UMMM... BORK, BORK, BORK!
ping.
you can use bugmenot.com to bypass registration
Why do people always post excerpted articles that require registration? Man...that just ticks me off.
:)
Rift, rift, rift!!!!
Bork is bitter.
Bork for the Court!!
(And why the hell shouldn't he be bitter.)
I guess Mr. Bork would concider all the Republican Senators on the Senate Judiciary committee to be lukewarm then.
Thier Statements...
Mr. Brownback (R) “I congratulate Harriet Miers on her nomination to be Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court and I look forward to learning at her confirmation hearing whether she possesses a firm commitment to the Framers' Constitution and to the rule of law,” Brownback stated. “I am hopeful that Ms. Miers will be, as President Bush promised, a qualified nominee in the mold of Justices Scalia and Thomas who will strictly interpret the law and will not create law.”
Brownback, a member of the Judiciary Committee and chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee, previously commented that he hoped the President would nominate a jurist who would strictly interpret the Constitution and who has a well-formed judicial philosophy and stated positions on important issues.
Brownback continued, “I have said in the past that I would like a nominee with a proven track record on important issues to all Americans and whose judicial philosophy is well-formed. I am not yet confident that Ms. Miers has a proven track record and I look forward to having these questions answered. President Bush has a long-standing working relationship with Ms. Miers and I trust the President knows her heart and her mind. Even so, the confirmation process has just begun and questions about her views on the Constitution need to be answered. As President Bush and President Reagan have commented in the past, in this regard I feel we must trust but verify.”
Mr. Coburn (R) “Harriet Miers deserves a fair and thorough hearing and confirmation process. I look forward to learning more about her qualifications and judicial philosophy in the coming days,” Dr. Coburn said, adding that he plans to meet with Miers this week.”
Mr. Graham (R) “President Bush has made a solid pick for the Supreme Court.
“Harriet Miers has been in the legal trenches throughout her career and has a tremendous understanding of how the law works in people’s everyday lives. Her legal experience combined with her life experience makes her a solid choice.
“I hope for and anticipate a smooth confirmation process with a significant bipartisan vote in support. In my opinion, there will be no filibuster as she is a mainstream conservative who will be a strict constructionist on the Supreme Court.”
Mr. Sessions (R) “My conversations with Harriet Miers indicate that she is a first-rate lawyer and a fine person. Her legal skills are proven and her reputation throughout the legal community is excellent. It is not necessary that she have previous experience as a judge in order to serve on the Supreme Court. It’s perfectly acceptable to nominate outstanding lawyers to that position. I look forward to the confirmation process and to learning more about her judicial philosophy.”
Mr. Cornyn (R) "The President has announced his nominee to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court of the United States: Harriet Miers, currently serving as White House Counsel. As he did with Judge John G. Roberts, Jr., the President has chosen an outstanding nominee for our nation's highest court. The Senate should consider this nomination in both a thorough and expedient manner.
"Harriet Miers is a brilliant legal mind. She is a woman of outstanding character who clearly understands what it means to follow the law. She is deeply committed to public service, and has a distinguished history of professional achievement. It is clear that her past experiences have well prepared her for the honor of serving our country as a Supreme Court Justice. I strongly support her nomination.
"It is important that we put aside partisanship, and that the Senate fulfill its constitutional responsibility of advice and consent. This fine nominee must be treated with civility and respect, not as a political pawn. I hope that we in the Senate can move forward in a manner worthy of the American people."
That bears repeating.
"Bork Here! Still Opposed! Number of days opposed is mounting steadily, and should soon reach the tipping point. And remember, not only do I still oppose this nominee for what we don't know about her, but I also oppose her because she is one of those nut-case gun owners who thinks the 2nd amendment applies to her"
:->
Still in the (now-minority) waiting-to-see camp.....
In Bork's hysterical bromide, the above is his punch line. We cannot know that she is an "originalist." But then, Roberts made clear he was not an originalist in the Scalia paradigm, not am I. Isn't in the Bork universe, one whom one does not know is an orginalist, better than one, one knows one is not? Did Bork oppose and traduce Roberts? Where was he?
