Posted on 10/14/2005 3:27:53 PM PDT by JohnHuang2
WASHINGTON -- To the excitement of all Washington, the hullabaloo over President George W. Bush's nomination of Harriet E. (and you can be sure the Senate Judiciary Committee will get to the bottom of this mysterious "E" in due course) Miers builds, picking up wails and execrations daily. What makes the excitement so Continues...
=============================================================
The Borkette-ing of Harriet Miers
OK, on the downside, you-know-who at one time was a Democrat. Hard-core liberal Democrat. Contributed to Hard-core liberal Democrats. Loved FDR. Loved Harry Truman. Was once "pro-choice." Switched parties, became Republican. Strong pro-lifer. Born-again Christian. Ah-ha! Big flip flop there! No core principles!
But enough about Ronald Reagan. Regarding Harriet Miers, nearly two weeks after her nomination was announced, the Bill Kristol-led Rebellion has mushroomed from zero GOP senators opposing Miers to . . . zero GOP senators opposing Miers. To be confirmed, Miers oddly needs to win approval only in the Senate, not the Weekly Standard. So, over the weekend, the MSM resorted to Plan B, quoting over and over the same three rejects: Kristol, Pat Buchanan and Gary Bauer.
OK, in fairness, there were a few senators expressing doubts about Miers and her "murky" record. "I just don't know" the nominee, said Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. "I don't have any enthusiasm until I know someone. Personal integrity is the most important issue. If they don't have that, what they say doesn't matter."
Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas sounded a similar tone, vowing to question the candidate on Constitutional issues and the role of the courts. The nominee "doesn't seem to be a Souter," said Brownback, but he isn't sure. The nominee will "be a free agent once" on the High Court.
Oops! Coburn and Brownback were talking about John Roberts, back in July. Sorry again.
Regarding Miers, Kristol, who admits it's the President's prerogative to nominate whomever Kristol chooses, told Fox News Sunday he doesn't "think any serious person thinks she's the most qualified person, or the most qualified woman to be a Supreme Court judge, and I think she should step aside. It would be good for the President, it would be good for the Court." And you can trust the deep insight of Dan Quayle's former political strategist.
Bauer, who showed his deep affection for Bush by supporting John McCain for president, complained that "the whole (Harriet Miers) strategy is the so-called stealth strategy, picking candidates for the Supreme Court who have no judicial record on things that really matter . . ." Such as regulation of the hapless arroyo toad. And the French-fry-on-Metro-train case. If only Bush had picked a red-meat conservative. President McCain sure would've!
Buchanan, another loyal Republican who ran against Bush as an independent, presents a compelling case: For goodness sake, could we please jump to unfounded conclusions before we hear the lady out? Trust unelected "opinion leaders," they always know all the answers. Buchanan predicted Sunday the nomination will be "withdrawn." Nailing down the exact timeline, Buchanan says she'll withdraw "at some point, maybe before, maybe after the committee hearings. My guess is she will not be confirmed." Silly Bush disagrees. He predicts "she is going to be on the bench. She will be confirmed." Hmmmmm, who to believe . . . the guy who hangs around Lenora Fulani, or the boss of Cheney, Rove, Rummy, Condi, Bolton . . .
Among the things going for Miers:
(1) She's a pistol-packin' mama.
(2) She shoots a .45.
(3) She knows what "Congress shall make no law" means.
(4) She's not from Harvard.
(5) She's not an East Coast elitist.
(6) Bill Kristol's against her.
That alone means she should be confirmed. Plus, she believes in the existence of a Supreme Being. Kristol believes HE IS The Supreme Being.
Contrary to the law firm of Kristol, Buchanan & Bauer, nothing in the Constitution says a qualified nominee 'shall not have attended Southern Methodist University,' or 'shall be a law professor or former law professor or a judge' or 'prolific writer of law review articles and op-ed pieces for the Weekly Standard.' Some say Bush should've just nominated his dog Barney. Yeah, right. Barney could never be confirmed. Barney lacks the "raw intellectual power" to sit on a Court which:
(1) Gives us 10 different opinions for why it's unconstitutional to display the Ten Commandments in Kentucky but constitutional in Texas.
