Posted on 10/22/2005 7:13:03 AM PDT by RyanM
Jonah bails entirely on Harriet...
THIS IS WHERE I GET OFF [Jonah Goldberg ]
My official position on Miers has been to criticize the selection, but give her the benefit of the doubt until the hearings. In other words, bad pick but she's the nominee so let's give her a shot.
No more.
After reading this story I'm officially against Miers. I'm with the Editors , Will, Frum, and Krauthammer.
It's not just that Miers was in favor of racial quotas -- we'd pretty much known that for a while. It's the fundamental confirmation that she's a go-along-with-the-crowd establishmentarian. The White House says that her enthusiastic support for goals, timetables and quotas at the Bar Association says nothing about her views on government race policies. Yeah, right. She simultaneously thought what she was doing was great and important while also believing it would be unconstitutional if the government did the same thing.
The White House says she's an unchanging rock of principle. Uh huh. So have her opinions held constant since the early 1990s? Or have they shifted with the wind? If she's a rock, I don't want her. If she's a weather vane, I don't want her.
I just don't want her.
Start over.
Stick fork in her she is done. The best thing to do for all is pick new person.
So does that mean she is in favor of antidisestablishmentarianism?
I finally got to use that word in a sentence!!!!
I'd say that makes you . . . supercalifrajalisticexpialidocious ;-)
Very well put, IMO.
>>>> it has pushed otherwise good conservatives into the uncomfortable position of splitting hairs in defense of racial quotas!
Oh, so you are going to show me the quote in the WaPo article that shows Ms. Miers supports racial quotas?
peyton randolph and I have already gone through it. The quotes are not there. But you have conveniently passed over those posts and have continued to post your 'racial quotas' quotes.
Nope. I'm not supporting a "Not In Our Name" position.
Ever.
With respect, you're proving my point. I'd venture that if this were the nominee of a liberal Dem president, you would look at this aspect of her record and be dismayed, if not outraged.
I blame W for pushing loyal conservatives into these uncomfortable positions.
I don't intend to offend anyone, but I also must be truthful... and I will also make it clear to my senators. This nominee is NOT what we need... she seems to be all over the place... and everyday as I learn more about her, she seems EVEN farther and farther from the heavy weight I dreamed to have for this position.
There is still time to correct this. She could even be a judge in lower courts and let me just say that seems to be and intelligent, accomplished and a decent person indeed! BUT, this particular position for the SC is for some one else.
MRS. MIERS PLEASE WITHDRAW
So who is left on the bandwagon? Dobson? Anyone else?
" ... The President may be doing a "rope-a-dope" with this "supposed" nominee.
Like he let's the Dimocrats fire their scuds, lets the word cautiously slip out that he won't be terribly upset should she not make confirmation, and then throw a "Robert Bork" like nominee at them for the kill.
Anything is possible, though I admit, not probable, and no, I won't bet on it. ;)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1495585/posts?page=106#106
How are the odds now?
Prove me wrong. Produce a quote.
:::tapping foot::::Waiting::::
Unless President Bush nominates an originalist with "intellect, and judicial experience" the chances are 7-0 (Warren, Brennan, Blackmun, Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, & Souter to 0) that whoever gets nominated will end up "growing" into a clone of the foregoing stinking even.
Thanks for the link...
Harriet Miers,
Nominee to the United States Supreme Court
BIOGRAPHY
Harriet Miers was born in Dallas, Texas on August 10, 1945.
Ms. Miers received her bachelor's degree in Mathematics in 1967 and J.D. in 1970 from Southern Methodist University.
Upon graduation, she clerked for U.S. District Judge Joe E. Estes from 1970 to 1972.
In 1972, Ms. Miers became the first woman hired at Dallas’s Locke Purnell Rain Harrell.
*
In March 1996, her colleagues elected her the first female President of Locke, Purnell, Rain & Harrell, at that time a firm of about 200 lawyers. She became the first female to lead a Texas firm of that size.
Locke, Purnell eventually merged with a Houston firm and became Locke Liddell & Sapp, LLP, where Ms. Miers became Co-Managing Partner and helped manage an over-400-lawyer firm.
Ms. Miers had a very distinguished career as a trial litigator, representing such clients as Microsoft, Walt Disney Co. and SunGard Data Systems Inc.
Throughout her career, she has been very active in the legal community and has blazed a trail for other women to follow.
*
In 1985, Ms. Miers was selected as the first woman to become President of the Dallas Bar Association.
*
In 1992, she became the first woman elected President of the State Bar of Texas. Ms. Miers served as the President of the State Bar of Texas from 1992 to 1993.
*
She played an active role in the American Bar Association. She was one of two candidates for the Number 2 position at the ABA, chair of the House of Delegates, before withdrawing her candidacy to move to Washington to serve in the White House. Ms. Miers also served as the chair of the ABA’s Commission on Multijurisdictional Practice.
On numerous occasions, the National Law Journal named her one of the Nation’s 100 most powerful attorneys, and as one of the Nation’s top 50 women lawyers.
I know it's been quoted to you before, but if the quote below doesn't do it for you, then I'll just say you're entitled to your opinions and leave it there.
"She and the board of directors went further, passing a resolution urging Texas law firms to set a goal of hiring one qualified minority lawyer for every 10 new associates."
I have thought since the beginning that she could count on 45 RAT votes, for three reasons:
1) She is a weak quota queen.
2) Like all less than brilliant overachievers, she will chase the admiration of her "betters".
3) Having her on the Court will make Bush look bad for twenty years after he's out of office.
Sounds like a real dim bulb.
Yup. And I responded.
Goal is NOT Quota.
So true. The argument that "goals are not quotas" is always trotted out to defend the indefensible. I know from direct personal experience at a bankrupt former employer where the same intellectually dishonest line was frequently used.
You said a mouthful. I second the points of your entire post. I was a youth for Goldwater and campaigned for Reagan in California. I had to hold my nose to vote for Bush41 and Bush43 in '88, 2K and '04. The Bush's are Eastern liberal Rockefeller RINO's. To expect otherwise is to be constantly disappointed.
Marilyn had some big feet. Her legs look different than I would have expected.
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.