Miers unlikely to 'evolve'

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review ^ | 10/10/5 | Marvin and Peter Olasky

[Crackingham]

Question: What does Harriet E. Miers, a highly successful lawyer, longtime member of Valley View Christian Church in Dallas and confidant of the president of the United States, want more than anything else?

Answer: The approval of the faculty of Yale Law School.

Or at least that is the fear among conservatives. They worry that although Miers is believed to be a pro-life evangelical conservative, she -- like David Souter and Anthony Kennedy before her -- will be seduced by liberalism. As former Bush speechwriter David Frum noted after Miers was nominated, "The pressures on a Supreme Court justice to shift leftward are intense." Frum noted "the sweet little inducements -- the flattery, the invitations to conferences in Austria and Italy, the lectureships at Yale and Harvard -- that come to judges who soften and crumble."

Ah, yes, the sweet little inducements: Washington dinner parties, laudatory editorials from the nation's great liberal newspapers and, perhaps most important, praise from the smug savants back at dear old Yale or Harvard. Many leading lawyers never forget their roots in the Ivy League, where all-knowing professors throw laurels on judges who "get it" and scorn those who don't. Forget Austria: It takes a very strong (or very principled) constitution to do without that intellectual flattery.

But perhaps that makes Miers the perfect candidate. Perhaps it takes someone who did not go to Harvard or Yale and has never seemed to care. Miers went to law school at Southern Methodist University, which, although a well-respected institution, was unlikely to have been a bastion of progressive thought when she entered the law school in 1970.

As a result, she likely avoided the flaying of conservative justices that would have been tattooed in the minds of most members of today's Supreme Court.

[k2blader]

What a dumb reason to support a nomination. *LOL* But if that's your thing, go for it. :o)

[bray]

The Bush/Miers bashers will be here far sooner than you will see a cognitive reason she shouldn't be SCJ!! I'm beginning to guess that about half are Dems trying to stir the pot. The other half are Buchaniacs or the same thing. Their entire argument is, she's not "Conservative" enough for me.

Pray for W and Harriet Miers

[flashbunny]

"Your incessant bitching is driving away the very people you want to convince."

And apparently you have chosen with the side that says, without any evidence:

1. If you don't support miers then you are disloyal to the republican party.
2. If you don't support miers you are an unappeasable bush hater.
3. If you don't support miers then you are an elitist.
4. If you don't support miers then you are a sexist.
5. If you don't support miers, then you are trying to ruin her life.
6. If you don't support miers, then you are harming the war on terror.
7. If you don't support miers you are an anti-religious bigot.

These are just 7 of the tactics I've seen used this past week on people who dare question this pick.

None of these were based in fact, and most are completely contradictory to the truth.

They are essentially the techniques the left has used for years to stifle dissent. Someone disagrees with you so you do things like accuse them of elitism or sexism to shut them up. On the basic theory that people would rather hold their tounges than be called 'sexists' or 'elitists'.

When the clintonites did this, they were condemned on free republic. But when it is done to defend bush, the same tactics are suddenly embraced. No one draws attention to them other than those subject to the attacks. That is the essence of hypocrisy.

Now tell me, which side of this discussion has remained dedicated to upholding the same standards of individual accountability and judging actions on their own merits, and which side has sunk to the tactics of the left in order to bully people into keeping quiet?

[Cyber Liberty]

Went like this: Stunned at first, and not happy about the ones passed up. Then I considered the Senate, and the RINOs therein waiting to scuttle whoever Bush sent up, so I figured on "Wait and see what happens." Then, the stridency of certain known Bush-bashers on this forum helped me settle: With enemies like this, she must be good.

You have someone yell in your face, claiming you have a compulsion to have oral sex with Bush, and you'll get soured, too.

[Cyber Liberty]

Read 44. You've convinced me to oppose you.

[flashbunny]

Ping!

If you're already here, then this is redundant ;)

[jwalsh07]

Her entire career has been one of constantly evolving. See my tagline.

Your tagline is worthless and so Is John Funds claim. Her 'evolution' has trended from left to right, both in her political life and her spiritual life. Those are facts neither you nor John Fund can change though you can continue to ignore them in an effort to obfuscate.

[Cyber Liberty]

Oh, by the way: I refuse to judge for you how he debate has been practiced on FR. Go find someone who cares.

[flashbunny]

like I said, you've got some rock solid principles if that's how you make decisions.

[Cyber Liberty]

*Yawn*

I guess I was right about the source of your stridency...lol..

DEPMA.

[Stellar Dendrite]

waaaaa mommy flashbunny said kool aid and bushbot, im changing my mind! *pout*

[Cyber Liberty]

Another one, I see. I bet you're the life of the party.

[TitansAFC]

I know.

I posted a reply to him because I agreed. I apologize if it looks like I was arguing with him.

I definitely agree.

[Betaille]

"Her 'evolution' has trended from left to right, both in her political life"

See my tagline.

"and her spiritual life."

Stop falling back on her church, it's a really discredited tactic.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

An awful lot of mindless party hacks have been here lately.

That's the understatement of the week.

[k2blader]

I used to have far more sympathy for Republicans before I joined FR. These days it's something of a relief to see I'm in ideological disagreement with certain FReepers--evidence I'm on the right track. :o)

But their opinions are secondary. I've already formed my own.

[Cyber Liberty]

I can respect that, until anybody who remotely agrees with Bush about something becomes a "Bush-bot" or worse.

[Cyber Liberty]

Hey, I quit the party, so I can easily and comfortably agree with you. Some of the raving is outside of that comfort zone.

[flashbunny]

So you're as clever as howlin, who said I 'have a problem with women'.

Also, if your'e talking about tactics, because I dared question the miers pick earlier this week, howlin:

1. Falsely accused me of being a liar (and then failed to answer direct questions about her accusations)
2. Stated I had problems with women
3. Insinuated I was drunk or on drugs
4. Insinuated I was gay.

Just so you know the crowd you're associating yourself with.

[Cyber Liberty]

Not associating myself with anybody here. Quite the contrary. I'm disassociating myself with the likes of you. BTW it's impolite to refer to people in your posts without including them in the "To" line...

Ever see DEPMA before?