Posted on 10/15/2005 2:37:57 AM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
Supreme Court confirmation battles usually involve excavations of the nominee's judicial opinions, legal briefs and decades-old government memos. Harriet Miers is the first nominee to hit trouble because of thank-you letters.
Miers's paper trail may be relatively short, but it makes plain that her climb through Texas legal circles and into George W. Bush's inner circle was aided by a penchant for cheerful personal notes. Years later, even some of her supporters are cringing -- and her opponents are viciously making merry -- at the public disclosure of this correspondence and other writings from the 1990s.
Bush may have enjoyed being told by Miers in 1997, "You are the best governor ever -- deserving of great respect." But in 2005 such fawning remarks are contributing to suspicion among Bush's conservative allies and others that she was selected more for personal loyalty than her legal heft.
Combined with columns she wrote for an in-house publication while president of the Texas Bar Association -- critics have called them clumsily worded and empty of content -- Miers may be at risk of flunking the writing portion of the Supreme Court confirmation test, according to some opponents.
"The tipping point in Washington is when you go from being a subject of caricature to the subject of laughter," said Bruce Fein, a Miers critic who served in the Reagan administration's Justice Department and who often speaks on constitutional law. "She's in danger of becoming the subject of laughter."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I will not advocate deception to advocate conservatism. You do the conservative cause no favors with that compromise. I will not have it, and I will shun a party that is so base as to avoid a principled discussion on the merits.
And besides that, I have serious doubts that Ms. Miers is capable of being a "reverse-Souter." There is scant evidence she has the acument and inclination to act as a constructionalist. Uttering the catch pharses "strict constructionalsit" "will not rule from the bench" etc. are mere marketing tools.
Given the number and credantials of the other attorneys on the brief, and her own convoluted writing style elsewhere, the odds are that one or some of the other attorneys wrote the brief.
Hear! Hear!
"A lot of commas in that sentence. I recommend you rework it:"
To date, not ONE bright student failed to write coherently, even brilliantly. Without exception, all of the poor thinkers invariably produced equally poor writing.
"Are you sure you are an English teacher?" >>>>
I wish first to give you the opportunity to point to even one misused comma in my sentence--accompanied by the governing rule. I'll look for your revision on this thread in a short while. In the meantime, you may wish to note and correct your own fragmentary sentence (that is, if you can find it).To your last sentence, I need never defend my professional status to buffoons too ignorant to recognize correctly punctuated prose. Then, again, perhaps I should look to your sobriquet, "free dumb," to see why you choose to launch your attack on me.
Penny
No I don't believe people should just vote and then shutup. My point is that so many here seem to want to have some kind of say, 'after the fact', and that's not how it's done. Once the nomination is put forth, the President is entitled to have his nominee be given a hearing, and then a vote. The people get a direct say three times, once by voting by the President, and twice by voting for two Senators. This effort to raise a 'ruckus' in an effort to have the nomination pulled is bogus.
Don't engage in an argument with Freedumb2003. He is an adherent to Winston Churchill's admonition never to give up. While Churchill pursued many a seemingly lost cause, however, the record shows he pursued few irrelevant causes.
Since her signature appears at the bottom of the brief I will have to assume that the work product is hers, your wishes notwithstanding.
Can you point to my discussion of potential on this thread?
My name is not "Teacher Penny," by the way. You can take your attempts at insult to a more subtle level--say to the 9th Circle.
Penny
The people get a say by voicing their opinions and writing their elected officials as often as they choose to exercise those rights. Elected officials are also free to consider or ignore those communications and expressions of opinion, as they see fit and at their own peril when they next stand for election.
LOL. Okay. You made me laugh.
This effort to raise a 'ruckus' in an effort to have the nomination pulled is bogus.
Yeah, but is effective bogus. The party should have the benefit of hearing from the voters who will leave it in droves if it doesn't change it's act. And then the pary can make an informed decision.
Making a ruckus over a nomination is probably more principled thatn making a ruckus over a piece of legislation. Do you ever communicate with Congress regarding a piece of legislation? Or do you limit your "voice" to the ballot box?
.Can you point to my discussion of potential on this thread?
My name is not "Teacher Penny," by the way. You can take your attempts at insult to a more subtle level--say to the 9th Circle.
Penny
Oh - I meant to delete the "in droves" part of my assertion, because I don't know that. But the party does deserve to hear from voters. I have expressed my point of view, and I hope you have too.
We the people are part of the process.
