Posted on 10/12/2005 4:16:22 PM PDT by goldstategop
Yes we need somebody who is superbly qualified but first and foremost a Republican.
I had to modify it slightly, in order to get it to "fit"... but: you just gave me my new sig line! :) Thanks!
Not in the least. You should oppose her because there are no substantive proofs being offered that she is a conservative, nor that she is qualified, but everything we do know--circumstantial though much of it is--points consistently to the conclusion that she is neither conservative nor qualified.
Unclear to me if she is a liberal or a realistic and cagey conservative. Look at the storm over whether or not Justice Roberts was a member of the Federalist Society. I can't believe the same would have occurred had he had a comparable membership in the NAACP. I understand and agree with you about the PC nature of the distinction, but this doesn't convince me that Ms. Miers is a closet liberal. I would imagine this issue will be addressed in her hearings if not sooner. Realistically, it would appear that membership in the Federalist Society is indeed "politically charged" and membership in the NAACP is not, or at least not as charged. That doesn't make it right, of course.
No one is insulting Miers as a person? Calling her "the cleaning lady" is just "questioning her qualifications"? I can't buy that. I certainly can understand the concerns about Ms. Miers, but I can't agree that the opposition to her has been quite as reasoned and respectful as you seem to suggest. I've seen her referred to as an "addled biddy," suggestions that she's a lesbian, and other nasty personal attacks. Having said that, of course two wrongs don't make a right, and I agree with you that the venom spewed at conservative commentators is likewise disgusting.
You know, I've been somewhat puzzled over the personal and venomous nature of some commentary regarding Harriet Miers. At worst, her sin is that she accepted nomination to a post for which she is unqualified, and has used her personal relationship with the President to advance her career (as if that would be unprecedented in Washington!). I do find it strange that she is such a crony of the President, yet we'd never heard of her before her nomination. Anyway, to listen to the attacks on her, you'd think she had killed someone. The level of personal attack is startling.
I guess I can't agree that in order to say tough things about a nomination and question the President's judgment, it was necessary for Ann Coulter to refer to Harriet Miers as "the cleaning lady." I have very much enjoyed Ann Coulter's writing in the past, but I think her current tactics are beneath her.
......She's not attacking a good Christian conservative southern lady.....
Of course she is. Her blue zone conservatism rejects the real conservaism of Texas.
If Miers is pretending to be a liberal to fool liberals into thinking she would be a good liberal justice, then she is being too smart for her own good. I take people at face value. I think it would be very foolish to assume that someone is a strict constructionist in spite of her words and her actions.
Realistically, it would appear that membership in the Federalist Society is indeed "politically charged" and membership in the NAACP is not, or at least not as charged.
The only reason the Federalist Society is politically charged is because there are politicians who dislike the idea that the Constitution restricts the actions of government.
If Miers distances herself from groups simply because those groups have opposition then she is a coward. There are a lot of good, decent people and organizations in the world who are violently opposed by others with an evil agenda. A judge should not bend with political winds.
Harriet Miers is a smart lady, but you ask is she a conservative. Leaving aside for the moment the fact that the Constitution does not require judicial nominees to have any particular political bent, I would answer yes, Harriet Miers is a "conservative."
But, you see, now you have to define what "conservative" means to you. It means different things to different people. The evidence strongly suggests Harriet Miers is a religious and Constitutional conservative.
I agree with you. At this point, though, the record on Harriet Miers, in total, don't convince me that she isn't a strict constructionist. I am hesitant to read that much into her observation that the Federalist Society is "politically charged." I think that is a statement of fact, though an unfortunate one.
The only reason the Federalist Society is politically charged is because there are politicians who dislike the idea that the Constitution restricts the actions of government.
Probably so. But it still, in my mind, doesn't change the reality that membership in the Federalist Society could be the death knell for a judicial nomination. Please don't think I am advocating-- I am just observing. And so long as the politicians you describe have a significant role in appointing the judiciary, that probably will continue to be the case. Certainly it illustrates the importance of electing conservatives to vote on these nominations.
If Miers distances herself from groups simply because those groups have opposition then she is a coward. There are a lot of good, decent people and organizations in the world who are violently opposed by others with an evil agenda. A judge should not bend with political winds.
I guess I still am not reading as much into these disclosures as you are. I don't see evidence to support Miers being cowardly. For example, being an openly evangelical Christian and a female in the legal profession in the 1970s seems to me to suggest that she isn't lacking backbone concerning her beliefs. I don't think her recognition (if that is what it was) that a Federalist Society membership might limit her career in appointed posts is necessarily evidence of cowardice or bending with the political winds. I'd like a judicial nominee who was a member of the American Life League, but I am not going to fool myself that such a person would be confirmed. One could argue that a conservative can better serve his or her beliefs by keeping them close enough to the vest to reach a position of authority, and then drawing on those beliefs in the discharge of your duties. Tough to draw the line between cowardice and being realistic, I guess.
