Posted on 10/15/2005 11:22:42 AM PDT by gobucks
Si. Facile da capire.
I fully understand and agree. Into each life some rain must fall. It just appears that the Republican Party is walking around like Joe Btfsplk [that character in Al Capps "Dick Tracy"] with a rain cloud constantly over their heads.
"I'm hoping it does, because I don't think Miers is qualified. That's just my opinion, of course, and I'm not a Senator. As a citizen, however, I have a right to express this opinion to my Senators and urge them to vote no."
Agreed, also.
I will remain hopeful that the Senate hearings will enable us all to get a better glimpse into the person Harriet Miers actually is, and not the inquisition that I suspect it will be.
Again, I wish us, all of us, good luck.
And another subtle distinction that seems to have escaped you is that Conservatives did not question Thomas's qualifications for the position. In fact, on that, in his discussions of law, he satisfied open-minded doubters.
What has escaped you is that the point I was making is how the tactics of lies and half-truths are the same.
That Bush has broken a principal election campaign issue is a concern, but I personally don't care if he was elected based on a plank of better health care on Mars. What has gotten under my skin is his seemengly careless appointment to one of the most important positions in government of an unqualified crony who has demonstrated no committment to excellence, much less its achivement at any time in her long career, no willingness to go the extra mile for anything, unless it is on retainer and her staff is doing the heavy lifting, and no committment to conservatism as demonstrated by her refusal to join, on partisan grounds, the Federalist Society.
I think it is time that people around here stopped their knee-jerk repetition of the party line that O'Connor is anathema. First, she was certainly qualified, and among other things graduated 3rd in the Stanford law school class that Rhenquist graduated 1st in.
Second, she has been very vocally, and eloquently "right" on a lot of causes that we do care about. For instance, she made it clear that she thought Kennedy stupid in writing in her Kelo opinion. "We" disagree with her philosophy on some social issues. Fine, state your disagreement, but don't scream betrayal by someone who has been an honorable public servant.
Third, I know it is also a divisive opinion around here, but she joined the majority in the Rasul v Bush opinion, which correctly noted that the constitutional right of habeas corpus trumped the unconstitutional all power to King George in his fight against terrorism. It is funny that in that action Bush II took the opposite side of Bush I who, in the Gulf 1 War, saw no reason to set aside the Geneva convention in the treament of potential illegal combatants.
You know, what you miss is that successful legal arguments are based on very hard research to review applicable case decisions and show how they apply to the facts of the present case. It is based on hundreds of hours in the law library (or in front of Lexus Nexus these days) and hundreds of hours spent drafting, redrafting and refining your arguments in support of your case. Roberts has a first rate mind, and the demonstrated ability to keep his butt in his chair for the arduous hours required to do this.
Ms Miers has not, and I think that in a case where there was a clear difference between the two Roberts would prevail hands down, whatever the field of practice.
We will get a view how good a legal mind she has when she has to explain the reasoning in several important cases. At best I think she will turn in a prosaic demonstration.
What has escaped you is that name-calling is not generally regarded as a legitimate tactic in reasoned debate.
And so what does that reply have to do, with my point that you didn't understand what I originally posted?
This is why 95% of the Conservatives disagree with the Miers pick. It has very little to do with Miers and everything to do with their dislike for Bush.
Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters
The metaphor is rose-colored.
http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004c.html
10/8/04 - second debate
And you know why he gets that count? The president got $84 from a timber company that owns, and he's counted as a small business. Dick Cheney's counted as a small business. That's how they do things. That's just not right.
BUSH: I own a timber company?
(LAUGHTER)
That's news to me.
(LAUGHTER)
Need some wood?
(LAUGHTER)
. . .
GIBSON: Mr. President, the next question is for you, and it comes from Jonathan Michaelson, over here.
MICHAELSON: Mr. President, if there were a vacancy in the Supreme Court and you had the opportunity to fill that position today, who would you choose and why?
BUSH: I'm not telling.
(LAUGHTER)
I really don't have -- haven't picked anybody yet. Plus, I want them all voting for me.
(LAUGHTER)
I would pick somebody who would not allow their personal opinion to get in the way of the law. I would pick somebody who would strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States.
Let me give you a couple of examples, I guess, of the kind of person I wouldn't pick.
I wouldn't pick a judge who said that the Pledge of Allegiance couldn't be said in a school because it had the words "under God" in it. I think that's an example of a judge allowing personal opinion to enter into the decision-making process as opposed to a strict interpretation of the Constitution.
Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights.
That's a personal opinion. That's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says we're all -- you know, it doesn't say that. It doesn't speak to the equality of America.
And so, I would pick people that would be strict constructionists. We've got plenty of lawmakers in Washington, D.C. Legislators make law; judges interpret the Constitution.
And I suspect one of us will have a pick at the end of next year -- the next four years. And that's the kind of judge I'm going to put on there. No litmus test except for how they interpret the Constitution.
Thank you.
GIBSON: Senator Kerry, a minute and a half.
KERRY: Thank you, Charlie.
A few years ago when he came to office, the president said -- these are his words -- "What we need are some good conservative judges on the courts."
And he said also that his two favorite justices are Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas.
So you get a pretty good sense of where he's heading if he were to appoint somebody.
Now, here's what I believe. I don't believe we need a good conservative judge, and I don't believe we need a good liberal judge. I don't believe we need a good judge of that kind of definition on either side.
I subscribe to the Justice Potter Stewart standard. He was a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. And he said the mark of a good judge, good justice, is that when you're reading their decision, their opinion, you can't tell if it's written by a man or woman, a liberal or a conservative, a Muslim, a Jew or a Christian. You just know you're reading a good judicial decision.
What I want to find, if I am privileged to have the opportunity to do it -- and the Supreme Court of the United States is at stake in this race, ladies and gentlemen.
The future of things that matter to you -- in terms of civil rights, what kind of Justice Department you'll have, whether we'll enforce the law. Will we have equal opportunity? Will women's rights be protected? Will we have equal pay for women, which is going backwards? Will a woman's right to choose be protected?
These are constitutional rights, and I want to make sure we have judges who interpret the Constitution of the United States according to the law.
MICHAELSON: Mr. President, if there were a vacancy in the Supreme Court and you had the opportunity to fill that position today, who would you choose and why?
BUSH: I'm not telling.
(LAUGHTER)
I really don't have -- haven't picked anybody yet. Plus, I want them all voting for me.
(LAUGHTER)
I thought that was a good answer. Seemed rather quick on his feet there. ;)
Yep. He came through big time during that second debate. Made up for a less than great performance in the first debate.
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.