Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

HARRIET MIERS OUTSHINES BORK
MoonbatCentral.com ^ | October 4, 2005 | Richard Poe

Posted on 10/04/2005 3:20:22 PM PDT by Richard Poe

HARRIET MIERS OUTSHINES BORK

Unlike the Patron Saint of Originalism, Miers Will Defend Our Freedom


Judge Robert H. Bork has come to represent in many conservative minds the gold standard of legal sagacity against which provincial upstarts such as Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers must be weighed.  In truth, however, Bork provides a poor example of conservative jurisprudence. Even as simple a phrase as, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" has long confounded Judge Bork. Harriet Miers suffers no such confusion.

Following a July 1, 1992 incident in which a crazed gunman slew two lawyers and two judges in a Texas courtroom, Miers wrote in the Texas Lawyer, "How does a free society prevent a man from entering a courtroom and opening fire?" (hat tip, David Kopel)

The very liberties we hold dear, such as, "access to public places, the right to bear arms and freedom from constant surveillance" make such crimes possible, noted Miers. Yet, she concluded, "We are not willing to sacrifice these rights because of the acts of maniacs."

By contrast, Robert Bork dismisses the Second Amendment as a useless relic of bygone days.  In his 1996 book Slouching Towards Gomorrah he writes that, "The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that there is no individual right to own a firearm" — a statement which is demonstrably untrue. Bork also writes:

"The Second Amendment was designed to allow states to defend themselves against a possibly tyrannical national government. Now that the federal government has stealth bombers and nuclear weapons, it is hard to imagine what people would need to keep in the garage to serve that purpose.''

Perhaps if Judge Bork had found himself besieged by gangs in post-Katrina New Orleans, he might have gained a healthy appreciation for the utility of SKS rifles and AR-15s in modern life.  How much more would he have appreciated such hardware, had he found himself surveying the smoking ruins of an American city flattened by nuclear terror attack, devoid of police and swarming with brigands.

But Judge Bork is one of those men who cannot "imagine" what he has not personally experienced.  And so the "brilliant" jurist discarded James Madison's handiwork as casually as he would a soiled Kleenex.

If this is brilliance, how exactly should we define stupidity?

In today's American Thinker, Thomas Lifson exposes the snobbery which underlies so many conservative denunciations of Harriet Miers. He writes:

"Thus we hear conservatives sniffing that a Southern Methodist University legal education is just too non-Ivy League, adopting a characteristic trope of blue state elitists. We hear conservatives bemoaning a lack of judicial experience, and not a single law review article in the last decade as evidence of a second rate mind."

The outrage certain conservative pundits have displayed in the face of President Bush's decision to elevate Harriet Miers over their Ivy League classmates may be understandable. But it is not helpful. Nor is it admirable.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: banglist; harrietmiers; judicialnominees; richardpoe; robertbork; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-159 next last

1 posted on 10/04/2005 3:20:22 PM PDT by Richard Poe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Richard Poe
It will do no good to point out this woman's attributes. The bash Bush crowd will not be stilled.
2 posted on 10/04/2005 3:22:12 PM PDT by ladyinred (It is all my fault okay?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Richard Poe
But .... but .... but .... all these conservatives are running around saying that Miers isn't qualified and we need a distinguished conservative scholar in the mold of Robert Bork instead!

And now Miers has said it is a right that shouldn' be infringed and Bork says the 2nd Amendment doesn't impart an individual right and is an anachronism? Could it be he's over-educated himself? Thinks too damn much? Is out of touch with the common man?

Say it ain't so!

3 posted on 10/04/2005 3:24:02 PM PDT by dirtboy (Drool overflowed my buffer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Richard Poe
--thanks for this post.

I was aware of the overestimated Bork's position on the Second Amendment and have been pointing it out to his defenders for years---

4 posted on 10/04/2005 3:24:56 PM PDT by rellimpank (urbanites don' t understand the cultural deprivation of not being raised on a farm:NRABenefactor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Richard Poe

Wow, good find.


