Posted on 10/06/2005 2:30:51 PM PDT by freedomdefender
Not true. Ann Coulter's screed against Miers is all about Miers' law school not being "good enough" in Coulters' mind.
I think so long as the "snobbish conservatives" do the will of the people they will get their support. But as soon as they turn on someone for not being as snobby as them selves they will very quickly lose that support.
ps I can now announce, after much deliberation, that I support Harriet Miers for Supreme Court Judge.
I am sure this will secure her nomination ;)
Well, Ann is speaking for a very small minority if that is her arguement. Not too many people care what school Miers went to, most people just care how she views the Constitution. Perhaps she is good, but how does anyone know.
People who continue to post the same phrase, over and over on every thread, because they think it's cute aren't very creative.
In fact, Harvard Law does not guarantee merit. It guarantees a pedigree, but that is all.
Every one of the current justices went to Harvard or Yale, at some point. Would you call the results they produce meritorious?
I wasn't addressing YOU specifically. It's your thread, I posted by using Reply to post 1.
While we're at it, I don't wish to be lumped in with Ann Coulter. I don't care where Harriet Miers went to school.
Yes, that does seem to be the consistent reason Miers is being denigrated and criticized by the conservatives who are doing that. Grover Norquist and others who are opposing Miers all do so based upon "the disappointment in this nomination" and when questioned about that, explain that Miers is someone they don't imagine will be capable of influencing the liberals on the S.C., someone who won't be fully capable of understanding the tasks involved by a S.C. justice and similar, including those comments by Coulter that really did surprise me (Coulter says she's an evangelical and as an evangelical she opposes Miers but didn't explain farther other than Miers was a disappointment and, as Coulter said, wouldn't be up to the job).
Miers has a law degree and good character and is known well professionally to Bush and that's all it takes Constitutionally (actually, the law degree isn't necessary for the nomination as per the Constitution) to be nominated and even confirmed as a S.C. justice.
And, Miers has been forthright, outspoken even (when she HAS made public statements) about her understanding that if she is included on the S.C., she would "not legislate from the bench" but would "interpret and apply the Constitution" to issues before her/the court.
AND, she's holds conservative, even evangelical values and beliefs. SO, I don't see any problem with her character so far, from what I know about her, and the criciticsms by conservatives are all otherwise based upon those who find her "less than" in some social or "power" player terms.
As in, she's evangelical but to Coulter who is also, Miers didn't attend "the right...school" (incredible elitism at work in that statement), and on and on.
I rather like the idea of an ordinary American (if Miers can be called that, although to my view she's above average based upon her achievements) on the S.C., especially a woman of middle American experiences and educational history.
Liberal or conservative...East Coast elites, particularly inside the beltway, have always mocked anyone outside of their play-groups.
They didn't like Reagan but grudgingly got on board when the Revolution got rolling.
They like Bush even less and carped loudly about how he'd have to get rid of his TX advisors if he wanted to get so much as a pizza delivered in DC, then flipped over the genius of Karl Rove.
The best thing about elites is that they like keep to themselves, saving others the trouble of avoiding them.
"People who continue to post the same phrase, over and over on every thread, because they think it's cute aren't very creative."
Are they as clever as the 'go vote for hillary' crowd?
The conservatives that a New Republic writer or editor in Washington would be likely to know are people of similar background to New Republic staffers. Hence that means Ivy Leaguers and highflying elitists. This is sort of a "I polled everyone I know, and they all think ..." article.
Make that your tagline and save some wear and tear.
That is untrue, sinkspur. I have expressed this thought exactly twice. It was quoted several times, mostly by posters who did not understand what I meant.
If you can't refute it or even grasp it, why don't you just ignore it?
Egads! You think there's an uproar about Meirs' qualifications!
Oh, an excellent point!!! Hadn't thought of that. I am sick of them all, theirs and ours!
As a matter of fact, a person who may have once embraced the so-called "liberal" philosophy and then studied the writings of America's Founders, of Adam Smith, of people like Dr. Russell Kirk and other great intellectual giants in our history of conservative thought, tend to be better informed and more able to defend the ideas of liberty than others of us.
We have showcase "conservative" talk show people who major in provocative talk, and they have served a worthwhile purpose in arousing public dialogue, but they should not mistake themselves for authentic scholars and sole defenders of the ideas that underlie our Constitution. When they do, they appear childish and shallow.
I grasp it. The sentiment it expresses is, indeed, elitist.
The main point of objection, that most of us NON East Coast conservatives have, is that she is, to US, an unknown, and that although we'd love to trust the president; experience has taught us, that lifetime appointments, and the future of this Nation, this Culture, this way of life, the FUTURE of our FAMILIES!, is too D@MNED important to bet on "trust".
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.