Posted on 10/19/2005 2:09:36 PM PDT by bigsky
I have finally hit upon a misdeed by the Bush Administration so outrageous, so appalling, so egregious, I am calling for a bipartisan commission with subpoena power to investigate: Who told the President to nominate Harriet Miers? The commission should also be charged with getting an answer to this question: Who was his second choice?
Things are so bad, the best option for Karl Rove now would be to get himself indicted. Then at least he'd have a colorable claim to having no involvement in the Miers nomination.
This week's Miers update is:
(1) Miers is a good bowler (New York Times, Oct. 16, 2005, front page–Joshua B. Bolten, director of the Office of Management and Budget: "'She is a very good bowler"), which, in all honesty, is the most impressive thing I've heard about Miers so far.
(2) In 1989, she supported a ban on abortion except to save the life of the mother.
From the beginning of this nightmare, I have taken it as a given that Miers will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. I assume that's why Bush nominated her. (It certainly wasn't her resume.) Pity no one told him there are scads of highly qualified judicial nominees who would also have voted against Roe. Wasn't it Harriet Miers' job to tell him that? Hey, wait a minute . . .
But without a conservative theory of constitutional interpretation, Miers will lay the groundwork for a million more Roes. We're told she has terrific "common sense." Common sense is the last thing you want in a judge! The maxim "Hard cases make bad law" could be expanded to "Hard cases being decided by judges with 'common sense' make unfathomably bad law."
It was "common sense" to allow married couples to buy contraception in Connecticut. That was a decision any randomly selected group of nine good bowlers might well have concurred with on the grounds that, "Well, it's just common sense, isn't it?"
But when the Supreme Court used common sense–rather than the text of the Constitution–to strike down Connecticut's law banning contraception, it opened the door to the Supreme Court’s rewriting all manner of state laws By creating a nonspecific "right to privacy," Griswold v. Connecticut led like night into day to the famed "constitutional right" to stick a fork in a baby's head.
This isn't rank speculation about where "common sense" devoid of constitutional theory gets you: Miers told Sen. Arlen Specter (R.-Pa.) she would have voted with the majority in Griswold.
(Miers also told Sen. Patrick Leahy (D.-Vt.)–in front of witnesses–that her favorite justice was "Warren," leaving people wondering whether she meant former Chief Justice Earl Warren, memorialized in "Impeach Warren" billboards across America, or former Chief Justice Warren Burger, another mediocrity praised for his "common sense" who voted for Roe v. Wade and was laughed at by Rehnquist clerks like John Roberts for his lack of ability.)
The sickness of what liberals have done to America is that so many citizens – even conservative citizens – seem to believe the job of a Supreme Court justice entails nothing more than "voting" on public policy issues. The White House considers it relevant to tell us Miers' religious beliefs, her hobbies, her hopes and dreams. She's a good bowler! A stickler for detail! Great dancer! Makes her own clothes!
That's nice for her, but what we're really in the market for is a constitutional scholar who can forcefully say, "No -- that's not my job."
We've been waiting 30 years to end the lunacy of nine demigods on the Supreme Court deciding every burning social issue of the day for us, loyal subjects in a judicial theocracy. We don't want someone who will decide those issues for us – but decide them "our" way. If we did, a White House bureaucrat with good horse sense might be just the ticket.
Admittedly, there isn't much that's more important than ending the abortion holocaust in America. (Abortionist casualties: 7. Unborn casualties 30 million.) But there is one thing. That is democracy.
Democracy sometimes leads to silly laws such as the one that prohibited married couples from buying contraception in Connecticut. But allowing Americans to vote has never led to crèches being torn down across America. It's never led to prayer being purged from every public school in the nation. It's never led to gay marriage. It's never led to returning slaves who had escaped to free states to their slave masters. And it's never led to 30 million dead babies.
We've gone from a representative democracy to a monarchy, and the most appalling thing is–even conservatives just hope like the dickens the next king is a good one.
