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 ...
Thank you. Seems they're all coming thru with open minds, if not outright support.
I can't sleep. My daughter resides on Grand Cayman Island. It's getting nasty there. Wilma is STRONG, but still south of them... a turn north will be devastating.
We can all have disagreements over the Miers nomination, and time will tell who was on the correct side. But please, don't go around making idiotic comments like this one. Demonstrates that you have no clue about what you're talking about and diminishes any argument you would make. Like his personal opinions or not, Robert Bork is one of the most preeminent constitutional scholars presently breathing. While Roberts is brilliant in his own right, he would not "run circles around him," and it is preposterous to even suggest it.
God Bless you and yours.
Thank you, sweet FRiend. I'm all but certain the Cayman's will be ok. Wilma is pretty far south of them. She'd have to take a northward turn and fast.
She didn't say that he had been a Judge either, which is why I was certain to mention it.
Thomas's paper trail was nowhere near as thin as Miers. Most conservatives were satisfied with his conservative credentials. However, there was NO paper trail on where he stood on Roe vs. Wade.
Agreed. But that's the beauty of Miers IF you trust POTUS as I do. His judicial appointees have all been excellent.
He's not happy, either.
There's no documentation that Bork has ever smiled.
Your "esteem" for Reagan may have grown since he left office, but evidently so has the mythographicated talking points"(No Pardons)
I NEVER said my esteem for Reagan grew after he left office. Read the above. I said I knew he was GREAT at the time and that my esteem and admiration for him now is no greater than it was then.
"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."
What are you talking about??? Do you read what other people write? I was in college when Reagan was elected. I voted for him twice and worked to get him elected. He helped to shape much of my conservative thinking and was my second greatest hero then as he is now. I followed his presidency VERY CAREFULLY and listened to everyone of his speeches. My conservative friends and I absolutely adored him. He inspired us to become involved in politics and we worked in a number of campaigns in college and afterwards, and also helped to establish a statewide collegiate pro-life organization.
No president is a demiGod but Reagan was one of the GREATEST presidents ever and certainly in my lifetime. One of the saddest days of my life was the day he left office. He is sorely missed.
No, I don't see President Bush as I saw Reagan. I like him, far better he than any democrat. However, he is a good but not GREAT president.
At the time Reagan was president I saw him as GREAT. I don't see Bush as great NOW at the time of his presidency and likely never will. Sorry.
"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."
And lots of people loved FDR and still do. I know many people from that era who loved him then and love him now. Both statements yours and mine are true about him
"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."
Actually, I knew two people who were on his staff and worked closely with him. They told me just what I told you above. That while Reagan did indeed admire FDR, the reason he brought him up so frequently was to tweak the Democrats. And THAT's a fact.
You would be wise NOT to assume you've been around the block more than anyone else. There are many people on FR who've met all kinds of political people and have all kinds political experience.
I don't trust GW, Ronald Reagan or any president as you do and there is NO beauty about trusting any person to that degree. It is in fact foolish. It is thinking like that which will lead us right into the path of a dictatosrhip.
The only being I trust to that degree is almighty God.
As I said in reply #98, I saw Reagan's greatness as a college student while he was president, I don't see the same in GW, and likely never will. Sorry.
Now Miers is being Borked by Bork-what next?
Good one. She carries: no wonder he doesn't like her.
Bork is miring Miers.
LOL! For sure he's not ad miring Miers.
[[Like his personal opinions or not, Robert Bork is one of the most preeminent constitutional scholars presently breathing.]]
His critique of Miers qualifications is a mark against his Constitutional scholarship. He presents it in an academic elitist vernacular. Only scholars like him are qualified in his mind. That flies directly in the face of the Constitution. He is doing a conservative version of Paul Krugman, on a smaller scale. Krugman used to be a respected economist and is now an ideological hack, Bork is meandering down that trail. If Bork's critique were the qualification for sitting on the Supreme Court, John Marshall, perhap the greatest justice in this country's history would never have sat on the court. The fact he is engaging in exactly what happened to him, and he has complained about ever since, does not speak highly of his integrity. He has been getting his face on TV alot, and being quoted, he is showing signs of falling in love with himself and his new found public personna.
Douglas Kmiec is also one of the most respected conservative Constitutional scholars in this country, but he does not agree with Bork, and his opinion piece was written with much more flair, stronger argumentation and less vitriol. Kmiec's oped made Bork's look amateurish, elitist and mean-spirited.
We could dig up constitutional scholars all day landing on both sides of the Miers debate. But simply because you believe Bork is the ultimate Constitutional scholar does not make it so. He is one, but I am not willing to put him on a pedestal, especially with his elitist attitude of who is qualified to sit on the SCOTUS. Right now we have 9 book smart justices, and not one who is life experience smart, None of them have ties to local or state levels, but instead are all products of a federal elite jurisprudence experience. Miers will potentially become the strongest federalist of them all, because she has that background and experience. Scalia showed inconsistency on federalism when he ruled against medical marijuana and argued personal growth of marijuana for medical purposes fell under the interstate commerce clause. Say what ? Now, I have a lot of respect for Scalia and wanted him to be the new Chief Justice, but that ruling against states rights was seriously flawed. It shows that even the most scholarly of justices are not always right, and that could quite possibly be because there is no one with the background or experience on the court to make that argument from personal experience. Book learning can only take you so far. Miers will bring the local, state, and business perspective to the court that currently does not exist.