5 posted on 10/04/2005 3:25:28 PM PDT by fooman (Get real with Kim Jung Mentally Ill about proliferation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Richard Poe
I looked up what Miers wrote. Yeah, only a simple person could write this stilted prose:

The same liberties that ensure a free society make the innocent vulnerable to those who prevent rights and privileges and commit senseless and cruel acts. Those precious liberties include free speech, freedom to assemble, freedom of liberties, access to public places, the right to bear arms and freedom from constant surveillance. We are not willing to sacrifice these rights because of the acts of maniacs.

She is SOOO unsophisticated. We MUST give up our liberties to protect ourselves from the maniacs. She's a anachronism, a throwback. Lord help us! She might even believe that interstate commerce should involve commerce and interstate movement! We're DOOMED!

6 posted on 10/04/2005 3:26:22 PM PDT by dirtboy (Drool overflowed my buffer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ladyinred

Someone else finally noticed that Bork is very weak on the 2nd Amendment, and also discovered that Miers apparently isn't. On another thread, someone was lamenting that Bush chose Miers instead of someone like Bork.


7 posted on 10/04/2005 3:26:30 PM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Richard Poe

Mr. Poe, this is outstanding work.

However, posting it on the All-New Bush-Hating Free Republic is akin to casting pearls before swine...


8 posted on 10/04/2005 3:26:34 PM PDT by BeHoldAPaleHorse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Richard Poe

Great catch and well said. Thanks


9 posted on 10/04/2005 3:28:31 PM PDT by Phsstpok (There are lies, damned lies, statistics and presentation graphics, in descending order of truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Richard Poe

Wow! This article appears on moonbatcentral.com. I thought we applied the "moonbat" label to cranky libs.

Oh wait. "Libs" can apply not just to liberals, but to libertarians, too.


10 posted on 10/04/2005 3:28:51 PM PDT by Vision Thing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle

"On another thread, someone was lamenting that Bush chose Miers instead of someone like Bork"

That was only because nominating Bork would have caused a big fight....not because Bork would have been a better justice.

Like Rush said, the fight was needed and we will have to fight it someday. But, its been delayed by Miers...oh well.


11 posted on 10/04/2005 3:30:23 PM PDT by fizziwig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BeHoldAPaleHorse
However, posting it on the All-New Bush-Hating Free Republic is akin to casting pearls before swine...

Yeah, I wonder why all the usual suspects haven't come to this thread decrying campaign contributions Miers made in 1988. Or decrying her lack of qualifications. She really needs to go back to school and get her education up to Bork's level and then Bush could re-nominate her /sarcasm.

12 posted on 10/04/2005 3:31:18 PM PDT by dirtboy (Drool overflowed my buffer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Could it be he's over-educated himself?

No, Bork is consistent with the original intent of the Constitution. He believes in a federal government with limited powers per the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. He believes that the selective incorporation doctrine of the 14th Amendment is bogus. That means the Federal government would be unable to regulate the State militias or enforce the Second Amendment against State laws.

The question is: Do you want Federalism or unlimited Federal power?

There is good reason for this preference. It preserves the powers of your local government which means that your local representation would remain meaningful. As things are now, the federal courts are dictating terms to local governments on hordes of issues that never reach the Supremes.

It's a trade-off with which Bork is at least consistent, unlike most Federal jurists.

13 posted on 10/04/2005 3:32:36 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (The fourth estate is the fifth column.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Richard Poe

Bork isn't being held up as the "gold standard", Scalia and Thomas are. Also I think Bork's view of antitrust law is horribly flawed.


14 posted on 10/04/2005 3:33:10 PM PDT by Rightwing Conspiratr1 (Lock-n-load!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Richard Poe

I'd really like to see the context of those Bork quotes-- I really really would.