And since Hartman's signature, by direction, appears on the bottom of the brief, I can assume the work product is his.
Furthermore, both of them are signing on behalf of a long list of attorneys, and so the record remains clouded, and you cannot know.
Did you miss the word 'direct'?
"There were" a lot of commas...
I do not hold myself out as an English teacher, so other than correcting your clumsy statement, my skills are not at issue.
Your sentence was clumsy. I doubt you would have accepted it on a homework assignment. At least, I hope so.
I berated you because your assertion is hyperbolic and you know it. You wish us to believe that 100% of intelligent students excelled at English and 100% of "poor thinkers" (whatever those are) produced poor writing.
We have real-world examples of idiots who can appear to write well. WPitt, of DU infamy, is one (although his writing tends towards the purple prose side of things).
Your final shot there about my nickname was just an ad hominem attack and is justly ignored.
Let's stop this before it escalates into a flame war. I suggest you rethink statements such as "without exception."
I apologize for suggesting you weren't an English teacher.
As we all know, we have had persons who could display flawless grammar skills, combined with degrees from prestigious universities, who devoted their many talents to causes that were and are antithetical to the ideas of liberty.
The following excerpt is from a December 17, 2000, article entitled, "Getting inside the Bush Mind," by Aubrey Immelman, a St. Cloud Times columnist. In it, the writer notes, among other things:
. . . .
"More difficult to fathom, yet equally important, is the role of character and other personal qualities in shaping presidential performance.
"What follows is an early assessment of President-elect Bush's likely leadership style and policy preferences, based on his distinctively outgoing, extraverted personality, and using the framework provided by Princeton political scientist Fred Greenstein in his book, 'The Presidential Difference.'
[edit}
"The best public communicators among postwar presidents — Roosevelt, Kennedy, Reagan and Clinton — were all outgoing presidents; however, Bush lacks their rhetoric skills.
"But, as Greenstein notes, eloquence is partially a product of effort and experience. . . . Bush's personality does not provide the optimal basis for organizational strength, though he will likely improve on what Greenstein calls the 'oxymoronic organization of the Clinton White House.'
"Vision
"Vision, in one sense, refers to the power to inspire. Bush likely will fall short of the rhetorically proficient presidents mentioned earlier. But equally important, vision 'encompasses consistency of viewpoint,' writes Greenstein, who cites Ronald Reagan as the prototype of a visionary president 'committed to a handful of verities.'
"In this regard Bush, whose agenda as governor revolved around four key programs, sounds positively Reaganesque. Thus, regarding 'the vision thing,' the problem with Bush will not be so much lack of principle as insufficient immersion in policy detail.
"Strategic intelligence
"While lacking the intellectual curiosity of Kennedy or Clinton, or the brilliance of a Richard Nixon, Bush's intellect has been grossly underrated.
"With a reported SAT score of 1,206, Bush likely equals or exceeds John F. Kennedy's intelligence quotient, weighing in at 119. But, as Greenstein notes — pointing to the policy accomplishments of Truman and Reagan, 'two presidents who were marked by cognitive limitations' — intelligence 'as measured by standardized tests is not the sole cause of presidential effectiveness.'"
Might it also be that "intelligence"--as measured by political pundits using casual handwritten notes and lack of judicial paper trail items--may not be the sole cause of effective interpretation of the Founders' Constitution?
Five years from the time of the above piece by Immelman, one must admit that this President's vision has maintained a "consistency of viewpoint" in public statements on the kind of person he would choose to be a justice. Are his critics suggesting that he was lying all that time?
Some artificial standards are being put forth now concerning the President's nominee for the Supreme Court.
Perhaps "conservatives" might need to review their Constitution and the explanations provided by the Framers in Federalist 76 (taking it as a whole, and in context) as to the prescribed authority for naming and the prescribed process for approving the nominee. Then, if they truly wish to "conserve" constitutional principle, they might wish to allow the Constitution's own procedure to go forth in an orderly fashion, hear the candidate, and then pressure their Senators to vote against her if, after hearing and watching her, they feel she is unqualified.
#255 goes for you too.
Thank you for the shrewd advice. With it in mind, I shall do what Professor Moses Hadas said to a young scholar eager for Hadas to read his newly penned manuscript: "Young man, of course! I shall not waste a moment reading it."I can tell you have the mind to appreciate the double entendre.
Best regards . . . Penny
I presume that a number of the leading conservative candidates for the SC or on it are "weak in math." Almost every attorney I have know admits a failing in things technical. So what is the point?
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.