Posted on 10/20/2005 11:19:05 AM PDT by Stellar Dendrite
Read on.
You are against Miers because she is what? Or not what?
I don't want to anger any Ann Coulter or Laura Ingraham fans, but Michelle is my favorite! What a babe!!!!!
""There is no proportional representation requirement in the Equal Protection Clause," said Cass R. Sunstein, a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago. He and several other scholars said it appeared that Miers was confusing proportional representation -- which typically deals with ethnic groups having members on elected bodies -- with the one-man, one-vote Supreme Court ruling that requires, for example, legislative districts to have equal populations."
For what's it's worth, Cass Sunstein is a big time liberal. The Bush bots will say, "aha, he's just trying to embarrass her." But another response would be that he is describing the current state of the EPC accurately, even though he would no doubt like there to be a proportionate representation requirement.
Well, yeah, there's that.
As Ann Coulter wrote this week
"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 thought it was just because "he knew her heart".
I worried about the Roberts nomination because it looked like Bush was going down the road of favoring stealth nominees. But he was clearly brilliant, well-versed in constitutional law, had expressed some opinions during his life, and had some experience as a judge.
Then Bush came out with Miers, who is all stealth without any of Roberts' brilliant, constitutional knowledge, public opinions, or judicial experience.
http://images.redstate.org/images/miersquestionaire.htm <- Mires' Answers
http://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/200510/101905b.html <- Senate response
Thanks, Stellar, for the collection of quotes from the Senators.
" I thought it was just because "he knew her heart"."
I forgot that one. I guess that's two knockdown arguments he has.
Any bets this is just the tip of her "Constitutional interpretation" iceberg?
Say what you want about Leahy and Specter. YOu won't find any argument here. They are both liberal a-holes. (Makes you wonder why the Prez campaigned for Specter, though....I guess the political geniuses had some sort of master plan...but that's another issue).
But here is the reality of the situation, like it or not.
They are the top two dawgs on judiciary. If they are strongly against, it will be hard to win in cmtee. If they lose in cmtee., it will be hard to win on the floor.
I'm sure at the end of the day the administration will pull this out because they will bust a lot of (conservative) heads to do so. But this is a pretty poor start to a nomination which was supposed to be stealthily brilliant and just too clever for us rubes out in the hinterland to grasp. They have a plan, they play checkers not chess, blah blah blah.
I am beginning to see that Harriet Mier's failure to articulate an opinion on issues of law over a 35 year law career was not a brilliant piece of "strategery" by an ambitious lawyer designed to make her an appealing stealth candidate at some point in her future. Her failure to put forth originalist or even conservative opinions throughout her career is because she doesn't apparently doesn't have a sufficient grasp of basic issues to do so. Each new piece of information about the woman makes this nomination seem more and more ill-advised and ill-considered. Today, in his new conference with the head of the Palistinean terrorists, um, government, the President was asked about conservative criticism of Harriet Miers. He dismissed it as background chatter. To steal someone else's comment about the remark, isn't it wonderful to see the President being nicer to terrorists than to the people that worked to put him into office?
Apparently, there is now a divine right of Presidents we are expected to accept.
The same could be said about his love of illegal aliens, as well.
There is not.
I read CB's post and I thought it raised a good point.
However, I think her answer should have been something like this:
"I dealt with the then hotly-contested constitutional issue of what is required in the districting of City Council seats, including the issue of whether or not proportional representation was required. As a Council Member, I worked to make sure that we met the requirements of the Constitution, but also tried to make sure that we did not unnecessarily wade into litigation and use scarce City resources to fight a lawsuit."
That would have been a good answer. And it would be a good position for a council member to take. But to imply or state the PR is required is wrong.
"But that's not an argument in her favor. It's a statement."
Don't get cute or I am going to email the Moderator and complain that you are a DU troll, a Hillary lover, indeed, a communist, as you obviously are.
The sky continues to grow darker for the Bushies. It looks like the conservatives have had it with the toadies and RINOs surrounding the president. I hope the flashback includes some serious discussion of the Bush open-borders policy.
A believer in group rights and various notions typically espoused by social engineers. A decidely paternalistic sort who sees lawyers as having near-magical powers to solve society's problems.
In other words, not a conservative but a liberal who is mistaken for one because she is pro-life.
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.