Posted on 10/13/2005 10:41:48 PM PDT by goldstategop
I, for one, resent the heck out of that intellectual dishonesty.
Wow, what a load of tripe!
Does the President and his aides believe that if he is criticized by conservative leaders that he somehow loses his powers to nominate a Justice?
That's what your argument boils down to.
What your post in reality says is that the President and his aides (and the employees who send out the RNC emails) wish to believe that not only does the President rightfully have the power to nominate a Justice, but he is entitled to NO CRITICISM for his nominations even when they are an obvious joke. Ann Coulter wasn't that far off when she said 'Harriet Miers isn't qualified to play a Supreme Court Justice on the West Wing let alone be one in real life' (pardon the paraphrase).
Pack mentality......zoning in for the kill.
With all due respect I think those of us in the grassroots - and many of the pundits - would call this characterization of Miers' very generous. She's a nominee with no experience in constitutional law, no record of expressed opinions, an unproven ability/intellect. Again, I think those who say "try Miers out on a lower court" have it right. It's the only defensible position that is intellectually honest for Miers supporters to take, and they should take it to stop the bleeding. Miers' reputation takes a hit each day this Administration and its supporters have offered progressively worse defenses for Miers' nomination to the SCOTUS.
That's funny, I thought it was the Leftists who for years appointed people because they wanted a 'good vote' for their progressive causes even if it meant supporting matters that were not in the constitution.
Having Harriet sharpen her teeth on constitutional law would be nice before putting her on the highest court in the land, don't you think?
And they have declared war on US; demanding that they rule this party.
Like we're going to follow them off a cliff.
I know you were, and that was my point. Trying to limit the opposition to Frum is disengenous. FReepers are all worked up not because of what a Canadian said, but because of the fact that Harriet Miers is a horrible nomination to the SCOTUS.
And THAT is the reason that the growing chorus of conservative leaders and legal analysts have criticized the nomination of Miers or outright come out against it, and some such as Charles Krauthammer and Bill Kristol have demanded Bush pull her name.
Today Melanie Morgan calls on Harriet to take it upon herself and tell the President to pick someone else.
I wasn't trying to LIMIT anything.
Mind numbed robots all.
Stop and think a minute about what you just said. People who are opinion journalists you think display "arrogance" for expressing their opinion.
It should cause you great concern that the likes of Robert Bork, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin and many other conservative legal minds have said "this is a mistake." If it doesn't, might I ask what well known conservative legal scholars and analysts YOU'VE admired over the past decade or so?
Pundits have books to sell, columns in newspapers to sell and I don't put much stock in their rhetoric.
I like David Horowitz too.
Kristol, Krauthnamer, Levie, Coulter, Ingram, and Bork may be your legal guides, but they are not mine. They do not know any more about Miers than you or I. Why don't they, you, and I wait until Harriet Miers has a chance to speak for herself and THEN decide her qualifications?
Levie = Levin
Supreme Court nominations should not be made as selections from the Phone Book. We shouldn't have to guess or "trust" that they will turn out to be capable/qualified/constitutionalists.
I'm sorry you don't admire the legal analysis of Laura Ingraham (I know it's spelled weird given how it's pronounced but you for the "ham" which I do often), Ann Coulter, Mark Levin and Robert Bork. I certainly do.
As to the pundits making money - the conservatives make money by pointing out the lunacy of the liberals with whom they disagree. The fact that Bush has nominated someone so glaringly unqualified for the SCOTUS has made all of these people put themselves in the position of disagreeing with the President and thus disagreeing with everyone who gives him the benefit of the doubt.
The list of conservatives who are opposed to this nomination is breathtakingly long - it's much longer than what is listed in Melanie's "open letter." This has not happened in my lifetime with a GOP president and almost all of the major leaders on the Right. We're all looking at the same track record, qualifications, etc... and there's not much to look at. That's the reason that one by one conservative leaders are stepping forward to say 'add me to the list of those who think this nomination is an absolute disaster"
We're ALL just going to have to wait and see FOR OURSELVES, aren't we?
No, I don't think so. Harriet Miers isn't going to suddenly develop a track record in constitutional law. You can't go and create a 20 year history when doesn't exist. That's the problem. And that is the problem with the Miers' defenders. All they can offer is "wait and see, she might be OK" but of course that ignores all of the objections of the chorus of Miers' critics which is precisely that she doesn't belong on the SCOTUS whether or not she smiles and sounds articulate during her hearings or not. It won't change the fact that she's not a qualified, capable candidate.
How do you explain or justify the Kelo/eminent domain ruling by 5 of the Supreme Court constitutional scholars?
Other than that rationale, there isn't any objective standard by which one could come to support the nomination of Harriet Miers.
---------------------------------------------------------
Oh yeah? How about, I Like Her!
Neah!
Criticism is fine. Criticism is saying, "I don't like this nomination and here's why." Activists can take their criticism to the proper place, which is the U.S. senate, and try to persuade enough senators to vote the nomination down.
However, the attempt by the woman who wrote the above article, Frum, and others to force Harriet Miers to bend to THEIR will and withdraw her nomination is a power grab, plain and simple.
They -- and by extension, you -- want to dictate to the President of the United States who he can and cannot nominate. That is a power grab, plain and simple.
The historical record of the 109 confirmed nominees before Ms. Miers shows that her resume is equal to or greater than many justices who have preceded her on the court.
Even the charge of cronyism falls flat in the face of the historical record, beginning with the first-ever appointments by President George Washington.
The charge that somehow Miers does not have the intellectual heft (meaning she's not bright enough) also has no basis in fact. She has both a math and a law degree. As a consequence, she would score well above average on any IQ test. I dare say her IQ is probably much higher than those of many people calling for her withdrawal. IQ tests, need I remind you, are primarily tests of math and language skills.
The charge that her "judicial philosophy" is unknown to us is true. She does not have a "paper trail" of appellate decisions and law review articles. Leaving aside the fact that the Constitution doesn't mentioned word one about "judicial philosophy," this is perhaps the most hypocritical argument of all. It is actually a demand for proof positive that the nominee will vote on cases before the court the way -- in this case, Right-wing -- pressure groups demand.
The charge that she is a "stealth" candidate is true only in the sense that we and most of the punditocracy don't know her. She is not such to the people who have known and worked with her for years.
The charge that she used to be a Democrat is true. However, so was Ronald Reagan and countless other politicans who left the Democrat Party.
Harriet Miers deserves her hearing. Then, and only then, would I have a basis on which to support or oppose this nomination.
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.