Posted on 10/12/2005 4:16:22 PM PDT by goldstategop
A Supreme Court nomination may not have been the ideal time for Laura Bush to start acting like "Buy One, Get One Free" Hillary Clinton. At least President Clinton only allowed his wife to choose the attorney general. (Remember the good old days when first ladies only got to pick the poet laureate and the White House china pattern?)
Between cooking segments on the "Today" show this week, Laura rolled out the straw man sorry, "straw person" argument that the criticism of Miers was rooted in "sexism" (which is such a chick thing to say).
I'm a gyno-American, and I strenuously object.
The only sexism involved in the Miers nomination is the administration's claim that once they decided they wanted a woman, Miers was the best they could do. Let me just say, if the top male lawyer in the country is John Roberts and the top female lawyer is Harriet Miers, we may as well stop allowing girls to go to law school.
Ah, but perhaps you were unaware of Miers' many other accomplishments. Apparently she was THE FIRST WOMAN in Dallas to have a swimming pool in her back yard! And she was THE FIRST WOMAN with a safety deposit box at the Dallas National Bank! And she was THE FIRST WOMAN to wear pants at her law firm! It's simply amazing! And did you know she did all this while being a woman?
I don't know when Republicans became the party that condescends to women, but I am not at all happy about this development. This isn't the year 1880. And by the way, even in 1880, Miers would not have been the "most qualified" of all women lawyers in the U.S., of which there were 75.
By 1950, there were more than 6,000 women lawyers, three female partners at major law firms and three female federal judges. She may be a nut who belonged to a subversive organization, but Ruth Bader Ginsburg graduated first in her class from Columbia Law School and that was before Harriet Miers was applying to law school.
Women have been graduating at the top of their classes at the best law schools for 50 years. Today, women make up about 45 percent of the students at the nation's top law schools (and more than 50 percent at all law schools).
Which brings us to the other enraging argument being made by the Bush administration and its few remaining defenders the claim of "elitism." I also don't know when the Republican Party stopped being the party of merit and excellence and became the party of quotas and lying about test scores, but I don't like that development, either.
The average LSAT score at SMU Law School is 155. The average LSAT at Harvard is 170. That's a difference of approximately 1 1/2 standard deviations, a differential IQ experts routinely refer to as "big-ass" or "humongous." Whatever else you think of them, the average Harvard Law School student is very smart. I gather I have just committed a hate crime by saying so.
Contrary to the Bush administration's disingenuous arguments, it's not simply that Miers did not attend a top law school that makes her unqualified for the Supreme Court. (But that's a good start!) It's that she did not go on to rack up any major accomplishments since then, either.
Despite the astonishing fact that Miers was THE FIRST WOMAN to head the Texas Bar Association a dumping ground for losers, by the way Miers has not had the sort of legal career that shouts out "Supreme Court material"! That is, unless you think any female who manages to pass the bar exam has achieved a feat of unparalleled brilliance for her gender.
There are more important things in life than being Supreme Court material, but oddly enough not when we're talking about an appointment to the Supreme Court. According to the Associated Press, Sen. Arlen Specter defended Miers on the grounds that "Miers' professional qualifications are excellent, but she lacks experience in constitutional law" and Specter ought to know. This is like recommending a plumber by saying, "He's a very professional guy, but he lacks experience in plumbing."
The other straw-man argument constantly being hawked by the Bush administration is that Miers' critics object that she's never been a judge. To quote another Bush Read my lips: No one has said that. So please stop comparing Miers to Justice Byron White (first in his class at Yale Law School) or Justice William Rehnquist (first in his class at Stanford Law School).
It's also not what the New York Times claims, which is that conservatives oppose Miers because they don't know how she will vote. We didn't know how Roberts would vote! As I recall, I was the only conservative complaining about that.
The problem with Miers is something entirely different and entirely within the meaning of "advice and consent": Miers is no more qualified to sit on the Supreme Court than I am to be a sumo wrestler. The hearings aren't going to change that; they will just make it more obvious.
