Posted on 10/19/2005 10:46:45 AM PDT by quidnunc
Ten days ago I wrote about the Miers nomination in light of Judge Bork's introduction to a new book of essays on SCOTUS.
In this morning's Wall Street Journal, Judge Bork weighs in with a denunciation of the Miers nomination, which includes the fairly astonishing sentence:
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq aside, George W. Bush has not governed as a conservative (amnesty for illegal immigrants, reckless spending that will ultimately undo his tax cuts, signing a campaign finance bill even while maintaining its unconstitutionality).
This is the same as arguing that "Except for opposing Hitler and later warning of the descent of the Iron Curtain, Churchill did not govern as a conservative."
It is also striking that Judge Bork includes an assertion about a Bush policy — "amnesty for illegal immigrants" which is simply not true, as well as an exaggeration about spending that confuses Bush's deficits with those of the President that nominated the judge. Which didn't undo that president's tax cuts either.
I prefer the anti-Olympian Judge Bork, the one who would not be dismissive of careers as distinguished though non-judicial as Harriet Miers' or as contemptuous of her faith as the Wall Street Journal essay clearly is. I am also surprised to see Professor Gralia, Professor Sowell, Dean Starr and others lumped in among the "[s]ome moderate (i.e., lukewarm) conservatives [who] admonish the rest of us to hold our fire until Ms. Miers's performance at her hearing tells us more about her outlook on law… ."
In short, this morning's is an intemperate essay, quite extraordinary and unpersuasive. But like most of the arrows being fired at Miers now, it was not intended to persuade anyone at all but rather to inflame the anti-Miers crowd into a great frenzy of head-nodding murmuring. It may do that, although today's issuance of Diane Fienstein's ominous warning about Miers may have a far greater effect on the BWAE than Judge Bork's thunder. Look who's nodding and murmuring right along with you, friends.
-snip-
I really don't know what to make of the anti-Miers collective, except that they are anti-Miers, and have a list of a few people they'd have preferred to see nominated.
Judge Bork and the anti-Miers crowd are increasingly defined by their Potter Stewart-like standard for SCOTUS nominees: They'll know a good one when they see it.
-snip-
What do you expect her to say that will make you look favorably on you? Every question she's asked about her opinion of particular court rulings, or how she interprets particular provisions of the Constitution, she'll refuse to answer. No doubt she'll repeat over and over that the court "shouldn't make law" (as if there are any justices currently on the court that would openly disagree with that statement). There won't be anything substantive to come out of it. She's getting as much of a "hearing" right here on FR as you'll ever see on C-SPAN.
Pretty pathetic, isn't it?
Bork borks Meiers. Shame on him!!!! What the hell is happening to our side? People I used to respect are falling all over themselves to trash Bush and Meirs. And the nastiness. Who did they take lessons from... James Carville?I hope they end up having to eat their words big time.
Bork borks Meiers. Shame on him!!!! What the hell is happening to our side? People I used to respect are falling all over themselves to trash Bush and Meirs. And the nastiness. Who did they take lessons from... James Carville?I hope they end up having to eat their words big time.
Who did they take lessons from... James Carville?I hope they end up having to eat their words big time.
They will. Annie Know-It-All Coulter is still gagging on all the crow she's had to eat for calling CJ Roberts "another Souter".
I remember listening to the Bork hearings and I have to disagree strongly with your perception of them. What I remember is a man who spoke honestly and forthrightly about his opinions, not some stuck-up know-it-all. I'd have to say that the Democrat Senators were the ones that came across that way. I was very impressed with Judge Bork's demeanor and intelligence during those hearings. From what I've seen of him lately that hasn't changed, so I have no idea why you choose to describe him as pompous and bitter, unless you simply wish to discredit him because of his opinion on Miers.
If you disagree with him - fine. That's no reason to resort to personal attacks.
Ann Coulter is the Maureen Dowd of the right. She is a nasty, mean tempered scold. She's smart. But she is so damn nasty that even I could not get through her book, How to Talk to a Liberal. It was nothing more than page after page of insults, put downs, sarcasm and clawing people's eyes out verbally. As much as I detest liberals, and I do, I have better things to do than to be exposed to all that poison. Who wants to be such a bitter b&^*h?
Ann Coulter is the Maureen Dowd of the right. She is a nasty, mean tempered scold. She's smart. But she is so damn nasty that even I could not get through her book, How to Talk to a Liberal. It was nothing more than page after page of insults, put downs, sarcasm and clawing people's eyes out verbally. As much as I detest liberals, and I do, I have better things to do than to be exposed to all that poison. Who wants to be such a bitter b&^*h?
Miers's critics, at least those allegedly on the right (e.g. Brooks, Frum, Buchanan), have portrayed her as such a knuckle-dragging moron that almost ANYTHING coherent that comes out of her mouth will impress me!
Sorry, I don't remember the same. He came across as a law professor lecturing students on the constitution.
I supported his nomination and his approach to the law but think he made a fatal error by getting into extended debates with the committee members and by doing so gave his opponents the bullets with which to shoot him down.
Sadly, I have to agree with you on that. I bought High Crimes and Misdemeanors and Treason, but not How to Talk to a Liberal. Probably won't ever buy anything of Ann's again. Too disappointed and disillusioned by her literally hysterical reaction to Miers.
That will sure help us get to know Miers better. < /sarcasm >
"So you prefer the "hearings" that are held today where nothing of any substance at all is discussed.
That will sure help us get to know Miers better. < /sarcasm"
That's the problem. Many on this site and elsewhere apparently don't think we need hearings at all. They're ready to "LYNCH MIERS NOW".
Frankly, I think some have become so emotional wedded to their preconceived notion of her that nothing the woman can say will convert members of THE HERD. David Frum said as much when he opinied that(paraphrasing)it didn't matter how she ended up voting on particular cases in the future, she still couldn't be a good justice. TAKE THAT Harriet! Frum the Canadian has spoken!
The kind of hearings that are held nowadays won't tell us anything about Miers. These appear to be the kind of hearings that you prefer, since you feel that Judge Bork ruined his chances at a seat on the Supreme Court by being honest, forthright and non-evasive with his answers.
"The kind of hearings that are held nowadays won't tell us anything about Miers."
Question: Did you not feel comfortable with the Roberts nomination after hearing him speak? If so, that's all I expect for Miers-- a fair hearing.
We(conservatives) have bitched and screamed for 5 years that judicial nominees ALL deserved a fair hearing and an up or down vote on the floor. Lest we be hypocrites, Miers deserves nothing less.
Today's Robert Bork's article once again reminds us what the battle has been all about.
Another excellent article by Bork; and another long-respected conservative thrown under the bus by the absolute morons blindly supporting this pick. Of course, those who say that they are going to make their decision based on what she says in the hearings are either dishonest or brain dead. All we will learn is how good she is at talking without saying anything, since that's all these hearings have become.
Can the president break a promise to conservatives to pick someone in the mold of Scalia and Thomas and nominate whoever he wants? Sure! Can conservatives decide that this is the last straw and that they are no longer going to support him or withhold criticism (which to date has been rather muted despite his abrogation of his constitutional duty to defend our borders and being a bigger spender that Slick Willy ever thought of being)? Absolutely!
Roberts got away with it because he had so scant a paper trail -- much of which could be sloughed off as that of an "employee" of the Reagan administration. Bork had tons of paper trail, in which he was never coy about expressing himself. Even Ginsburg answered questions about stuff she had written.
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.