What other scholars disagree with Bork ? David Yalof: "People are still learning about Harriet Miers. Hers was not a name that quickly came off everybody's lips when people [asked] who are the most qualified people for the court," says David Yalof, a political science professor and expert on Supreme Court nominations at the University of Connecticut.
But Professor Yalof adds, "The issue has never been most qualified, the issue is qualified."
Who is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court is a determination made on a nominee by nominee basis by at least 51 US senators. There are no set rules for qualification. Although every past justice has been a lawyer, 41 of the 109 justices had no prior judicial experience.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1007/p01s03-usju.html
41 out of 109, beside Marshall, that includes Earl Warren, Louis Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter, William O. DOuglas and William Rehnquist.
I am firmly in the anti-Miers camp. Still, I must congratulate you on a good argument here.
It's true that many have criticized the Miers pick for the chilling effect it would have on those with judicial aspirations. You have made a good case that when it comes to appointment to lower courts, strict constructionist credentials still remain important.
Still, it is disappointing that when it came to the big enchilada, Bush apparently lost the courage of his convictions.
For one to dismiss Robert Bork so easily in order to support Miers does not speak well of Miers. If Miers was known to have a tenth of Bork's credentials, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
http://www.palfacts.com/Clarence_Thomas
Less frequently mentioned is Ayn Rand's impact on the life and thinking of Clarence Thomas—former chairman of the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), former justice on the D. C. Circuit Court of Appeals, and now Associate Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court.
Justice Thomas is well known for a personal philosophy of self-reliant individualism, and for tenacious support of individual rights. Two recent biographies about him make clear that on both counts—and even in his private life—the influence of Ayn Rand has been substantial.
According to John Greenya's Silent Justice: The Clarence Thomas Story (Barricade Books, 2001), "in addition to his grandfather's homilies and exhortations, Clarence had been self-nourished on an early diet of Horatio Alger and a later one of Ayn Rand," as well as the novels of Richard Wright.
Greenya quotes a 1998 interview in Neopolitique, where the jurist explained the evolution of his thinking:
"…when I got to the Attorney General's office I started to read more economics, and Tom Sowell [a prominent economist] was actually the one [who moved him toward a more conservative orientation]… And over the years then I read others—[economist Friedrich] Hayek, [historian] Paul Johnson, there's a whole range of people. I've been through the Ayn Rand period. People who think intrigue me…" According to Clarence Thomas, A Biography, by Andrew Peyton Thomas (Encounter Books, 2001), this Randian period occurred during the 1980s.
"Thomas found support for this 'libertarian strain'…in the writings he started to devour around this time. Ayn Rand was an intellectual who smartly promoted her ultra-libertarian philosophy through novels. Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead featured heroic, solitary characters battling big government and excessive regulations that cramped individuality and self-expression… [The Fountainhead] became one of Thomas's favorites; he would show the filmed adaptation to his EEOC staff—during the lunch hour, so as not to consume government time—as what one aide called 'a sort of training film.'"
By November 1987 Mr. Thomas would tell a Reason magazine interviewer that "I tend really be partial to Ayn Rand, and to The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged." According to a friend quoted by Andrew Peyton Thomas: "He really thought Ayn Rand, that this was really great stuff. He was also really religious. He realized that didn't quite square."
But enough so, apparently, that Ayn Rand's novels even played an unexpected role in Clarence Thomas's private life—according to Clarence Thomas, A Biography. Upon first meeting Virginia Lamp, an official with the U. S. Chamber of Commerce, Thomas found they had much in common. "They also learned that they shared an appreciation for Ayn Rand." Virginia Lamp eventually became Mr. Thomas's wife.
His interest in Rand also had a direct impact on his career advancement. In Silent Justice, Greenya points to the pivotal role played by "friend and former of EEOC employee Clint Bolick." Mr. Bolick, who now leads the Institute for Justice—a libertarian public interest law firm in Washington, D. C.—is a committed advocate of Rand's philosophy. When the White House was reviewing federal judicial candidates, Mr. Bolick promoted Mr. Thomas's name to a White House counsel, Lee Liberman, "underscoring Thomas's devotion to the philosophy of Ayn Rand." Andrew Peyton Thomas confirms that, in conversations with Liberman, "[Clint] Bolick made special mention of Thomas's devotion to Ayn Rand."
In 1989, Liberman (who later founded the conservative Federalist Society) and chief White House counsel C. Boyden Gray recommended Mr. Thomas to former President George Bush, who in turn nominated him to the D. C. Circuit Court of Appeals. This post became the final steppingstone to Mr. Thomas's eventual nomination to the U. S. Supreme Court.
As most people know, Justice Thomas faced stormy and scandalous Senate confirmation hearings. His defiant moral challenge to the committee—in which the accused reversed roles and became their accuser—is strikingly reminiscent of the approach and manner adopted by Rand's character Hank Rearden during a "kangaroo court" scene in Atlas Shrugged. Coincidence? Perhaps. But the outcomes, in both real life and in fiction, were remarkably similar.
Last year, when the Supreme Court was, in effect, called upon to decide the Presidential election, Clarence Thomas cast one of the votes that narrowly tipped the scales to George W. Bush. As we ponder the awesome implications of that election, it is astonishing that the rise of Clarence Thomas to that pivotal position was in no small measure fueled by the ideas and inspiration of Ayn Rand.
http://www.atlassociety.org/rb_celebrity_ayn_rand_fans_clarence_thomas.asp
Total speculation on your part. He repeatedly stated that he's certain of her. Pity you're so suspicious and non trusting.
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.