15 posted on 10/04/2005 3:34:18 PM PDT by faithincowboys
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Richard Poe

Man, I feel better about this every hour. Thanks for the link to Kopel's article.


16 posted on 10/04/2005 3:34:24 PM PDT by Double Tap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
That means the Federal government would be unable to regulate the State militias or enforce the Second Amendment against State laws.

Sorry, but he calls the 2nd Amendment an anachronism. And IMO, the 2nd does not require incorporation as the First did, because it is not prefaced with "Congress shall pass no law."

It says "shall not be infringed." That is absolute. And Bork walks away from that absolutism.

17 posted on 10/04/2005 3:34:59 PM PDT by dirtboy (Drool overflowed my buffer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Comment #18 Removed by Moderator

To: Richard Poe

A worthwhile listen: Windows audioclip of Mier's pastor talking about her personality and character on Kevin McCullough's radio talk show
http://media.salemwebnetwork.com/WEBLOG/kmc/Pastor%20Ron%20Key%20-%20Segment%202.wma


19 posted on 10/04/2005 3:36:21 PM PDT by Califelephant (Liberals: "We've always been soft on criminals, but now we're soft on terrorists too.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rightwing Conspiratr1
Bork isn't being held up as the "gold standard", Scalia and Thomas are.

Thomas is the gold standard. Scalia sided with the majority in Gonzales v Raich, which would have put a wooden stake into Wickard.

20 posted on 10/04/2005 3:36:25 PM PDT by dirtboy (Drool overflowed my buffer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: faithincowboys
faithincowboys writes: "I'd really like to see the context of those Bork quotes-- I really really would."

I think you can search his book by key-word at Amazon.com.

21 posted on 10/04/2005 3:36:47 PM PDT by Richard Poe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Richard Poe
"By contrast, Robert Bork dismisses the Second Amendment as a useless relic of bygone days."




Jeez.... even the liberal Lawrence Tribe has came down on the "individual right" side of the argument. I understand he got quite a bit of hate mail from his fellow Libs.
22 posted on 10/04/2005 3:36:51 PM PDT by Pirogue Captain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Richard Poe

I'm sorry, but this is not much to go on. As the original article pointed out she lumped a bunch of rights into a paragraph as an example (and it may have refered to the rights in Texas to bear arms)of a larger point.

Moreover, does this sound conservative?

She then explained the true solution to crime:

"We will be successful in solving our massive crime problems only when we attack the root causes....

We all can be active in some way to address the social issues that foster criminal behavior, such as: lack of self-esteem or hope in some segments of our society, poverty, lack of health care (particularly mental health care), lack of education, and family dysfunction. "


Self esteem causes crime? Hope? Lack of health care?

NOW I am more worried.


23 posted on 10/04/2005 3:37:18 PM PDT by Max_Parrish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Richard Poe

Well done!!

Read my lips.......Harriet Miers will turn out to be another Antonin Scalia.

I can't wait to say "I told you so" !!

Oh ye of little faith....................
AKA fair weather friends


24 posted on 10/04/2005 3:37:32 PM PDT by GeorgeW23225 ("Grow your own dope. Plant a liberal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Never mind that Article VI of the US Constitution is very specific about state laws not holding up when in conflict with the Constitution.

And I personally watched Bork make comments about the 2nd to the effect that it's staunch supporters were in fact rabid wackos that made themselve look bad with their fanaticism.

25 posted on 10/04/2005 3:39:35 PM PDT by Double Tap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Howlin; Miss Marple; PhiKapMom

A tidbit of info for the record.......


26 posted on 10/04/2005 3:40:43 PM PDT by deport (Miers = Souter....... A red herring which they know but can't help themselves from using)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Made in USA

I'm becomming more and more convinced that some FReepers are narrow minded, and suffer from tunnel vision. They'd also turn against their own Mothers in a New York minute. They are self centered examples of the "me" generation.

