But now Ann won't STFU and toe the Party Line behind Miers' nomination so she's a mean-spirited, hateful, and evidently shark-jumping, unattractive woman.
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.
Now that's a sexist comment!
Next time we should go look for a Republican presidential candidate in the Bowery. So long as he passes for the right age, he's qualified. RIGHT?
Ann nails it again. Miers isn't fit to sit on the Supreme Court and Ann lays out the reasons expertly.
LOL
Oh, for heaven's sake, be quiet Ann. You sound stupid.
Take your complaints about Republican condescension to women to Sec. Rice.
It's very sad.
I too am a big believer that test scores don't equal intelligence--but on the other hand they do correlate. The probability that a stupider person scored higher on the test is not very high; considering that 90% of Harvard students score higher, what percentage of Harvard students are dumber? A high or a low percentage?
In fact maybe Teddy should be the nominee, he has a Harvard law degree.
Well, smarts are necessary, but not sufficient. Lots of freepers are making the same fallacy in reverse: since so many smart people would be rotten justices, what we need is a dummy. (Yes, I'm exaggerating. Slightly.)
Maybe we should add an amendment to the constitution, that only Ivy League law graduates should be allowed on the court.
I'd be all for a constitutional genius with no formal education at all. You're working "elitism" back in subtly, by pretending that an ivy league degree is synonymous with intelligence. It isn't, though again it does correlate.
Amen.
I was just thinking.... what if Bush does know that Harriet Miers is gonna be a gun-toting, bible reading, Christian who will not delegate from the bench.... and just suppose that Ann and the other uber-conservatives that "hate" her... are spreading their hate as "misinformation" in order to get her in easier.
It's like when Shumer/Kennedy/McCain/Pelosi/Chaffee approve of somebody.... they automatically have 2 strikes against them in my book...
All I'm saying is that I trust Bush. He's given me no reason to think he's gone all wobbly in the jock strap for this nominee.
The lady has street credibility with me because she' been around Bush long enough to make mistakes (no fatal ones and none that we can find) and hasn't leaked, lied, stabbed in the back, or otherwise sold out when she's had ample opportunity to do so as an attorney in the Texas legal snake pit.
The other thing I like about her is that she's packed a .45 pistol. Not a .38, not a "neena" (9mm), not a .380 but a weapon that tends to "not wound" a man if shot with one.
She runs out in the dust with the president on jogs, she's not a prig for a born again Christian (unlike the "look at me at church" Clintons)and she hasn't got the Botox look like Pelosi,Clinton,(insert media savvy women).
I think Bush has said what he means to do with the court, the war on terror, taxes and other issues ;and tried to deliver on those promises.
I like Ann. If I were single and had the opportunity, I think a nice 4 hour dinner with wine and conversation would be a most excellent evening...... of course that's only my opinion... and I could be wrong.
Ann missed the bit about Miers being the managing partner of the largest law firm in Dallas. Just an oversight I'm sure. Ann, dear, slam Miers all you want, but don't be so crudely selective in the facts you select that it makes one wince, about something we all know about anyway. Don't be a b-itch Ann.
How do you know that? There's been only one ruling from the Roberts Court so far.
But now Ann won't STFU and toe the Party Line behind Miers' nomination so she's a mean-spirited, hateful, and evidently shark-jumping, unattractive woman.
She doesn't think the "average" college alum is subpar, she simply thinks that the average college alum with no experience in constitutional law shouldn't sit on the Supreme Court, and I whole-heartedly agree! The fact that she went to SMU Law School doesn't disqualify her by any means, and I think Coulter agrees with that. What it does mean is that, absent other spectacular achievements or experience (which Miers doesn't have), she is not qualified for the Court.
I haven't heard Miers attacking anyone yet, but perhaps I just missed it.
Well, her book just came out in paperback and this is a great way to build name recognition, sell a few more copies.
Finally! And a nice collection as well!
So says a middle aged man who should know better! ;-)
Not necessarily Ivy, but both Chicago and UVA are considered top tier law schools, plus UCLA and Texas, and maybe even Tulane are generally considered good enough to be top 25 ... SMU may not even make the cut for the top 50.
And it's not just the school, it's also the resume that demonstrates a superior qualification for a seat on the USSC ... or lack thereof.
There are tens thousands of successful corporate attorneys, senior partners of big city law firms, senior public sector attorneys in the Federal and State governments etc. out there with a resume that probably look alot like Miers' (it's just that not all of them happen to be long time personal friend of the the POTUS and has a White House staff job) ... so what exactly is Miers' qualification for the SCOTUS over any of these folks?
Yup. And, I for one am going to really enjoy the moment their bank accounts reveal this truth.
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.