Whose common sense? It is common sense for tyrannts to remove guns that could threaten their rule. 
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.
I've been saying that Ann needs a donut for at least 4 months now :-)
yes my tongue is planted FIRMLY in cheek when I say this too.
LOL! It's beyond irony that we're accused of attacking her when she's been attacking the administration and Miers for weeks now.
Maybe we should all mail her a donut :-)
And by the way, it's "tryst" not "trist." :)
Oh, one would think Ann would find a way to mention in a public appearance that it is not true that she's dating a young boy barely out of his teens. She needn't go to the lengths you described.
she can have her opinions, but when she breaks out great phrases like the one about Bush drinking again, that is straight out of the leftist playbook IMO.
That said, I think Ann is generally spot on, with the exception of Roberts (she was really wrong), and we don't know yet about Miers (at least I don't). We shall see....
Besides she is dating some pretty boy cowboy wannabe so I guess HE likes her being rail-thin....
Thanks for pointing out the typo. Preview would be my friend, if I'd allow it.
How could Sam possibly know it isn't true if there's no retraction. I understand there are things people in the news let slide. I also understand there are other things they would NEVER let slide.
Sam's going to come up with a retraction for me, I just know he would never make a claim without evidence. Freepers don't do that. Do they?
That comment about Bush drinking was the final straw, imo.
I still think she's smarting at being so wrong about Roberts. Re Miers, I have no idea and am so neutral on the nomination that it's cracking me up to see someone on this very thread try to link me with Harriet supporters.
Ach - some days I think freepers have lost their ever lovin' minds.
LOL
I think they may confuse you with Howlin. I do sometimes myself because I skim instead of really reading too...I don't know why either....
at first I was going to support the nomination simply because everyone was screaming so loudly that it would be a fun thing to do in spite :) But when it comes down to it, I am waiting on the hearings before I decide (or really care).
One of Novak's recent columns said that the President's second choice was Consuelo Callahan, a judge who was recommended by none other than Chuck Schumer. If that's true it's mindboggling.
I'm waiting for the hearings too. Take care, Mike.
I'm still chuckling about that donut :-)
I guess he could tell you, but then he'd have to, well, you know...:)
Don't let it keep you up nights, Granny. :)
Not to worry. The only thing that would keep me awake would be if I was scrambling trying to come up with a document that doesn't exist. Perhaps Sam should give Dan Rather a call.
Whose common sense? It is common sense for tyrannts to remove guns that could threaten their rule.
Ann is my favorite, but I have to say... I get up extra early to see Kiran Chetry on FNC while I get ready for work.
Me too, Ah really don't give a dang what she does or yaps! Good post Mike!
Probably the second choice of the Democrats, chosen for potential to embarrass the President. She's the one who tap danced on a table, no?
"I just know he would never make a claim without evidence. Freepers don't do that. Do they?"
This is an interesting comment giving the tendency over the last several days of various freepers to denounce someone and continually emphasize their supposed molestation of "man-children," when there is no compelling evidence to support this. If this story were proven true, I would be as disgusted as you are, but I think it is important to always maintain a level of scepticism regarding any mainstream media outlet, particularly where a tabloid gossip column written by a former liberal blogger is concerned. The Left loves nothing more than to charge conservatives with hypocrisy, so I would take this with a grain of salt. If you actually read the piece and consider its content, it is internally inconsistent and seems rather implausible. The story is from nearly 6 months ago, and was refuted at the time. Before Freepers and other grassroots conservatives were upset with Coulter over Miers and Roberts, they claimed to believe the story was untrue.
I read on another conservative forum back in May that a poster ran into Coulter in LA when she was there to appear on Leno et al, and they asked if she had converted her liberal boyfriend to conservatism yet, and she was apparently taken aback and said she didn't date democrats. The "I refuse to confirm or deny" response she emailed to the gossip column was supposedly a joking way of blowing the story off. That's not how I would have responded to such rumors, but she does have her own particular sense of humor.
"What Coulter wants is a judicial oligarchy."
NO she doesn't! She wants a strict constructionist judge who is willing to say "that's not my job" rather than making "common sense" rulings. IOW, rather than ruling on an unenforced Connecticut law, the court could have refused to rule thereby eliminating one of the steps used to get to Roe v. Wade.
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.