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.
George is a Calvinist. He believes, like his mentor, that EVERYBODY ought to be executed!
That is the best site. I didn't read the residency case. That one did not strike my as complex. That one was more akin to shooting fish in the barrel. But as I say, I didn't read it.
It is wrong for you to accuse Laura Bush of doing something she didn't do. She was asked by Matt Lauer, who I think writes material for some of the anti-Harriet crowd, if some opposition to Miers was due to her sex. She said it was possible. When she said that, she was right. She didn't elaborate or make a big deal out of it, she went right on to something else. I saw it, it was no big deal.
I have not heard one person oppose her because of her gender, but I have heard plenty of people oppose her because of her weak credentials and qualifications as well as the cronyism that is apparent in the confermation.
Cronyism is a left wing talking point adopted by those who oppose Harriet Miers nomination. Article 2 does not disqualify cronies from nomination to federal courts.
Likewise, I don't like Al Sharpton because he is a fool, not because he is black. That doesn't make me a racist.
Has anybody on this forum called you a sexist for opposing Harriet Miers? Anybody called you a racist for thinking Sharpton is a fool?
I thought not. You're just another in a long line of folks who embrace victim-hood as a sacrament. Be my guest.
I can care less for your superb qualified ultraLIBERAL Ginsburg undermining the Constitution at every step.
Give me one example were she followed the Constitution in her decisions!
OTOH having a non Harvard educated lady, superbly unqualified as the Constitution goes, I will be more inclined to believe that Ms.Miers will follow the Constitution guide lines by the book, because she has no experience and will take everything by the face value.(MO mind you)
Just give this Lady her time to prove her self on the hearings and than judge her.
What happened to "innocent before proven guilty?" ...
Boy, we Republicans know how to kill our own and screw up things...it never fails.
P.S.
See also my tag line...
Lol Racehorse thats a good one when I see ann coulter I'm always waiting for the adams apple to pop out if you get my drift
I vote for Layman Judge!
It's interesting to see the Coulter has become much like the MSM, that is not letting the facts get in the way of a good story. The First Lady was asked if she thought sexism had had anything to do with the outcry regarding the president's SCOTUS nominee and her reply was a simple "maybe". Her reply clearly was not that it indeed was, as Coulter says, "rooted in sexism".
The fact that Coulter either can't or chooses not to get this simple fact correct discredits her immensely and, whether she likes it or not, with her "not a very prestious school" comment, she demonstrated that she is in fact an elitist. That's funny coming from somebody who's made an entire career spouting off about liberal "elitists".
She's become a cartoon character, the conservative equivolent of Al Franken and she serves our side no useful purpose, real or imagined.
Reasonable minds can differ on Harriet Miers. Ann Coulter's problem is that in her zeal to diminish Ms. Miers she herself let her elitism out of the bag. It's either always been there or was simply a momentary lapse. I'm thinking the latter.
She asks the question, "Does This Law Degree Make My Resume Look Fat?". The answer is no...but it apparently does have that effect on her head. She's a smart lady. And he she slipped. And now we know what kind of smart lady she is.
The burden of proof is placed squarely upon the nominee to prove herself worthy of ascension to this nation's highest tribunal.
Thus far, I've seen not a shred of even moderately persuasive evidence that she has the requisite skills to serve on the Supreme Court, or even as a circuit court judge.
Hillary Clinton was also partner to a major law firm-one whose reputation equaled or exceeded that of the one that stands as Miers' preeminent professional accomplishment, according to her supporters-and yet the same Bush sycophants that are shamelessly flogging this inept nominee won't even concede that HRC might be as or more qualified than Ms. Miers for this post.
Ideological ambiguity, no discernible coherent judicial philosophy-but more importantly, no indication that she even wants to participate in the tumultuous legal issues of the day-and an adequate-but nevertheless distinctly unimpressive-resume are not traits that we should seek out in a prospective associate justice.
What an odd statement. The original post regarding the 10-1 was made by another poster in #360. I replied to that poster in #389. cboldt jumped in and replied in #447. But I don't recall discussing the 10-1 ratio with you at all. Did I miss it? Guess it doesn't matter since you haven't been following the discussion enough to know where the ratio started at anyway.
Okay, thanks! I thought it was out of the blue.
As for the Laura Bush thing, I will be honest. I did not see the interview, so I was taking as fact something I really didn't know. If what you say is true, then what she said really isn't that bad. It doesn't change my opinion, though, that accusing people of being sexist because they oppose Miers is wrong.
As for the cronyism, I simply don't like the fact that Bush seems to believe that the most qualified person in the country for the Supreme Court position just happens to beone of his good friends. If she seemed to show better qualifications, I would have no problems with it. Cronyism is not a left-wing talking point, it is a legitimate concern. I would be up in arms too if a Democrat or anybody appointed his personal lawyer and close friend who has no knowledge of constitutional law to the court.
On your last point about me "embracing victimhood as a sacrament." I was not saying that I had been accused of being a sexist. What I was saying is that, if someone is called a sexist for opposing Miers, that is wrong. I am on a college campus. I know all about liberals, I live among them. I have been called a racist (and some worse things) for saying I didn't like a black person for reasons that had nothing to do with his race and everything to do with the type of person he is. I'm not playing the victim, I am simply saying that this is the game that liberals love to play, and I will be sick if Republicans start doing it too.
"What the hell would Coulter know about being a lawyer? She ditched her law career to rant and rave about politics and get pies thrown at her."
I know you've been around here a long time. I can't help marvel if you even have a job.
I can't remember you *ever* contributing a positive--or even useful thought. Ever.
Such lousy food. And such large portions of it.
I'm hoping it's just a phase.
Teddy's law degree is from U Va., not Harvard. Rumor is that he was very near the bottom of the class. Also, one or a few legacies or cheaters doesn't invalidate the general point that top schools GENERALLY have better students -- nor, the point that you can be a stellar student, no matter where you go.
Perhaps Northwestern needs to teach you what cronyism means. Because I said I wasn't viewing it in that regard.
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.