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.
Ok. let me put this way... to see Laura Bush, whom I adore and respect, say what she said this morning, I simply don't have the words to say it w/o offending someone, and I don't want to do that. But I surely hope NEVER to see her again in such a faggy show, pandering to the liberal media.. essentially attacking us, non-liberals, who are simply not happy with Miers nomination. I think the word is 'demeaning.' I do give her a pass, because I know this was done on some imbecile's advise at the WH. She is too much of a lady to say something so 'clintonesque.'
All Ann did, again, was simply to put it bluntly like it is/was. Bush asked for it, and then Mrs Bush asked for it too. And the more I hear that I have to shup up, the more I will not do it.
It's time for Republicans to toe the Conservative line, not for Conservatives to continue to toe the Republican line!
I agree that I didn't think she accurately represented Laura Bush's statements.
'I love ya Ann. But I think it's 11th commandment time.'
Dittos.
I don't understand why she is doing what she is doing.
Because for all her IQ and education, she IS out of touch with middle America where character (manners) is more important than qualifications. Ann lacks charity and sometimes it shows more than others.
Perhaps. Perhaps not.
In Ann's case, the phrase "jump her bones" would be a dead-on accurate characterization.
Why any man would want to subject himself to such a thoroughly unpleasant woman as Coulter is beyond me.
Just imagine what she'd say about you to her friends, if she has any.
That's right neither did Roberts and for that exact reason I wasn't happy with his nomination either. I see no reason to run from 45 'rats when we have 55 Republican Senators. Let's stand tall and have the debate. I hate these people who wave the white flag before they've even attempted to do the right thing. If we can't get a real conservative on the court now with a Republican President and 55 Republican Senators then we are never going to get one.
Good argument. Support the Miers pick because President Bush is nice. Or something like that.
I keep hearing about "qualifications for the supreme court".
Can someone out there tell me where they are written down?
Where does it say that a supreme court justice is supposed to have certain qualifications?
Who decided what these qualifications were?
It has nothing to do with being a part of her 'fan club'. It has everything to do with making a reasoned argument instead of throwing out insults.
This is truly the last refuge of those who have nothing intelligent to say.
Incidentally, the smoking gun has lots of Bush-Miers correspondence up. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1012055miers1.html
I've upheld the 11th commandment when it comes to immigration and govt. spending, but when it comes to the Supreme Court, we have a duty to,
"speak truth to power" (say with a bad Heinz Kerry accent).
Then just tiptoe right over my posts, Tulip.
It is one thing to maintain a legacy Democrat affiliation, and another to donate to Al Gore for President (in 1988).
GORE, AL (D)
President
ALBERT GORE JR FOR PRESIDENT COMMITTEE INC
Find a conservative Freeper from any State who was supporting Al Gore for President in Democrat primaries 1988.
Amen! I will be happy to support the Republican Party when they support my views. But at this point, I feel that I disagree with them on more issues than I agree with them. Unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be a party in this country that represents what I believe.
A fitting tribute. I won't speculate on where she would have come down on this- I simply miss her.
As to Ann..well..she's another story.
No, they haven't. As I posted earlier, they are coming up with extra-constitutional requirements to be used as proof that the nominee wouldn't do the same. You would think that such a highbrow club of keepers of the constitutional truth could do better than this.
Just dropped in to say that I don't read Ann's crap anymore. When I know she's going to appear on H&C or BOR, I make it a point to miss her. Same with radio shows. Her behavior in this Harriet Miers chapter has turned me completely cold toward her and has embarrassed me as a conservative who goes one on one with with liberals daily.
I have no idea what she's talking about these days, and if I knew how, I'd make a graphic of her with a pancake on her head. Better yet, in her mouth so she would shut the FReep up!
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.