Krauthammer: Retreat (on Miers' nomination to SCOTUS)

Townhall.com ^ | 10-7-05 | Charles Krauthammer

[cgk]

WASHINGTON -- When in 1962 Edward Moore Kennedy ran for his brother's seat in the Senate, his opponent famously said that if Kennedy's name had been Edward Moore, his candidacy would have been a joke. If Harriet Miers were not a crony of the president of the United States, her nomination to the Supreme Court would be a joke, as it would have occurred to no one else to nominate her.

[jpsb]

Well I am sorry to say this but Bush has earned his bashing from conservatives. Now with regard to Miers, the only argument I find at all persuasive is jwalsh07. His arguments is that the best and brightest have turned interpreting the Constitution into something like a high priest reading animal entrails, maybe the best and brightest is not such a good idea after all.

[Dat Mon]

Youre welcome. Hope it helps here.

[Iwo Jima]

Yes, I've seen that letter to the editor printed in the Texas Lawyer about 20 years ago. It says something all right, but leaves much to be decided. It doesn't say that she believes that the right to bear arms is an individual right.

Also, taking that position in a letter to the editor of a Texas magazine doesn't take much guts. I'd like to hear her say before the Senate and with the MSM hanging on her every word that it is an individual right which cannot be infringed by government.

[stop_fascism]

Oh my gosh, slapped down by the devastating wit of someone who went to a third tier law school. Lucky for me you didn't attend Stanford.

OTOH - this guy agrees with me,"Woe unto you, lawyers! For ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered."

[verity]

"There are 1,084,504 lawyers in the U.S."

Frightening factoid.

[over3Owithabrain]

On the other hand, what compelled the White House to condemn Bill Bennett on a reputation destroying charge without a second thought to Bennett's meaning or purpose.

I think practically every political move by the President since Katrina has been an apology for the "slow response". Liberal usually corner the market on white guilt by Bush has bought quite a few shares. Promising the moon, piling on a solid conservative loyalist, giving Harry Reid a judge, etc.

[jwalsh07]

Harriet Miers Outshines Bork

BTW, I'm not sure if I'll support Miers or not but I won't be making my decision on where she went to school, her marital status, her looks or here decided lack of traveling in the 'right' circles. I'll watch her in the hearings and then decide but based on her eccomendations to Bush on appellate court nominees and Bushs selction of same I'll be defending her from garbage attacks.

[jwalsh07]

Harriet Miers Outshines Bork

BTW, I'm not sure if I'll support Miers or not but I won't be making my decision on where she went to school, her marital status, her looks or here decided lack of traveling in the 'right' circles. I'll watch her in the hearings and then decide but based on her eccomendations to Bush on appellate court nominees and Bushs selction of same I'll be defending her from garbage attacks.

[longtermmemmory]

I think Rush nailed it.

The objections are not on substance. The objections are based on not comming from a SNOB school.

IF ANY university can produce a qualified SUPREME COURT justice, then perhaps Ivy League is not as relavant as the elites believe.

The elites HAVE to defend the "value" of harvard or yale in order to protect their own self validation.

I have started to believe the objections to Meirs is not about substanc but about bruised snobbery egos.

[borkrules]

I'm going to go ahead and decline your invitation to research the complete wit and wisdom of Howlin to determine if you've "supported" her. I get quite enough of your unique style of argumentation just by popping in and out of these threads, without going in purposeful search for your posts.

But I'll take you at your word that you haven't supported Miss Miers since it's readily apparent that the only person you appear to consistently and uncritically support is George W. Bush.

You're welcome to your cult of personality, but you might be a slightly less irritating presence if you didn't attempt to savage those who don't share your religious faith in this President's every move.

[Earthdweller]

"Howlin, you crack me up. If there is any alienating going on, it is people like you who continue to think that principled conservatives are people that you have a right to take pot shots at because they don't goose-step with you."

Are you saying the same Howlin I know is a Bush bot???

Bahahahaha!!!

That's a riot!!!

[Carolinamom]

Despite his remark about liking Miers, Dingy Harry will find, before this whole thing is over, that he regrets that he cannot vote for her. (My prediction and I'm sticking to it.)

