You know, I've been thinking about what you have to say here, and all I can say is
I was prepared to jump all over her on the grounds that she was squishy on abortion and other things, however I have read this speech three times, and I cannot for the life of me find much that I can disagree with as a Conservative..
Clearly she mocks the elected governance for abdicating their responsibility to the courts, as we all should and she says it clearly. She mocks the way that the abortion protesters are now characterized as terrorist.. Who can argue about that?
I plead . . . .guilty.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1509674/posts?page=43#43
JUDICIAL USURPATION AND LEGISLATIVE ABDICATION [Ramesh Ponnuru]Rich: I think you're giving Miers too much credit here, and the Post too little. There are a lot of ways to connect the themes of judicial usurpation and legislative abdication. You could adopt the argument that legislatures are to blame for not reining in the courts (an argument which I think is generally sound). You could go on to note that legislatures have not sought to reclaim their powers because they are perfectly happy to see the courts get the blame for tough decisions.
That's not the argument Miers makes. The argument she makes is that the courts can't be blamed when they are forced to step in to resolve problems that elected officials have failed to resolve (e.g., the problems of school funding and low-income housing siting). That is a very standard argument, usually associated with liberals. Eliot Spitzer, for example, often argues that it is necessary to pursue anti-gun policies through the courts because legislatures have failed to act. But it's hard to see how the courts are to distinguish between a) a legislative "failure to act," b) a legislative decision that there is no problem demanding solution, or c) a legislative decision that solving any problem would create new and greater problems. Any act of judicial usurpation can be described as a reluctant response to the legislature's failure to enact what the judges wanted them to enact
> I was prepared to jump all over her on the grounds that she was squishy on abortion and other things, however I have read this speech three times, and I cannot for the life of me find much that I can disagree with as a Conservative..
Did you catch the part where she talks about the need to possibly consider a state tax?
When did taxing more become a conservative value?
Forget the abortion issue, this speech is far from being the views of a Conservative. Disjointed prose aside, Miers sounds very liberal on social issues to me.
School funding: Miers bemoans the failure of the the so-called Robin Hood plan for school funding. It sounds like the amendment wanted to take from the "rich" and give to the "poor." It is called forced redistribution of the wealth. Miers seems to favor a state income tax to fund education rather than through the property tax exclusively.
The Courts vs the Legislature: Miers seems to blieve that the legislature has abdicated its responsibilites and "abandon to the Courts the hard decisions so that they an respond to constituents: I do not want to do that--the Court is making me." In fact, it is the Courts that are usurping the authority of the legislatures. Miers seems to believe that the Courts should not be blamed for "activism or intrusion where it does not belong." Rather Miers blames the elected leadership.
Political leaders Miers wants political leaders to show more leadership and make hard decisions. She ties it in to placing low income housing around the city, including in upscale areas and links it to racial issues. "But, with respect to racial harmony, lack of familiarity breeds contempt."
Diversity. "...ultimate benefit of a society whose wealth is diversity and who pulls together against common enemies." She refers to the Rodney King incident and laments the lack of minorities who serve in the judiciary. She bemoans all white juries trying cases which significantly impact the rights of minorities. Quotas anyone?
Women's rights Miers sounds like a feminist referring to "glass ceilings" and sexual harassment. She celebrates the fact that the California Bar will elect a woman for the first time and notes that "Texas jumped that hurdle first."
Abortion Miers mentions "the attempt to once again criminalize abortion or to once and for all guarantee the freedom of the individual women's (sic) right to decide for herself whether to have an abortion."
Religion "No one should be able to oppressively require a student to participate in religious activities against their will, but if a student on his or own chooses to express him or herself in religious terms, that should not be permitted." What does she mean by this statement?
The speech was poorly constructed and written with a number of grammatical mistakes. It certainly does not indicate a superior intellect. Once this is circulated publicly, Miers is toast.
You know, I've been thinking about what you have to say here, and all I can say is