I genuinely feel sorry for Miers. I'm sure she's a lovely woman, brighter than average, and well-qualified for many important jobs. Just not the job Bush has nominated her for. The terrible thing Bush has done to Miers is to force people who care about the court to say that.
It seems that some people are simply too dense to realize that when your enemy is enthralled with something you've done it was probably a major c*ck-up on your part.
Does this go for all the others that have spoken out, and voiced legitimate concerns.
Should they all just get in line and be quiet? Shut up and take it?
Hey, isn't that the moniker of someone here?
Because she doesn't know how to sell out her principals and she doesn't know how to "Spin". No matter what. She tells the truth whether anyone likes it or not. Its called courage. Go get 'em Ann!
If only Ann would eat something, she'd be so much calmer and less vituperative.
Oh gag me. I ran over the top of the "big ass, humongous" ivy league, spoiled, know it all children every day for 17 years to actually get the job done. Ann can go boof herself on this one, elitist bag of bones......sheesh. Her ivy league BS and self indulgence is old......shut up, become a council for the president, get nominated for the SCOTUS and then come back and let us know how it went.......child.
I think a reasoned discussion of the facts is all well and good, the objection is to the personal attacks, hence the reference to cannons.
Looks like she believes that the self proclaimed "conservative purists" represent the majority so she is moving off into kookland right behind people like Buchanan.
And just as a personal note, why anyone thinks Coulter is attractive is beyond me. She needs to go eat something already.
My heart broke for him when he lost his beloved Barbara.
Although our Ann would kick b*tt in most endeavors, sumo wrestling doesn't seem like a good career choice for her. Still in the right circumstances she could surprise us. Imagine a match between her and Hillary. First there would have to be some modifications to the usual costume. The EPA wouldn't allow Hillary to wear that. Hillary would clearly have the weight advantage with the additional advantage of having her center of gravity somewhere near her moral center. Still I'd favor the youthful resilience of Coulter over the crazed decrepitude of Hillary.
Ann Coulter lacks- among other qualities- one called "judicial temperament".
What are you talking about "disrespect"?
Is Miers as qualified as Ginsberg, she of ACLU experience? Hell, I'm as qualified as Ginsberg because I'm not an idiot. And I've never seen the inside of a law school.
Miers will do fine. She's got at least as much on the ball as Thomas, and I'll bet is more conservative and originalist as anyone now on the court.
Why are conservatives going on a civil war?
The left has got to be loving this.
I have worked with top 10% students from the "best" law schools and I have found that my education is not inferior in any way whatsoever.
(Ann's snobbery reveals a mean streak that likely explains why she sleeps alone at night.)
Getting personal is uncalled for.
It was a preventable disaster in my opinion. Like throwing out a piece of raw meat, and not expecting fly's to land on it.
Exactly.
To bring it back to this thread, Coulter is an Ivy League crony.
All have more qualifications than Miers. It's not JUST about where you go to school. We have objective ways to measure that those people above would make excellent justices. Not for Miers.
AC looked awful on tv today....
she dropping heroin?
Agreed,
I like Ann because she can debate with more snap and verve than anyone I've ever seen.
Sadly, in this, her snap and verve is coming off more as snotty and viscious. I have my own theories about the HM nomination, and I can see why GW did what he did.
Sometimes you need Man O'War and sometimes you need a Percheron.
And as for the pictures,
Her legs may be long, but her knees are the biggest part of them, which means they're a D+ in appearance ;)
I think it's elitism for law schools to admit applicants on the basis of GPA and LSAT.
I think it's elitism for pre-law students to study hard to do well on the LSAT.
I think it's elitism for college students to strive hard to make good grades.
I think it's elitism to think that people with specific training or experience in XYZ are better prepared and qualified to do certain jobs than I am.
I think we conservatives need to start a war on elitism.
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.