Posted on 10/04/2005 3:35:22 PM PDT by maximusaurelius
I would still submit that she was not well known in legal circles.
That's true, and an excellent counterpoint. However, I would like to say we lucked out with him, at least a bit. Also, remember that he was Assistant Attorney General of the Office of Legal Counsel, from 1969 to 1971. So he did have some experience which is comparable to that of a judge, and some experience arbitrating, which is important.
Hmmmm. Let me think. Bush selects someone from outside the established intelligentsia. An outsider. Yet, a well established and respected attorney whom he has worked with for over a decade. Everyone who knows her and has worked with her says she is a rock hard conservative. But I am supposed to be upset because the blathering beltway chattermouths don't know that much about her. Hmmmm. OK. I thought about it. I like her even more.
Where did Robert Bennett and Richard Ben-Veniste rank?
Well, that's not fair at all, nor is it a valid criticism. Nor is it funny (at least I don't find it so, and Heaven knows that I, and I alone, am the supreme arbitrator of what's funny or not). So ;p
Seriously, though. There are valid points to be made against her. Immature comparisons, while somewhat clever (ok, fine, the Caligula one, while probably the most unfair, is growing on me) are not productive to the discussion.
In conclusion, screw Howard Dean. And the horse he and Caligula rode in on.
You have it backwards.
As Bush said in his Presser today, he picked someone he knows will not change in the milieu of Washington D.C, so that as he expressly said, she will not turn out like others who have changed. He expressly said, she is a strict constructionist who will not legislate from the bench. And I picked her because I know she will not change. In twenty years, she will be the same. Quote end quote.
You gotta wake up, man.
Souter happened precisely because the elder Bush did not know him at all, and unwisely trusted in the assurances of others.
This is the opposite case.
And I understand why you still submit that. You've already provided ample evidence to support your level of intellect. It may be a little redundant, but there is nothing wrong with chiseling what is already evident into stone. And it just confirms my conclusions about you.
And can any of these people explain why she was a Dem in the '80s, and what, other than enhanced career opportunities, led her to switch parties?
No idea.
Ok. I think your point would have greater impact if you stuck out your tongue at me, and shouted "nana nana boo boo".
Like so. ;p
Now, your point that people vouch for her conservatism is an important one. But, and correct me if I am wrong here, you don't know her personally as well. And skepticism can't hurt with such an important decision as this. And if she's from outside the established intelligentsia? That is likely fine as well. Probably many viable candidates get overlooked because they are outsiders.
At no point did I say she was unrespected, or poorly established as an attorney, or stupid. She sounds like a very competent attorney. But what makes you think she will be a good judge?
I am not upset, nor do I think you should become upset. But just examine her thoroughly, and consider alternatives.
"Bush selects someone from outside the established intelligentsia"
If she is outside the established intelligentsia, does that means she's from inside the unestablished intelligentsia?
No, someone does not have to say it. It is time for a few people to wake up and see that they are destroying their own cause by these outrageous comments.
Click on Drudgereport right now.
You must be joking. She was never a JUDGE? So neither were about 40 of the previous Supreme Court Justices. Neither was William Rehnquist or Byron White. Please oh please get more information.
Oh, you didn't see the actual list? I know they are considered power-broker lawyers in Washington. Also that black guy who was Clinton's buddy, he was also called one of the most powerful lawyers around. I guess what I'm saying is that because someone is a powerful lawyer doesn't necessarily make them idea SCOTUS picks in my book.
Except she already has changed. She was a Democrat in the '80s (which was not in her "idealistic youth", either), and the reasons for her switch have never been made clear.
Souter happened precisely because the elder Bush did not know him at all, and unwisely trusted in the assurances of others.
Which is exactly what we're being asked to do.
You knew of her before this? I didn't. The idea that she won't change is an appealing one. But she was a Dem in the 1980s. I mean, that's not normally a good sign. Also, the fact that she has no experience is an area of concern, or do you disagree? It's possible she's a great candidate. But I don't know that much about her. And the fact that the Dems nominated her before, and that she was a Demin the 1980s, and the fact that her stance on many important issues is kinda vague (or if I'm wrong, please point me to the articles where they are clearly articulated, and I very well could be wrong, because I only saw this today and have never heard of her before).
I'm not saying she is necessarily going to make a terrible judge. But I do think she is sub-par as a nominee, and that's an important distinction. Why do you think she won't change? I am very curious to hear your take on this.
"In twenty years, she will be the same"
In 20 years, Harriet will be 80 years old. BTW, Dubya wouldn't answer the question about whether he thought his daddy's pick of Souter was a bad choice. He dodged it. I don't blame him.
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.