Posted on 10/22/2005 9:19:11 AM PDT by Calpernia
Good point, I was actually referring to the hypothetical scenario of voting against Hillary's nominations. If the GOP had shown stones when Ruth Bader Ginsberg was nominated they could have stopped her.
But you claim to KNOW how Miers will turn out because.......
"Not using affirmative action still applies: those who best fill the needs are hired based on requirements and qualifications, not a person's skin color or sex.
Passing over someone whose SKILLS excel in the areas required simply because of their skin color or gender is wrong."
Private employers should be free to hire who they want -it does not have to be the most qualified person according to some external measure. When you are doing hiring there can be other considerations.
"But I can see arguments for wanting diversity in a company. In Atlanta a law firm is likely to have so well off black clients - in the Southwest I can see where having some Latino lawyers might help present a better face to Latino clients"
_______________________________________
Let the market place dictate. If some dinosaur co. doesn't higher the best and the brightest then let their competitor who does put them out of business.
That's fine but I would remind you that there are very good indications that he went against Rove and Cheney's recommendation on this pick.
We'll probably never know but the fact that neither Rove nor Cheney were part of the interview process with Miers speaks volumes to me. This is highly unusual. Bush's top three political advisors have to be Rove Cheney and Card (who did interview Meirs and with anything as highly charged as a supreme court nomination you would expect Bush to make sure that all three of these guys were on board. It doesn't look like it to me. If you saw the Brit Hume interview of Cheney earlier this week you surely saw that Brit Hume doesn't believe the Cheney support is really there for Miers - he's just a good soldier (in fact the best) and so he naturally supports Bush's decision.
They are not quotas as laid out by the EOE.
I appreciate your having made your position clear. But by the same token, I think it goes a long way to explaining your support for Miers and the opposition of many leading conservatives and a plurality of FReepers. I will second Goldberg's view on this:
"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."
Try as you may, you'll not connect opposition to Miers with support for those causes. I'd say it was a valiant effort on your part, but I don't like to lie. Or prevaricate, as the case may be. :-)
We will see in the end which Senators line up with which side...an outcome the anti-Miers zealots are desperate to avoid.
Thus, I expect the calls for withdrawal to become increasingly more shrill...
Name calling and guilt by association. All canards of the left and taken up by the White House and its supporters. We are sexists. We may destroy the presidency...The Bush folk just can't abide by dissent any better than leftists do.
Miers has damaged the conservative cause and caused a split in our ranks. Not an opinion. It's the truth. No name calling here. The president just made a very bad choice. She may be a nice lady, but she should step aside.
Go ahead and call me names. I'll just laugh at you for proving my point that the Bush people are becoming as emotional as liberals.
The point is, that because the importance of this nomination to the Supreme Court for years to come, if there is 1% chance, and we know it today, that she is moderate to liberal leaning, we can't afford to take the chance.
Sandra Day O'Connor was appointed by President Reagan as a conservative and she ended up being the swing vote, a moderate. So even when we think someone is solid conservative, they can turn out to be more liberal,than we wish.
Then there was Souter, another stealth candidate who NEVER was a conservative.
From what I see, Miers is NOT a conservative.
And as I said before, by not putting in a conservative this time, with nominees from future presidents, the Supreme Court could end up being liberal for the next 50 years, and may end up being a "world court" -- don't forget,that O'Connor actually quoted that her opinion was based on "international law".
I supported President Bush on every single thing he did, so far and was myself quite upset with those who use every single thing to attack President Bush.
But this is a time to stand up and ask President Bush to reconsider. That is no big deal, really for him to do it, but it's extremely important for the future of the country, and I am not exaggerating.
I have not be on the Miers threads, except with a couple of posts here and there, but her support of quotas, while in itself may seem not terribly important to some, but it shows that she holds some very liberal, ANTI-CAPITALIST views. Quotas ARE anti-capitalist and socialist leaning "to everyone based on their need, not their ability".
" This has to be the dumbest post at FR in a long time"
Hear, hear!!!!
Then again Harry Reid is a supporter. I guess people in favor of Harriet Miers share the same politics as Dirty Harry. [/sarcasm]
Hey, who cares if a fireman, er, firefighter, has the strength to carry an unconscious person from a burning building?
The important thing is that we have a fire department that "looks like our community."
Read, bro! I didn't claim to know how Miers will turn out. I said there is NO WAY to tell for sure.
I'm supporting Miers because I support the Constitution and the President's right to nominate a Christian woman if he decides to.
Show me where I backpedal.
"Quotas ARE anti-capitalist and socialist leaning "to everyone based on their need, not their ability"."
of course they are, but that doesnt stop this individual from calling US commies!
besides what this individual ignores is that she led the effort to create a women's studies lecture series at SMU in the late 90's. women's studies= marxist feminist drivel. it is hate men, hate marraige, abortion is good, "women's right to choose".
"By this logic, Winston Churchill was a Marxist-Leninist."
I was always a little suspicious of his loyal-Englishman shtick. Now we can see him for what he really was - nothing more than a Bolshevik traitor! ;-)
I'm not using an external measure. It's quite simple. Company A needs a person, perhaps, fluent in Chinese and knowledgeable of their customs. Based on past experiences, perhaps Company A also decides for THEIR TYPE OF business, a woman would NOT be received well by their foreign customers. Therefore, they decide that, for their business, a man who is familiar with the language and customs would be best FOR THAT POSITION. That's not discrimination, that's hiring the best qualified person for THAT position. But let's say Company A has no need for concern about another country's values/language....they simply need someone who's good at accounting software...has no interaction with foreign clients to worry about. You mean to tell me that hiring to fill a quota would best serve the company's needs when what that company needs is a human being who's savvy with computers and accounting practices? and looking over a white male who EXCELS in that area and hires a minority woman who does not excel is a better practice for the company's business needs? maybe it fills a PR/PC need, but it doesn't fill the needs to have the BEST QUALIFIED for the accounting/software position.
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.