[Howlin]

Why don't YOU find somewhere I've supported her.

[jwalsh07]

I'd like to hear the same thing. I'd also like to hear her say that Roe and Doe are garbag and that the best and the brightest using international law as authoritarian are grounds for impeachment. But mostly I'd like to hear her tell Kennedy and Biden to kiss her Texan ass.

[Howlin]

So typical of a lawyer, ask you a question and then tell you what your answer should be.

[longtermmemmory]

That was then this is now.


Bush did this NOW.

The elitist bruised feeeeeelings argument is extremely true. The talking heads basically "drank the kool aid" that only a "Yalie" or "Haaavaahrd" grad have the brain power to make judicial rulings that affect "the little people".

Mr. and Mrs. American have no idea who Brown and Lutting are. Frankly at this point it is also irrelevant. Meirs IS the pick. It is supposed to be "we the people" not "we the people who select an intelectual aristocracy to tell us how we should live our lives..."

[SalukiLawyer]

Thank you for the courteous reply.

I'm arguing that judges don't need to be brilliant as the Beltway defines it. And that the entire conservative movement was implicitly making that argument before, oh, just the other day.

"The Beltway" is a loaded term that is any event too limiting to be fairly applied to the widespread criticism this nominee has engendered. I thought the entire conservative movement believed that we needed brilliant constitutional scholars like Scalia or Bork who had proven they had the guts to articulate controversial originalist positions.

Somebody made the point that it is easy to think the law is not complex until you go to court. I guess it has gone out of fashion for lawyers to argue to juries that the case before them is simple and clear. In every lawsuit, at least one highly trained legal mind disagrees with the poster's argument.

You are dealing with two different things. As far as the jury goes, lawyers DO argue that "this case is simple" every day. In many cases (not all) this is true, since the jury has a very limited job: match up facts as they came out in the evidence to a few pages of jury instructions covering the law. But the jury is seldom exposed to the frequently complicated arguments regarding legal issues that the judge and lawyers handle before the jury is ever picked. You've heard it said that "every case is different," and, as hard as it is to believe maybe, it is true. There is always some little crumb of novelty that seems to fall into the cracks of well-established law. Lawyers have the training and experience to deal with those.

You're an attorney? Knowing the American courtroom as you certainly must, maybe you could elucidate how the jury system strengthens YOUR apparent argument that we are all lost unless brilliant minds protect the law from the rest of us.

The jury system serves its purpose. I like juries and think they usually do well at the limited (but nonetheless crucial) task the system gives them. Juries were not part of my argument; I was merely pointing out that they didn't really have anything to do with the argument you were making.

Yes, I want the brilliant lawyers (I am definitely not one of them) on our side, not to protect the law from you and me, but from the other (sometimes brilliant, in their own twisted way) lawyers who would plunder our law and our culture from the bench. Remember, a vote on the Supreme Court can be a vote, which can be good, as far as it goes. But you want someone who can persuade others to vote along, to write the memorable and compelling opinion that will carry weight in coming years.

Far from wanting to protect the law from non-lawyers, I have a passion for the law, and, like most true enthusiasts, want everyone to share it. I want every citizen to understand how the law works, and to feel that they have enough of a stake in it to demand the right judicial nominees.

[Sabramerican]

an apology for the "slow response"

You read the Bush supporters here and there was no slow response.

So how to explain the constant apologies from a White House that is near infallible?

[borkrules]

I'm going to disagree with you about what the "best" argument in support of this nomination is.

I think its the argument that the President has made the political calculation that Miers is the best "originalist" that he can possibly send to the Senate and expect to see confirmed.

I think this President has zero confidence in the ability of Frist and Senate GOP leadership to push a true, known originalist, like Luttig or McConnell, through to confirmation.

The President must not believe that he can muster the votes necessary to exercise the "Constitutional Option" and defeat an expected Democrat party filibuster.

Perhaps the real villain in all this is (as usual) McCain and his gang of seven RINO's that formed the side-agreement that kept Frist from resolving this last spring.

[Earthdweller]

You too..calling Howlin a Bush bot???...

Sorry I'm jumping on your threads Howlin but this is too funny!!!