 |
 |
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.
My apologies. I saw your comment and assumed you were referring to me. My mistake.
Did you read the cases? Did you read her briefs? Roberts' Consitutional philosophy is exactly what? Where has he tipped his hand, other than being a good soldier for the Reagan administration as a young man, and writing that an intrastate toad was not interstate commerce? Yes, Roberts clearly has a very smart mind, and was more exposed to more Constitutional issues in his practice, and dealt a bit with them, but not much, in his two years on the DC Appeals Court, and Miers no doubt less so. That is why we need to await the hearings, to get a sense of her mind, how quick she is, and quickly she has picked up Constitutional nuances that were not a part of her every day practice, but may have been more so when she was involved in vetting judicial nominees. Assuming she is relatively obtuse and dumb because she went to SMU and we don't know her LSAT score is just that, an assumption, and as assumption that will be tested in the hearings. Heck, maybe someone will ask her LSAT score. Why the rush to judgment? Why? Is that fair?
"No requests this time around for all of us who dare disagree with her to post 8x10 photos to prove we aren't jealous of your icon!"
Speak for your own guy, Bonnie. Ms Coulter is no icon of mine. Many have been 'mesmerized' in the past by her 'in-your-face style, but she is in the process of sawing off the limb on which she sits with these attempts at vicious attack on SCOTUS nominees. She seems taken too much with herself.
It was actually. And I should have thought to preface the comment with something of that nature.
Getting kind of tired and hasty too - as a way of making an excuse.
This is a really historic unfolding of a serious balance-of-powers "constitutional crisis." We are watching some history being made. These events have the capability to shape the extent the Constitution is bent, and the tenor of government for the next generation or two.
|
|
I know what cronyism means, thank you very much, and I know what you said in your post about how you meant "following in your parents footsteps" and not cronyism. I was simply putting that argument out there because, maybe you don't, but a lot of people have the misconception that most people get into these schools simply because their parents went. I wasn't necessarily responding to something you said in that part, just putting it out there.
No problem. And I do understand your point. However, I don't think Ann has been saying the same thing. I think she has been way over the top with this "top tier" issue. What you are stating is hopefully basically true. Although with affirmative action these days I am a sceptic when it comes to just having a school name on the resume. Good luck with your studies at NW. I understand from my hubby that it is a geek school with a bad football team. But my hubby is a geek also so that is really a compliment. Time to get some sleep now.
The requirements for President are a natural born citizen, over the age of 35, and still breathing. Yet we make quite a fuss about who we select in primary and main elections.
Likewise, the constitutional requirements for appointment to the Supreme Court are very minimal. However, the President made a list, and ranked it according to some set of requirements, or maybe values is a better term, to come up with a short list, which we hope he got from the top of the long list.
What we are arguing about is the set of values used to create the rankings for that short list, and what that list of values used by President Bush to select Ms Miers might say about Ms Miers, and about President Bush. From a conservative point of view, it not clear that it says anything positive.
Oh, I thought we had a Republican majority in the house. What was I thinking?? And how many spending bills has the President rejected?
sceptic - skeptic. It's late already!
The SAD THING is, that Ms Meirs is a "Tabula Rasa!!"
Despite the Best Efforts of our "Conservative Base," NO ONE KNOWS "Who she Is!!"
BUT--"W" does!!
"W" is Telling Us, "Trust Me!", & We've NEVER had to "Trust Him" Before!!
"W"'s TRACK RECORD is Pretty Good!!
Let's See how "Harriet" Does, over the next few Months; If "W" is "Right;" Ann Coulter, Et Al. are "Blowng Smoke!!"
We NEED a "Few Months" to SEE if Ms Myers is another "Clarence Thomas!!!"
"Time Will Tell!!"
Doc
Winston light kings (long)
Oh, and don't forget her valuable experience as Texas Lottery exec. Truly, this is an embarrassing moment for Republicans,and it will only get worse during the hearings. I do hope the lady spares the president and the party and withdraws before that fiasco begins.
My WHOLE POINT was that this was offensive (aka rough and tumble politics).
Yeah?
I can't remember you *ever* contributing a positive--or even useful thought. Ever.
What the hell would you know about a "useful thought", Mojo? How many times did you get banned? I forget. Was it two times or three times?
You just dragged your sorry butt back here this past year, and now you act like you own the place.
Are you a Coulter sycophant as well?
Because the SCOTUS would never let such an abomination stand.
You forgot the /sarcasm tag. Part of brilliant politics is correctly predicting the moves of ALL of the parties involved. This would only be brilliant politics if Bush wanted the CFR, and also wanted somebody else to take the blame.
I notice you didn't answer the question.
All you ever do is attack. Everything. Everyone.
What a life.
I used to be a fan of Coulter's. Now when she's coming on tv or the radio, I turn it off. Ann has been the absolute worst of the elitists. Her comments about Bush "boozing it up" and calling for his impeachment is disgusting considering that she has made quite a bit of dough off of President Bush's supporters.
You would think that President Bush picked, God forbid, a "lowly housewife" for the job. Miers actually practiced law, lead a law firm and was the President's WH counsel. Does anyone REALLY think the Miers is not well versed in Constitutional law seeing as she dealt with it every day in the White House?
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.