She disagreed with his choices. So did most of the editors at NRO.com. I happen to agree with Bush on these matters, but I feel no need to attack Coulter personally, on issues such as her weight or her choice of dates, and I still read The Corner at NRO every day.
| Action | User | Date/Time |
|---|---|---|
| Append keyword "allmoonbotinsults" |
LibertarianInExile |
10/19/2005 7:14:27 PM CDT |
| Append keyword "conservativesagree" |
LibertarianInExile |
10/19/2005 7:13:46 PM CDT |
| Append keyword "aplusann" |
LibertarianInExile |
10/19/2005 7:13:45 PM CDT |
| Append keyword "amoonbotslam" |
LibertarianInExile |
10/19/2005 7:13:44 PM CDT |
| Append keyword "coulterdatesadem" |
COEXERJ145 |
10/19/2005 5:59:40 PM CDT |
| Append keyword "midlifecrisis" |
Diddle E. Squat |
10/19/2005 5:52:47 PM CDT |
| Append keyword "bitterbiatch" |
nopardons |
10/19/2005 5:17:31 PM CDT |
| Append keyword "morebushbashing" |
nopardons |
10/19/2005 5:15:17 PM CDT |
| Append keyword "annalsohatedroberts" |
nopardons |
10/19/2005 5:14:42 PM CDT |
| Append keyword "getannthorozine" |
nopardons |
10/19/2005 5:13:52 PM CDT |
| Append keyword "getannadonut" |
MikeinIraq |
10/19/2005 4:56:59 PM CDT |
| Append keyword "supremecourt" |
bigsky |
10/19/2005 4:09:37 PM CDT |
| Append keyword "coulter" |
bigsky |
10/19/2005 4:09:37 PM CDT |
| Append keyword "scotus" |
bigsky |
10/19/2005 4:09:37 PM CDT |
| Append keyword "miers" |
bigsky |
10/19/2005 4:09:37 PM CDT |
Uh, in case you haven't noticed, Ann can't seem to get herself a man so I really don't think this is a case of jealousy.
You still don't see the irony of your own words. Pity.
I am still waiting on you to direct me to the retraction of the Coulter/manchild story.
Surely you weren't trying to mislead me, were you?
And the point of that post was...?
You know, I'm sorry but I quit reading or listening to Ann Coulter months ago. She has become so obnoxious and mouthy. Whenever she opens her mouth I think: "Oh God, what stupid thing is going to come out of her mouth this time.?
The point is to not screw around with keywords.
Jeez. First Ann can only get a younger man, (and that's bad) and now she can't get any man, (and that's bad.) Who cares what men she gets, or doesn't? And I know enough about the PR business to know that half of the stuff that gets printed in these columns is placed there by PR hacks trying to raise the profile of their clients, or other such agendas.
I don't get it. I'll have to go back and look at them because nothing jumped out at me.
Thanks. Always good to see who the keyword kooks are.
I don't know, Veronica. Somehow a boy just out of his teens isn't really a man yet.
But it also has not escaped notice here tonight that you are condemning freepers for not liking Ann's heated rhetoric and worrying that we (freepers) are giving the left some laughs.
Yet you feel no such concern that Ann, who is more widely read than this thread, has condemned in unseemly language a woman who paved the way for Ann to make her living the way she does. Ann has similarly written VERY harshly about the president and Roberts.
Now maybe you don't have a problem with that. That's fine. I have a big problem with Ann's over the top unprofessional rhetoric and so I'm tweaking someone on this thread who attacked a freeper I happen to know.
I hope that's clear. But in case it's not, you seem to have posed some new rules for conservatives and freepers to follow.
I will ask again that you post those rules and we'll be sure to follow them the MINUTE that Ann Coulter follows them.
And their agendas.
Hey, since I publicly signed my keyword in post #61, can I take defensive driving to avoid the points on my drivers license?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1505444/posts?page=61#61
The next think you know we'll find out she's dating a young, 45-year-old whippersnapper. :)
I think you're "keyword" has it about right. I'm stealing it for my tagline. LOL
Amen! Ann nails it! True Conservatives feel the same way!
I'm glad you're back, I was afraid you'd left for the evening. (I didn't want to go looking for you, I was afraid you'd accuse me of stalking you ;>)
Perhaps you missed my question to you earlier.
Could you please direct me to the retraction of the Coulter/manboy trist?
HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! Ha! Ha ha... a...
OK, I've screwed around with keywords on occasion, too. But thanks for the chuckle, I'll behave from now on! ;)
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.