Posted on 10/07/2005 4:19:05 PM PDT by Burr5
This isn't about faith. It's about government and the constitution. I can be a MacArthur fan without being a Bush worshiper. And I don't think being cynical about this nominee makes me less Christian.
Not surprising, that. She evidently knows her stuff.
"Miers has been with him through every step of his presidency, she will be great at issues of national security."
...................................
sure sure the little lotto queen who goes along to get along will be just wonderful..and if not we get another Souter while the like s JR BROWN are told in effect you are a radical judge by the BUSH adm..all you cheerleaders need to smell the coffee. It is not the spineless senators it's the Spineless WHITE HOUSE.
"BWAAH!"
Not only is W great at poker, he does not change his stripes. He has consistently appointed conservatives to the Court during his presidency (as Dr. Dobson said, he has never let us down with the Courts) and I know that Miers is a conservative. She also has character and integrity, and will not be influenced by the Washington elite.
Some of our BES judges have been justices that were not judges before they were on the SC. The Court needs the common man sometimes, and this may be one of those times. Plus, she is a Christian, and that is fantastic. I cannot imagine her ruling against what is best for the country. The more I have learned about her, the more I like her.
Women get an extra dog year over men?
How unfair, I think that's discrimination.
... the Miers nomination highlights George Bush's delicious disdain for the Beltway culture. One can imagine his chortling with delight upon finding a way to irritate worthies of both parties.
Let's stop for a second and ask ourselves why we as conservatives hate "elites."
I always thought it was because we see "elites" as venal, wanton and everything a conservative might find repellant. They live lives of abstraction and detachment, ridicule the common man and look down their nose at anyone without the superficial trappings of success that they have attained but not necessarily earned. If "ideas have consequences," those consequences do not apply to elites.
Are you prepared to call our best pundits venal, disdainful and out of touch? Are you prepared to write them off for good?
Perhaps first you should explain what qualifies Harriet Miers for the job of interpreting constitutional law in ways that might escape a fancy-pants polymath who's studied it most of his or her adult life.
Anything?
Oh, right. Voting the "right way," per Sowell's column. What constitutes voting the "right way" if you don't have something solid like a grasp of constitutional law to fall back on? Isn't that just voting your conscience? What "seems" right? Isn't that just a penumbra that emanates right instead of left?
Aren't conservatives supposed to value the elite, adjective, as opposed to the elite, noun? The first-rate, the best of the best, the truly as opposed to superficially expert?
The unspoken attitude in all of this is, "We who have done the thinking approve of Miers because she can do our work. Even if she has not done the thinking we have, she is on our side. A proxy. A useful cog."
If we stoop to denigrating the elite, adjective, while we play the role of elite, noun, does that make us any better than Al Sharpton?
I distrust elites because I believe there is more than one way to get expertise. I am a conservative because I believe in a meritocracy and value expertise. I want a Supreme Court nominee who is qualified, not connected.
You really believe that JR Brown would get thru the Senate??
If so, are you willing to share what you're smoking??
Well, the underlined is a bit overstated, but I imagine he's saying that it "won't be good." I'd agree with that.
However, even if he gets Harriet Miers stuffed in his ear by the Senate, he is still President of the USA for the next 3 years. He still gets to veto things, sign things, nominate, appoint, act, executively order, etc.
And he'd probably have another nominee on the block within days.
If the conservatives show their loyalty to Bush by rejecting his Supreme Court Nominee that he is convinced is a true conservative, then why should Bush later appoint a true conservative to replace her? If I were Bush, I'd call each Senator into my office over the next week or two and explain the facts of life to them.
I just couldn't pass your comment without replying.
My answer is: YES.
Oh, how horrible! Miss Marlple disdains pundits.
Well, why would that be?
George Will backed changing the Constitution so that Gennifer Granholm (D) could run for the presidency.
Charles Krauthammer piled on W for Katrina, without any facts, and apparently without understanding how FEMA works with state governments.
Frum is a speechwriter, not a Constitutional expert.
Coulter attacked with venom a woman whose pioneering eforts in the practice of law helped make it easier for women like Coulter to get a law degree and have a career.
Bill Kristol has been after the Bush family for decades. I vlue his opinion about as much as my cat's.
I could go on, but the fact is this. Pundits are paid to express their opinions. That's fine. I, however, do not make my desicions based on who is on TV.
I'm really beginning to wonder if the undercurrent of opposition isn't based on her fundamentalist Christian conservatism. Christian conservatives are one of the few groups remaining against whom discrimination is socially acceptable.
The argument about her credentials is disingenuous....real quick -- name another another NON-JUDGE (cause Bush said he wanted that diversity) female lawyer who headed a 400 lawyer firm, was president of a state bar, made review, was listed in the top 100, led a state agency, and worked as personal staff for the president.