Harriet Miers was an even MORE brilliant choice than John Roberts. Too bad some FReepers are too stupid to notice!!


27 posted on 10/04/2005 3:42:37 PM PDT by GeorgeW23225 ("Grow your own dope. Plant a liberal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: fizziwig

I admire Rush Limbaugh, but why have a fight, when we can win the war without firing a shot?? Isn't that what Ronald Reagan did??? And it turned out to be the right thing to do, didn't it???


28 posted on 10/04/2005 3:45:28 PM PDT by GeorgeW23225 ("Grow your own dope. Plant a liberal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Sorry, but he calls the 2nd Amendment an anachronism.

I had not heard that. Got a source?

And IMO, the 2nd does not require incorporation as the First did, because it is not prefaced with "Congress shall pass no law."

It says "shall not be infringed." That is absolute. And Bork walks away from that absolutism.

While I am certain you know that I agree with that sentiment, the Second also deems a State militia "well regulated." From what I have been able to discern, that means not only are the militia ready and trained to fight, but that a State has the power to manage that armed capability.

This is getting off topic. My point is that I think the Second as written is somewhat at variance with an optimal statement in support of the pre-existing unalienable right to self-defense and that placing enforcement powers in the Federal government has its perils.

29 posted on 10/04/2005 3:49:22 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (The fourth estate is the fifth column.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Richard Poe

BTTT about Bork comments

Why is it only the pubbies that eat their own?


30 posted on 10/04/2005 3:49:59 PM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeorgeW23225

You needed to hear the complete statement by Rush on this issue otherwise, just reading my post, it does seem he just wanted a rumble with the libs....but it was more eloquent than that.

Still, Rush has a wait and see attitude. He was not a panicky whiner like so many, especially Joeseph Farah.


31 posted on 10/04/2005 3:50:41 PM PDT by fizziwig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
>>>>.... all these conservatives are running around saying that Miers isn't qualified and we need a distinguished conservative scholar in the mold of Robert Bork instead!

That's not what all conservatives are saying. Most conservatives are saying that there were better qualified candidates available to Bush. And conservatives aren't saying we need a conservative jurist in the mold of Robert Bork, but rather we need a conservative jurist in the mold of Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas.

32 posted on 10/04/2005 3:51:01 PM PDT by Reagan Man (Secure our borders;punish employers who hire illegals;stop all welfare to illegals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Richard Poe

Bite this Ann Coulter!


33 posted on 10/04/2005 3:53:48 PM PDT by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Richard Poe

Great article. Keep them coming.


34 posted on 10/04/2005 3:53:51 PM PDT by Patriotic Bostonian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ladyinred
In his 1996 book [Bork]...

Yeah, well at least Bork is writing books, one of Borks many achievements not shared by Harriet Miers.

35 posted on 10/04/2005 3:57:01 PM PDT by Plutarch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: deport
Thanks! Has anyone checked with Ann Coulter yet? I mean, I can't make up my mind until I know what she says.

/sarcasm> (Inserted because I am afraid there are too many here who would take me seriously.)

36 posted on 10/04/2005 3:59:26 PM PDT by Miss Marple (Lord, please look after Mozart Lover's son and keep him strong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: GeorgeW23225
I admire Rush Limbaugh, but why have a fight, when we can win the war without firing a shot??

I enjoyed your use of Reagan and Sun Tzu against Rush. I admire Rush and many other conservative radio hosts who seem to be squeamish about Miers, but their skepticism verges on cynicism, which is very un-Reagan.

In addition to their wanting an all-out bloody battle over Sandra's replacement, Rush and the other naysayers are violating another Sun Tzu-ism: When strong, appear weak. Rush thinks we're being weak by going into stealth mode, when in fact, we may just be giving the appearance of being weak.

37 posted on 10/04/2005 3:59:47 PM PDT by Vision Thing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Richard Poe

Bork also argued that there is no Constitutional protection for parents who homeschool their children, even if they do it for religious reasons.