You may be right in your conclusions, but I can't feel ready to make that judgment yet. To me, the evidence is still inconclusive. That presents its own problems, of course.
For some reason, as important as a conservative judiciary is to me, I can't get that agitated (yet) about the Miers nomination. I can't figure out why I feel that way, but I'm just not in despair yet. If she is confirmed and your fears, and those of others, are confirmed, we all have many years of bitterness ahead. Perhaps I am relying too much on President Bush having learned the lesson of Souter from his father or something. I certainly don't possess any gifts of acute political insight, but for some reason I'm not worked up over this nomination yet. I'm trying to figure out why not, and I can't.
Anyway, if nothing else, let's at least be grateful that Harriet Miers has pushed Cindy Sheehan off the news, right?
Although I could guess that after hearing her speak in person, reading her books, and following her career.
You guys are so mindless. You simply march in lockstep with every single solitary thing the Bush administration does. Conservatism is bigger than George W. Bush, you know. Ann Coulter is dead-on and precisely right. In fact, I can't think of a time when she's ever been wrong. She thinks clearly and, as you are learning, can think for herself, too.
You write "This is just unbelievable." What an arrogant thing to say. You sound like a whiny little liberal who is "shocked!" that one of their favorite writers has "turned on us!" Oh, you poor thing. The truth is that Harriet Miers is not accomplished at all compared to the other Supreme Court options. Do you just not see this, or is it ignorance on your part? (Or both?!?) Do you think Ann Coulter is sexist, like Laura Bush says she and other critical-of-Miers conservatives are? I would have supported Janice Rogers Brown or Pricilla Owen for the Supreme Court. (Notice they're both female! Wow, huh!) You guys are turning into liberals--you cannot and will not defend Miers with any substance, you will only attack Miers' critics. And why? Well, because Bush said so. Therefore it must be right.
Some have suggested Ann Coulter is not really a conservative for thinking for herself like all real conservatives do and not supporting Bush's dumb Miers nomination. The woman isn't qualified. People complain here about elitism (yeah right Ann Coulter's elitist now?). The Supreme Court NEEDS TO BE ELITIST!!! (This is hinted at by "Supreme.") Or do you think any pal of Bush's (i.e. the maid, the friendly janitor down the hall, etc.) is A-OK for the Court?
Despite the success of Reagan's presidency, despite the fact that Republicans have taken control of both houses of Congress and the White House, and despite the dominance on the Internet and Radio of conservative ideas, there are many conservatives who still think that one must hide their conservatism like it is some sort of disease. Conservatism is NOT Herpes.
I don't think the comparison between President Reagan and the Supreme Court confirmation process is a good fit. If the Senate, rather than the people, had been voting on whether President Reagan got into office, I'm not sure he would have been President. Look at Janice Rogers Brown-- if I remember correctly, she was re-elected to the bench in California by a huge voter margin, yet it was a monumental struggle to get her Senate confirmation for the federal judiciary. Did you happen to see Thomas Sowell's article on the Miers nomination? You might find his perspective on this one interesting if you haven't already read it.
I guess you would agree then with Ann Coulter's reference to Harriet Miers as "the cleaning lady." I can certainly understand the concern about Harriet Miers' nomination, but it amazes me that so many are unable to distinguish between someone with Harriet Miers' background and "the cleaning lady," or, as you suggest, "the friendly janitor down the hall."
There is no question that there is room for argument as to whether Harriet Miers is qualified to be on the Supreme Court, but I don't understand the nasty put-downs comparing her to the janitor, cleaning lady, etc. I would think her critics would be able to discuss her qualifications without having to be so demeaning about them. Even if Harriet Miers doesn't meet your standard for Supreme Court Justice, I would think most critics at least should admit that she exceeds most educational and professional standards for a cleaning lady. I don't think I am the only one who finds the personal demeaning of the nominee very distasteful.
Reagan didn't have a Republican dominated senate like Bush does. If a few wayward members of the party have decided to stray, then it is time to apply a little pain to them and herd them back into the fold.
We need to stop compromising. We need to call the Democrats bluff. No more justices, no more budget, no more federal government until they agree that the Constitution means what it says. We don't need a federal government. We have fifty states, each with their own statehouse, army, and infrastructure. Stand firm.
Ditto.
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.