Hillary Clinton doesn't even have those credentials.
We need an article comparing Hillary's legal credentials with those of Miers. After all, isn't a presidential candidate and a Scotus candidate at somewhat similar levels?
Hillary: went to law school at Yale, got married to Bill, joined Rose Law Firm, AFTER Bill became Governor she was made a partner, she was never head of the firm, she did not head the Arkansaw Bar, then she followed Bill to D.C., she misled a health care commission, and then she became a Senator.
I'd say that for personal achievement in the legal profession, game/set/match goes to Miers.
Arkansas....correction
Hey, I'm starting to really like you! I've said this on another thread, and there's no reason not to say it here:
The conservative opposition to Miers comes from two mind-sets. One is the "she's not smart enough" school. The other is the "Bush should tell ME all about her and assuage MY fears first" school.
The fact that she is actively and determinedly pro-life is coming out now, and that ought to shut the pie-holes of the Pat Buchanans and his like. They should fear not.
As to the first set of complainants: when this woman takes on Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer, and Joe Biden, the low expectations about her intellect that this controversy has generated will result in euphoria on the part of those of us who trust Bush on judicial issues. Does anyone think she'll go before the Judiciary Committee unprepared to impress the hell out of them after all this?
And when, not if...WHEN she demonstrates her grasp of constitutional law and lays out her judicial philosophy, it will be interesting to see how the elites react as the last leg is knocked out from under the structure of their dissatisfaction.
Will they retract, apologize, or just quietly ignore it all?
Sorry Laura, Ann, Michelle, George, Pat, Glenn, Charles et. al. Your credibility will be on the line on this one. Finding someone who will make the correct decisions IS the most important thing here. Bush knows her. Reagan didn't know "reliable" conservative Anthony Kennedy, nor did Bush 41 know "reliable" conservative David Souter. How did those guys work out for all you ankle-biters?
"However, the general rule that should govern proposals to amend the Constitution is: Don't. ... So the nation probably should just live with this constitutional provision, whatever the cost to Granholm's career. Her hyper-liberalism, which extends from gun control and affirmative action to a watery form of reparations for slavery, is of, shall we say, Pelosian purity and probably is itself an insuperable impediment to national aspirations."
(2) Krauthammer wrote about Bush's performance after the hurricane, not his culpability before. Your claim ("Charles Krauthammer piled on W for Katrina, without any facts, and apparently without understanding how FEMA works with state governments") is not reflected in Krauthammer's words.
"Late, slow, and simply out of tune with the urgency and magnitude of the disaster. The second he heard that the levees had been breached in New Orleans, he should have canceled his schedule and addressed the country on national television to mobilize it both emotionally and physically to assist in the disaster. His flyover on the way to Washington was the worst possible symbolism. And his Friday visit was so tone-deaf and politically disastrous that he had to fly back three days later."
(3) If you discount Frum's opinion because he doesn't have Supreme Court-type credentials, you discount everyone who isn't a "Constitutional expert," which is not a rhetorical tactic I'm used to seeing conservatives make.
(4) I have no interest in defending Coulter, who I do not consider one of our best pundits.
(5) And Kristol, who cares, but it would be nice to read why he's wrong instead of finding a superficial reason to discount his opinion.
Anyway, I await your explanations of how any of the above (except Coulter) are venal, disdainful or out of touch.
Miers has been with him through every step of his presidency, she will be great at issues of national security.
Oh, you mean on all the cases she will have to recuse herself on because she gave advice to Bush on those topics? Great. She'll be a big help, won't she.
That's great. But she's not nominated for "Who's Who," she's nominated for the Supreme Court. An associate justice on the Supreme Court has a very specific job to do, one that has nothing to do with heading a large law firm, being president of the state bar, making review ... and so on. What could the Texas Lottery Commission possibly have to do with debating the interstate commerce clause?
Hillary Clinton doesn't even have those credentials. We need an article comparing Hillary's legal credentials with those of Miers. After all, isn't a presidential candidate and a Scotus candidate at somewhat similar levels?
No! No they're not. The jobs are entirely different and overlap only insofar as they're at the top of their respective branches of government. And even that's a flawed analogy because the aftereffects of a bad presidency are either subtle or reversible, while the penumbra of a bad Supreme Court justice is dark indeed.
If the conservatives show their loyalty to Bush by rejecting his Supreme Court Nominee that he is convinced is a true conservative, then why should Bush later appoint a true conservative to replace her?
If Bush were to stoop to doing something like that just for spite, then he never was a true conservative in the first place. Frankly, I've never believed he is a true conservative. He's too much on the compassion, and much less on the conservative.
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.