"Originalist" is a buzz term, now a jurisprudential football. So much of the Constitutional interpretation, cannot be resolved by the bare words of the original text. Words are often imprecise, intent is often unknown, including whether the intent or not was to suffuse the words with modern meaning, such as "cruel and unusual." Nobody really knows what the intent of the second amendment was. Nobody. The text itself is confusing. What does equal protection of the laws mean, exactly, or the preface about the right to liberty etc? What was the true intent about the commerce clause, and the binding together economically of the fruited plain? What was the intent of its ultimate reach, and does it matter that the nature of the economy changed? Was the intent to accommodate changing economic conditions? The founders understood that the fruited plain was poised for vast change over the decades, with unlimited potential. They understood and saw in their crystal ball that much.
The originalist approach is a good starting point, but not a universal solvent, and to suggest otherwise is superficial, it is polemical, it is ignorant, and I am tired of it.
Oh yes, Bork is not ignorant, just cynical. And his bromide sucks. It has no redeeming social value. That is my call.
Touché!!!
According to WH acolytes, Miers critics "repeat Democrat talking points," or "adopt the rhetoric of the Far Left." Of course, meanwhile the Bush WH is implementing the agenda of the Democrats and the Left. So the Democrats are put by the Bush WH in the wonderful position of being an "opposition" party with nothing really to "oppose"----such a deal!!
The Great Borkian.
What a disgrace this nomination-process loser Mr. Bork has become. He wants nothing more than somebody else to join him in the ranks of those who couldn't get confirmed.
He relies on David Brooks - no person more or less than ol' Krypt himself has discredited the hit piece he refers to from the *conservative* at the NY Times, instead of himself, to *attack* Miers' writings.
Bork WILL be ashamed of himself, eventually.
Bork is a crybaby, crapping in his adult diapers.
In the early '90s, while she was president of the Texas bar association, Miers wrote a column called "President's Opinion" for The Texas Bar Journal. It is the largest body of public writing we have from her, and sad to say, the quality of thought and writing doesn't even rise to the level of pedestrian.Nothing excuses sentences like this: "More and more, the intractable problems in our society have one answer: broad-based intolerance of unacceptable conditions and a commitment by many to fix problems."
Or this: "We must end collective acceptance of inappropriate conduct and increase education in professionalism."
Or this: "When consensus of diverse leadership can be achieved on issues of importance, the greatest impact can be achieved."
Or passages like this: "An organization must also implement programs to fulfill strategies established through its goals and mission. Methods for evaluation of these strategies are a necessity. With the framework of mission, goals, strategies, programs, and methods for evaluation in place, a meaningful budgeting process can begin."
I don't know if by mere quotation I can fully convey the relentless march of vapid abstractions that mark Miers' prose. Nearly every idea is vague and depersonalized. Nearly every debatable point is elided. It's not that Miers didn't attempt to tackle interesting subjects. She wrote about unequal access to the justice system, about the underrepresentation of minorities in the law and about whether pro bono work should be mandatory. But she presents no arguments or ideas, except the repetition of the bromide that bad things can be eliminated if people of good will come together to eliminate bad things.
Throw aside ideology. Surely the threshold skill required of a Supreme Court justice is the ability to write clearly and argue incisively.
How on God's good earth did George Bush think he could get away with putting such an unqualified, mediocre crony on the court? She is going to get sliced and diced before the committee.
Bush shows himself to be indifferent, if not hostile, to conservative values.I received a "begging and pleading for money" email from Ken Mehlman, head of the RNC tonight. In my response to him I really beat on this hard.
I am first and foremost a conservative. It just so happens that, of the major, worth voting for parties, the Republican Party aligns itself most closely with my views.
I can no longer believe that President Bush is a conservative. Oh, he has some conservative qualities. But he is not a true, dyed in the wool conservative.
My bottom line to Ken: no moolah until the RNC comes back home to it's conservative roots.
And I'll be shocked and awed if that happens.
The one who got Borked is now borking, can you see the hypocrisy ?
Sniff, sniff.... < /elitism >
Thoughtful article by Judge Bork as well as a clever title.
Very harsh indeed. Robert Bork is right. He knows what superior judicial intellectualism and scholarship are.