(2) Decides it's now constitutional to engage in sodomy.
(3) Decides it's now constitutional for cities to seize private homes and give them to private developers to increase tax revenue. Imagine the "raw intellectual power" it takes to drain all meaning from the Fifth Amendment's "for public use" phrase! Doubt Miers has it. That's why I support her. I want her on the Court because she "lacks" the judicial "experience" in creating the mess the whining Ivy Leaguers made of our judiciary. It'll take a cowgirl from Texas to fix it.
Anyway, that's...
My Two Cents...
"JohnHuang2"
The defenders of Miers, lacking solid arguments, have had to resort to crying "elitism", "sexism", "anti-Bushism", "snobbism", and here, Straw Man arguments.
The Straw Man rhetorical technique is the practice of refuting weaker arguments than one's opponents actually offer. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to your opponent.
One can set up a straw man in several different ways:
1. Present the opponent's argument in weakened form, refute it, and pretend that the original has been refuted.
2. Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.
3. Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.
I'm withholding my decision until the hearings, but if it does come out that she is a cowgirl from Texas, then I will fight like a dog to see her confirmed because I have had it all the way up to my Pennsylvania blue collar with those who's judicial experience allows them to cite foreign laws while studiously ignoring our own.
Great post John.
Dude, that's not Tyrell.
Dude, that's not Tyrell.
Dude, that's not Tyrell.
Well John, you certainly haven't lost your touch! This is an absolute gem.
Great 2 cents, John.
OMG, JH2! You had me ROTFLMAO!
Plus, I mistook your piece at first for being written by R. Emmett Tyrell---the whole time I was thinking, wow, Tyrell actually can write when he gets his dander up! LOL
What a great piece. May it get the circulation it deserves.
Thanks for that clarification. I was surprised at the first report of Garrett's piece.
You did a great job with this one......
I think you need to cut lil' Gary some slack as he most likely hasn't recovered from his attempt at pan cake flipping where he fell off the stage. That fall may have addled him a bit.
Now ol' Pattie had something happen to him back when and I don't know if anyone knows when nor where but he road off into the sunset with his pistols at his side yelling 'ride to the sound of the guns, you fools'.... Didn't sister Bay take on managing some democrats campaign not too long ago?
That was enjoyable .. *L*
Why would I trust someone who is a McCainiac?
Wonderful.....made my night!!! Thank you!!
Speaking of McCainiacs...
Did you see on the ticker at the bottom of the Fox News Channel, that "some Dem. Congress members, led by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, and Sen. Ted Kennedy, are seeking to have criminal charges brought against the Bush Administration over money that was allegedly given to Armstrong Williams, to speak for a bill, and that was never done"...???
Yeppers, they know that Bush's counsel is involved in the SCOTUS race...and just NOW decides to bring charges, saying that Bush used taxpayers money to pay Williams to tout an education program (I believe it was education)....
Another homerun. Well done.
I was referring to the Tyrrell article to which JohnHuang2 links
I think it's ironic to the max that the pundits are criticizing Bush because he expects us to trust him in his nominating someone who shares his philosophy re the constitution while the pundits are asking us to take their word for Miers not being acceptable.
Why don't you square off, mano a mano, with Harriet Miers in a Courtroom, and let's see who is qualified to post a legal opinion (or an opinion on someone's qualifications to issue a legal opinion) and who is not?
My money is not on you.
Well, I was one who was off to the Dark Side, but was brought up short and returned to the fold by the clear and persuasive writing of Harriet Miers herself:
"We have to understand and appreciate that achieving justice for all is in jeopardy before a call to arms to assist in obtaining support for the justice system will be effective. Achieving the necessary understanding and appreciation of why the challenge is so important, we can then turn to the task of providing the much needed support."
Now, I don't know exactly what she said but it seemed so... so... appropriate. Hey, she got to me. I'm back.
IMHO: It is better to have someone that would read the founding documents and not think that they had the intellect and duty to rewrite them.
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.