Posted on 10/18/2005 9:43:27 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite
Bush shows himself to be indifferent, if not hostile, to conservative values.
With a single stroke--the nomination of Harriet Miers--the president has damaged the prospects for reform of a left-leaning and imperialistic Supreme Court, taken the heart out of a rising generation of constitutional scholars, and widened the fissures within the conservative movement. That's not a bad day's work--for liberals.
There is, to say the least, a heavy presumption that Ms. Miers, though undoubtedly possessed of many sterling qualities, is not qualified to be on the Supreme Court. It is not just that she has no known experience with constitutional law and no known opinions on judicial philosophy. It is worse than that. As president of the Texas Bar Association, she wrote columns for the association's journal. David Brooks of the New York Times examined those columns. He reports, with supporting examples, that the quality of her thought and writing demonstrates absolutely no "ability to write clearly and argue incisively."
The administration's defense of the nomination is pathetic: Ms. Miers was a bar association president (a nonqualification for anyone familiar with the bureaucratic service that leads to such presidencies); she shares Mr. Bush's judicial philosophy (which seems to consist of bromides about "strict construction" and the like); and she is, as an evangelical Christian, deeply religious. That last, along with her contributions to pro-life causes, is designed to suggest that she does not like Roe v. Wade, though it certainly does not necessarily mean that she would vote to overturn that constitutional travesty.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Steve, I am not in disagreement with that point.
However, Bork had his time at bat -- and he is NOT the issue here.
My only point is that his sustained carping adds nothing to the debate, IMO. It only reflects an unmanaged ego that reflects badly on him.
The difference between this nomination and other's made by the president is the fact Miss Miers is the President's friend. His other appointees were not. One of her most outstanding traits is her ability to reveal little about herself. In this instance, the president could not possibly be objective. She wasn't even vetted in the manner and degree to which other nominees were. Therefore, this time, (and I did support Roberts), I do not trust this presidential decision.
Were any of them nominated to the Supreme Court?
Nobody is knocking RWR. He was a great POTUS. No denying it, even by democrats.
He was optimistic and never lowered himself to trash the opposition.
He is however, responsible for O'Connor and Kennedy.
True enough that Kennedy was his third choice.
And if IIRC, O'Connor voted pretty much with the Constitutionalists while RWR was still of sound mind.
And perhaps, just perhaps, someone you consider to be "the least qualified" is actually the BEST person for the job. Ever think of that?
All of the supposed BESTEST OF THE BEST, haven't turned out to be very good at all.
Justice Thomas was considered to be just a dreadful, mediocre nominee and a damned token to boot; for example.
Well, I do, because he KNOWS her professionally and personally and she does not have the paper trail.
Call her stealth -- but POTUS is the last man who wishes to make the mistake of his father, which is why he selected her.
POTUS is trying to play the senate he's been dealt. The senate with the cabal of 14 plus Chaffee and the two women from Maine.
I am fading fast.
Carry on.
Good nite.
bump for later
Nice diversion. You criticized Reagan when he was in office, too. Big spender, etc. LOL Hypocrisy reigns on the right fringe. Tell me about Bork and the Second Amendment.
Lots of people, who lived through the Great Depression hated FDR and many who thought that he was good, later came to realize just how terrible he had actually been.
Crystal ball gazing, reading tea leaves, tarot cards, using an Ouija board or what, to channel Reagan? You must be doing something wrong, because no, Reagan's high praise for FDR was not "tweaking" Dems at all, but rather an honest ( though completely incorrect ) Reagan opinion. And yes, that is a fact; not something I made up to suit.
Your "esteem" for Reagan may have grown since he left office, but evidently so has the mythographicated talking points. And yes, the same is very true of many here who have almost no idea at all what President Reagan actually did or said as president.
I helped to get Reagan elected to the presidency twice. He was a truly good president, but no, he was not some damned demi-god, which many on FR have made him out to have been. And every time I have to list the facts, I tend to wince; however, the historical facts of his presidency are completely ignored by his most vociferous FR sycophants.
Yep. He's responsible for O'Connor and Kennedy two of his Biggest mistakes. I didn't like the O'Connor pick then, either.
Ronald Reagan made a number of mistakes and bad decisions as president and as much as I admired him, I openly disagreed with him at the time. If FR had been around, I would have done it as ardently and publically as I have criticized what I believe are GW's mistakes.
However, that said of the two, Reagan is by far my personal favorite. It is doubtful I'll see another president of equal greatness in my life time.
Good night, ETOM.
Ten years, or less, you'll be saying the same thing...only then it'll be about President Bush the younger. :-)
[[Bork didn't attack Roberts because Roberts was the most brilliant witness to ever testify before the judiciary committee.]]
Bork didn't attack Roberts because he knows Roberts could run circles around him.
See you tomorry.
Nite ETOM.
see post 116 Grassley for hearings...
Thanks for the edumacation, NP.
I disagree and strongly that the above means some candidates do not have decipherably better qualifications than others. Sorry. It is an irrational and silly notion.
"And perhaps, just perhaps, someone you consider to be "the least qualified" is actually the BEST person for the job. Ever think of that?"
I've read it on this forum several times and proudly disavow any and all credit for having thought of it myself. That must be one of the all time worst arguments ever made in the advocation of any singular position in a debate.
"All of the supposed BESTEST OF THE BEST, haven't turned out to be very good at all."
So we should nominate candidates with lesser qualifications and little or no indication of ideology to get better, more conservative justices? The least qualified is the BEST person for the job?" Wow, if that's your best argument for the nomination of Miss Miers, your side really has gone mad, LOL! I'll remember to offer your above suggestion to the human resource personnel where I work.
How odd that conservatives who oppose affirmative action and quotas precisely because they completely disregard MERIT would be advocating the same abhorrent practice for nominations to the Supreme Court, one of the most powerful, prestigious and highly prized positions in the United States. I fail to see how THAT's a winning strategy.
"Justice Thomas was considered to be just a dreadful, mediocre nominee and a damned token to boot; for example."
I remember his nomination well and FULLY supported it. I was so bothered by the attacks upon him, I took a day off from work and went to Washington visiting the Senators from my state as well as those on the then Judiciary committee, to voice my dissent at the outrageous treatment he was given. I then attended the hearing in the Senate.
Most conservatives at the time supported him, and he was not considered mediocre, nor certainly not dreadful nor was he the candidate who had the LEAST impressive qualifications of all the then known candidates, though there were other candidates who had greater constitutional experience and more time on the bench.
He also was NOT the president's friend who possessed a really weird, obsessive penchant for hiding his stands on the issues, eventuating in a situation in which he couldn't be identified as a conservative. In fact, his experience and resume contained strong conservative indicators, and I was certain he would prove to be an originalist, a conservative and someone who would likely overturn Roe vs. Wade, or I would NOT have gone to Washington to support him. I believe Justice Thomas has well proven me correct.
I was right about Thomas and I am right about Miers.
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.