Posted on 10/08/2005 8:52:39 AM PDT by JCEccles
By the way, folks, take a moment and review the US Constitution -- specifically Article 3 -- and observe that Harriet Miers in no category fails any of the requirements imposed by the Constitution on individuals who might serve as USSC Justice.
She is thus Constitutionally qualified for the position.
Yes....very DU-like indeed.
Read Sowell's column. He has it right... after all is said and done, the only thing that matters is how she votes.
The other important point is that GWB played the hand he had as well as possible. A 'stealth' nominee made the most sense to George, and his assessment of the political reality is certainly far greater than most of us FReepers.
-- Joe
Harriet Miers is just a glorified personal attorney and now she is going to be placed on the most powerful court in this country ? Is she an expert on constitutional law (and for the information of the anti-"snobbery" types this is an expert position. It requires an actual knowledge base of every constitutional decision ever made. This isn't your local personal injury lawyer.) ?
The legal profession has objective standards of excellence, like the medical profession or academia or the military. These are hierarchical lifer institutions.
First, I have been reading and appreciating Podhoretz' writings for more than a decade. On most subjects and issues, his analyses are precise, effective, and get to the heart of the matter.
That said, I think he is wrong on this particular issue, and for a specific reason. Every trip I make to New York persuades me more that those who live and work in the rarefied atmosphere of that City have a tendency to a specific bias. Unless they fight hard to avoid it, they have the feeling that there is no civilized life in the United States once you get west of the Hudson River, until you get west of San Francisco Bay.
On the subject of Harriet Miers, I draw on my experiences with a lifelong friend who has recently semi-retired from the position as Managing Partner in one of the nation's largest law firms. Consider what it means to hold such a position.
The partners in a large law firm all consist of intellects, egos, and suits. Fortunately, most also have other attributes such as skill, dedication, ethics and such. But those are all variables. Only the intellects, egos and suits are mandatory.
Being the Managing Partner over such a group is therefore one of the most challenging positions that any lawyer can ever face. Only those with great skills are even considered for such a position, much less are given such a position and do it so well that they get that assignment twice. (Read Miers resume for this.)
As a student of the Court and its Justices, there are many who have served on that Court who do not measure up to Miers. Will she be among the greatest ever, like Story, Frankfurter, etc.? That is an open question, and the answer is probably not. Is she qualified to be an Associate Justice, compared to the history of the Court? Yes. IMHO.
Congressman Billybob
Very interesting here - the usual media wars at play here.
Have you ever actually read a Supreme Court decision ? Simple and straightforward they often are not. They refer continually to legal precedent (Precedent. That's a very important concept in judicial decisions. That means you have to have spent years of training learning judicial decisions.).
As for "cronyism", this is one case where the President knowing and trusting someone does count as a qaulification. "Positions" and "views" are not enough. They seem to melt when a lot of Justices get to the Supreme Court.
Is this kind of language supposed to convince us the people attacking Miers aren't being elitist snobs?
I happen to have a sister who remains unmarried at the age of 52. She has told me that she probably will never marry. She had two loves in her life who didn't work out, and she has become used to doing things on her own time schedule, without having to consider someone else. She has a lot of nieces and nephews (and now my grandchildren) which she devotes a lot of time to, and she has a very well-treated dog.
She is happy and busy with her work. She is not odd at all, and has a lot of friends.
Since Harriet Miers comes from a large family to whom she is close, I imagine she decided staying single would be easier, especially with the career path she set out. All of this touchy-feely stuff would not be written if she were a man, by the way.
Now we know why the left loves Miers so much. She's in the pocket of trial lawyers. So much for tort reform. Of course we don't need a Constitutional Scholar on the SC to oppose lawyerese. We got our own trial lawyer there to nix any tort reform.
http://sj.blacksteel.com/
I recommend the silver one.
Thanks, I figured it was an undercut move.
I am very anti-Miers but I must admit that the fact that neo-cons like Pody, Billy Boy, and the Frummer Boy don't like her makes me wonder if I am on the right side.
I will tell you what I think in freepmail. In case my hunch proves to be correct, I don't want any Rats reading it.
Think Henry II and Thomas a Becket.
I've read about everything on FR regarding Harriet. There seems to be a group here that conveniently forgets that GOP SCOTUS picks in the past have backfired, that conservatives morphed into moderates or liberals once they settled into the SCOTUS culture.
They betray their sponsor in favor of popularity, a VERY enticing temptress.
To me, this points to a basic human flaw: the fear of social ridicule. A famous study by the military identified the top three human fears: Third was burning to death by fire, Second was drowning, and First was the fear of being laughed at by peers.
These justices are, after all, human. They want, and perhaps need, popularity with the people they meet at social events in DC. They begin to hand down judgments that produce a pat on the head from the media.
It seems to me that the number ONE consideration for a conservative SCJ is their resistance to peer pressure. If they exhibit very little anxiety over being unpopular , there is a higher chance they'll resist morphing into a media-pleasing moderate/lib.
To the extent justice Thomas DOESN'T GIVE A DAMN about his media popularity, he remains an excellent justice. He is slammed by the MSM, black leaders, the Arts, TV, college teachers, you name it, they hate him.
Me, I want more courage like that. If Harriet can say she doesn't yearn for MSM popularity and mean it, she is WAY ahead of Souter, Kennedy, SDO, even most of the GOP faves mentioned on FR.
Courage to endure social ridicule, it is the MOST important trait needed here.
That's more encouraging than anything out of the White House spin machine.
Thanks for posting. Real news from real people is one of the best things about FreeRepublic (along with Ronald Reagan appreciation threads)!
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.