. It certainly is something other than a fair assessment of her credentials. Sexism is as good an answer as anything else.
No they wouldn't.
They would not call someone with her credentials an intellectual lightweight.
We are all most concerned, particularly regarding Miss Miers lack of conservative credentials.
It is people like you, who seem unconcerned about it, who are more likely pseudo conservatives.
Just because your state is a red state does not necessarily mean it's populated with Reagan conservatives. It means it's a Republican State.
When compared to other women on the President's list, she comes up lacking indeed.
Laura Bush was not protesting folks' complaint that Miers had a lack of constitutional and judicial experience.
She was protesting that they called Miers an intellectual lightweight.
Are we to assume that ANYONE in America who lacks constitutional and judicial experience is an intellectual lightweight?
You just don't get it. These people probably don't LISTEN to talk radio. They live for basketball and NASCAR. As far as posting on the internet, they probably don't know how. If you want to continue the denial and bury your head in the sand, so be it.
This is a bit over the top, no? Laura Bush didn't SAY it was sexism: she was asked by a reporter and then simply responded by saying it was possible. The question was dumb, as there's no way to answer it, since no one can guarantee that it ISN'T sexism, either. Perhaps the best answer would be an "I certainly hope not," but it's not as though Mrs Bush is making the allegation in her response
Yeah, that's the ticket! Janet Reno for Sup Ct!
/s
I disagree with Laura.
At the outset, let me say this: Miers' qualifications far exceed my own. This past year, US News rated SMU #52 and SUNY Buffalo #77. (Both are top 100 law schools). I assume she was law review. I am not. If I go into corporate practice, I would be quite happy to make it to the level Miers did. She clearly is a top-tier litigator.
That said, when I say Miers is an "intellectual lightweight," I mean this - she has not demonstrated her Constitutional Law interpretation skills since law school. We have never seen her articulate her own viewpoints on substantive Constitutional law questions. All we have is her arguments as a "hired gun" for George W. Bush. We have no law review articles, no decisions, no independant paper trail. Contrast that with John Roberts, who, while he too was a hired gun for the Reagan administration and then in private practice, we had reams of documents that told us what kind of lawyer he is, or at least was in the 1980's.
In Miers' favor is this - she is probably one of the only lawyers in the country to have argued a 12th Amendment case in front of the Supreme Court - but her argument in that actually should scare you, if you are an originalist. She argued that a literal reading of the 12th Amendment was an outdated relic, and that the Court should give a very broad reading to the requirements of the 12th Amendment that the electors for a state cannot vote for a President and a Vice president from their own State. Because Bush-Cheney didn't want to lose Texas' electoral votes, she successfully argued that Cheney should be reckoned a resident of Wyoming and not Texas. I'm not sure that I disagree with Mier's argument there, but it certainly is not an "Originalist" argument.
Is that why we have a Democrat as a Governor? LOL!
I think we all share the concern about Miers. I fear she is not conservative enough, but I am withholding any judgment until I get some facts. Where did I ever say that I was unconcerned about her nomination? Good grief, I am taking heat because all I said is that Laura Bush said it "is possible" that perhaps there is some sexist attitude against her. Don't shoot the messenger here...
Howlin,
It seems rather foolish to complain about other conservatives on this site who voice an opinion different than your own by attacking them or insulting them at every turn. You leave a trail of animosity in your wake that accomplishes nothing. Reading your attacks post after endless post has become exhausting. Have you ever tried to listen and reflect on what others are telling you?
We don't need people trying to further divide conservative thinkers here at FR. Our goal should be the same, just different approaches to the end result.
Before you go off on me, I would like to explain how I feel about this nomination.
GW did NOT nominate the type of a person that he told us he would. Miers is not the best candidate and it wreaks of cronyism. His chance of changing the SCOTUS with this nomination is minimal, at best. This has the appearance of weakness on his part when the likes of Leahy and Shummer can dictate who he cannot nominate and he takes the advice of Harry Reid, even over his own base. GW is doing what he said he would not do by this nomination.
Wanting us to trust his decision is NOT an option to some of us. His judgment of people in the past has left a lot to be desired and does not bode well in this case, IMO. Some of us remember his being burned or embarrassed, in the past, by placing his trust in the likes of Bernard Kerik, Paul O'Neill, Linda Chavez, and let's not forget Doug Wead and Christy Todd Whitman.
His failure to protect our borders, among other things, leads many of us to distrust his decision making. Calling Americans that are putting themselves out in order to try and protect our borders VIGILANTES, is unforgivable and further makes us wonder about his choices.
Many of us have worked diligently and donated much money to causes to get GW elected and re-elected because we liked what he said he would do and many of those things are not being done.
At this point, if his assessment of Miers is wrong, it will be too late to change it, once she has been confirmed and we gain no ground, perhaps losing ground on the direction the SC takes our country in the future. If we are to keep this country headed in the direction our Drafters of the Constitution intended, we have got to nominate someone that has fought the battle with the liberals and WON, somewhere along their way.
ping (if you are already here, my apologies)
I see. Correct me then, if I'm misunderstanding our exchange: You are disappointed that Laura Bush didn't stand up for you (and/or others like you), essentially?
You are not an intellectual lightweight, my friend.
Although there are those who really want us to believe that we are really the 2nd or 3rd tier in life.
"Just what is going on over there?"
they're giving the bird to the conservative base
You should change your screen name to "Always A Bush Hater" based on some of the BS you've been posting!!!
/major sarcasm!
It is simply an outrageous remark.
Laura is better when she is a First Lady. She should just be that.
I would have strongly supported JRB, Owens, Edith Jones, Edith Clement (with a toungue in cheek) etc. etc....
No sexism, simply conservativism.
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.