Posted on 10/06/2005 8:54:53 AM PDT by cgk
Edited on 10/06/2005 9:03:34 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
I think he's depending on the distinction between pro-life and anti-Roe. The two are not interchangeable. Many pro-aborts recognize that Roe is a lousy decision; I'm not sure that many pro-lifers think it's a valid, if deplorable, decision, but at least in theory it's possible. Miers apparently has a long pro-life history (not all the way back, but long), but has never made a public statement, written or oral, about Roe, to my knowledge.
As long as she keeps the distinction clear, the Dems can't hang anything on her. Not that they won't try.
I have. Their tragedy is that their minds were warped at an early age when they attemded an elite school.
No reason to believe that she's 1/10 as able as Rehnquist.
I gotta figure W is flat out lying or in a fantasy world when he says with a straight face that Miers was the most qualified person he could find. It's absolute rubbish.
Peter Robinson: Second Amendment, a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged." Now on this very program, we've had historians come on and say, that clearly was intended to give individuals the right to own arms. And we've also had historians come on and say, no, no, no, we've done the research, looked at the documents, the Framers intended only to permit states to raise militias of their own, quite a separate matter from whether individuals have the right to bear arms. Now I, as a layman, can't choose between these historical views. There's at least, in good faith, you've got bright people suggesting there's historical ambiguity. What do you do with that?
Judge Bork: A judge sits down and decides which is the more persuasive evidence. The reason that people are called judges is because it requires a judgment. They're not mathematicians. They can't take a premise and work out inexorably to a result. Scalia and I were on the same court. We both were originalists, believed in the original understanding. Occasionally we would disagree strongly about what that meant. Now that was only in one percent of the cases we sat together on but nevertheless.
Peter Robinson: But still, reasonable people, both attempting very hard to be faithful to the original understanding, can indeed disagree.
Judge Bork: Can disagree. But the important thing is that they stay within the same framework. That is, one thing we could always agree on was that you can't make up new principles and say that they're in the Constitution. We could disagree about the application of existing principles.
Peter Robinson: Okay. And so one of the tools in your toolbox as a judge in original understanding then is historical research?
Judge Bork: Oh sure.
Peter Robinson: That becomes tremendously important. And it would be the case that if new research began to emerge, that over a decade or so suggested that the Framers did want individuals to bear arms or did not…
Judge Bork: Yeah.
Peter Robinson: … the judge would presumably revise his opinions accordingly. You're constantly seeking the best understanding you can get of their understanding. That's the whole method.
It's a joke
But that is the argument from some quarters of Conservatism, she didnt come from a first tier law school so therefore she isnt qualified, according to Coulter and many here.
22 posted on 10/06/2005 9:07:35 AM PDT by aft_lizard (This space waiting for a post election epiphany it now is: Question Everything)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies | Report Abuse>>
Above is my original post. Point to me where I said sole or the only argument? Stop lying about me and what I said, and apoligize now and also apoligize to others who you have called a liar for stating a fact that Coulter indeed make the argument that Miers should be from a first tier law school.
What? You didn't hear when he added.....within shouting distance.
Not only is he a "snob", he's a McCainiac.
My god man your intellect once again shines through. That was not my argument towards you and you know it. You have continuously insulted and micharacterized entire groups of people simply based off of the fact they do not agree with your point of view. Now I will say it again I am not sopme ignorant asshat who automatically jumps the gun and cries about something when in fact you do not know enough about them to make any judgement yea or nay on her, as you have in fact done.
Am I excited about this pick? No! But am I going to keep an open mind about her? Yes! And why you may ask? Because so far we have gotten nothing but good judicial picks from the WH and because of that I have at least a reason to believe so far that she will be no different, no matter what the hole in the head gand believes.
And yet you called me a liar for pointing out that Coulter did in fact say that. How odd.
In a footnote on page 166, Judge Bork writes that ``the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that there is no individual right to own a firearm. The Second Amendment was designed to allow states to defend themselves against a possibly tyrannical national government. Now that the federal government has stealth bombers and nuclear weapons, it is hard to imagine what people would need to keep in the garage to serve that purpose.''
Well, if that's an accurate summary of the note, its a rare example of slipshod reasoning by Bork.
So, guess I can't get angry with you about misrepresenting Bork. Yet. I'll check my copy for context later tonight.
But this thread isn't really about Bork. Or Ken Starr. It's about Meirs and the fact that she isn't anywhere near the most qualified candidate for this opening and why the President nominated her.
Pretty much everybody who knew Legal minds at the time knew that Rehnquist was a legal genius of the top caliber, he just never was a Judge.
Bush faced a dilemma with Chaffee, and also with Specter. If they get defeated in the primary, the challenger may go down to defeat in the general election.
I know it's a tough road dealing with the RINO's, but imagine how much tougher things would be if the democrats held the majority. We would lose committee chairmanships (because they certainly wouldn't do any power sharing) and the ability to control legislation that is brought to the floor. They would immediately have started show trials in every committee, you know.
I am honestly not bright enough to figure out a solution to this problem. We can't afford to lose the RINO's as things currently stand, but working with them is darn near impossible.
Isn't it odd that I sit here in the Midwest and make note of this problem, but somehow Krauthammer and George Wiill act like all Bush has to do is submit a conservative nominee and presto, we will triumph over the democrats? It makes me a little dubious of their opinions, to say the least.
I made the following comment yesterday: "I am of the opinion that what makes judges tack left once appointed is that they come to believe that their intellect is superior to written and stated matters of law. They seek to create profound meaning where none is required or exists."
It seems we are discovering that there are conservative and liberal elitists. The inside the beltway conservatives seem to think a red state conservative lawyer of 30 years expereince isn't smart enough to be a SCJ.
I am not ready to proclaim Ms. Miers is ready to be a SCJ either until we see her respond to questioning, but neither do I dismiss the possibility merely because she went to SMU and not Cornell.
Why don't you give the woman a fair up or down vote instead of being so judgmental based on unsubstantiated so-called facts that someone blew out their diaper in the last few days?
Be patient and listen to the woman.
I don't....
The White House is stunned at the reaction...he picked the fight with the wrong party. Open warfare has broken out alright....but it ain't the warfare we all wanted.
It's well-established that GHWB didn't know Souter at all; he took Warren Rudman's (!) word, backed up by Sununu. Eisenhower appointed Warren through some sort of deal (sorry, I read about it only once, though recently, and don't recall the details) involving working to deliver a state for his reelection I think.
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.