38 posted on 10/04/2005 4:01:36 PM PDT by linkinpunk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple

LOL... that Coulter gal....... I haven't paid much attention to her rants for a long time. She appears to have been disappointed in life to me and has become nothing more that a constant complainer in the mold of ol' Pattie Buchanan and the other members of the Donner party.....


39 posted on 10/04/2005 4:02:33 PM PDT by deport (Miers = Souter....... A red herring which they know but can't help themselves from using)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Richard Poe

I have long thought Bork is somewhat overrated- but better than most of what we have on the Supreme Court.


40 posted on 10/04/2005 4:04:18 PM PDT by nickcarraway (I'm Only Alive, Because a Judge Hasn't Ruled I Should Die...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Richard Poe

I agree that lack of an Ivy League education etc. is a criticism that is not worthy of respect. However, should not reasonable criticism of Miers be allowed? Just as there are reasonable defenses of her?


41 posted on 10/04/2005 4:06:02 PM PDT by nickcarraway (I'm Only Alive, Because a Judge Hasn't Ruled I Should Die...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeorgeW23225
I'm becomming more and more convinced that some FReepers are narrow minded, and suffer from tunnel vision. They'd also turn against their own Mothers in a New York minute

You should have been here the day Bush picked Cheney for his VP; you think this was bad? Huh, it's nothing compared to THAT day.

42 posted on 10/04/2005 4:08:03 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: GeorgeW23225

I don't understand the "fight" thing either; lots of BLOODLUST on FR these last few days.


43 posted on 10/04/2005 4:08:40 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

Wouldn't the Second Ammendment offer protection to a citizen of a states whose representatives wanted to take guns out of citizens hands?


44 posted on 10/04/2005 4:09:52 PM PDT by nickcarraway (I'm Only Alive, Because a Judge Hasn't Ruled I Should Die...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
I do like the fact that she wrote that as part of an article on the Texas Bell Tower massacre. That would have been a time when it would have been easy to be swayed by emotion. It sounds like she was not swayed.

She would not have been my first pick but she might turn out to be a good one.

The more I learn about her the better she does sound.

45 posted on 10/04/2005 4:10:22 PM PDT by Harmless Teddy Bear (Machina improba! Vel mihi ede potum vel mihi redde nummos meos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Richard Poe

Good find. I am liking Harriet Miers better the more I learn about her. President Bush has made a good choice for the Supreme Court.


46 posted on 10/04/2005 4:12:10 PM PDT by advance_copy (Stand for life, or nothing at all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Richard Poe

Wow! Good find. Thank you for posting it.


47 posted on 10/04/2005 4:14:46 PM PDT by proud American in Canada
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle
Someone else finally noticed that Bork is very weak on the 2nd Amendment, and also discovered that Miers apparently isn't.

The lady is from Texas after all. ;)

48 posted on 10/04/2005 4:16:56 PM PDT by proud American in Canada
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Double Tap
Man, I feel better about this every hour. Thanks for the link to Kopel's article

I feel the same. Quite discouraged yesterday and early this morning, but not anymore.

Can't wait for the confirmation hearings.

49 posted on 10/04/2005 4:18:46 PM PDT by proud American in Canada
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
Wouldn't the Second Ammendment offer protection to a citizen of a states whose representatives wanted to take guns out of citizens hands?

Now that we have the 14th Amendment, if you believe in the full incorporation of the Second Amendment, then the Federal government has the power to over-ride ANY State law to enforce the Bill of Rights and the answer would be yes.

If you don't belive that the 14th gives the Feds powers to enforce the BOR against the States, the answer would be no.

That's the problem with the 14th. If you want Federal protection, you have to accept the perils including the way they have enforced the establishment clause against the States.

50 posted on 10/04/2005 4:18:54 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (The fourth estate is the fifth column.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-159 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson