Posted on 10/12/2005 9:13:14 PM PDT by quidnunc
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 irresistible is that conservatives have now joined with liberals in fuming over the President's judicial nominee. Well, as the philosopher Samuel Goldwyn was wont to say, "include me out."
This hullabaloo is but another piece of evidence in support of my long held view that the greatest unsung force in history is boredom. Yes, the rise and fall of nations, the comings and goings of eminences and fads, can be attributed to the seven deadly sins, to mere chance, or to a potentate dallying too long over lunch. But more often than the historians would have us know mere boredom has been the yeast for great events. At some point in every president's life, especially as his presidency ages, he finds himself in a sticky wicket because the politically engaged have become bored.
-snip-
The criteria for a Supreme Court nominee have historically been: (A) proven facility with the law and (B) personal integrity. That is the argument most conservatives have made ever since liberals politicized the selection process starting with Judge Robert Bork. Surely Miers has shown facility with the law and if she lacks integrity it will be revealed very soon. We have all argued that a justice's personal beliefs are not relevant. All a justice does is apply the law — as written by legislators — to each case under consideration. Judge Roberts returned to this truth repeatedly during his torture before the Senate Judiciary Committee. If Miers is capable, she will hold to this fundamental truth and be nominated.
-snip-
The criteria for a Supreme Court nominee have historically been: (A) proven facility with the law and (B) personal integrity. That is the argument most conservatives have made ever since liberals politicized the selection process starting with Judge Robert Bork. Surely Miers has shown facility with the law and if she lacks integrity it will be revealed very soon. We have all argued that a justice's personal beliefs are not relevant. All a justice does is apply the law — as written by legislators — to each case under consideration. Judge Roberts returned to this truth repeatedly during his torture before the Senate Judiciary Committee. If Miers is capable, she will hold to this fundamental truth and be nominated.
Were the Republicans to overthrow the principles they solemnly defended during the Roberts hearing and sink Miers' nomination, the consequence would be anarchy in subsequent Senate hearings and a messy victory for partisan Democrats. The Republicans have claimed the principle that barring maleficent revelations a president should be granted his nominee for the federal judiciary. If they were to join the Democrats in contradicting their own sensible principle and thwarting the President, the partisan Democrats would be justified in voting down any future conservative nominee. That would mean raising to the Supreme Court only nominees of their choice or, as I say, anarchy.
-snip-
This is a good point. Too bad the White House hasn't done a good job making it.
Ping
The other point Laura Ingraham and all the other conservative critics never answer is how was Clarence Thomas more qualified then Harriet Miers. No way he was more qualified for the supreme court - there were more qualified individuals then and more now - but if they hold up Clarence Thomas as the gold standard then they are kidding themselves and acting like petulent children -- for more infomration check out http://hedgehogcentral.blogspot.com/2005/10/clarence-thomas-and-harriet-miers.html
--- The Republicans have claimed the principle that barring maleficent revelations a president should be granted his nominee for the federal judiciary. If they were to join the Democrats in contradicting their own sensible principle and thwarting the President, the partisan Democrats would be justified in voting down any future conservative nominee. ---
No bad the true believers on the right that have so vehemently opposed Miers fail to grasp this simple principle.
Question: Why was Clarence Thomas so qualified when he was nominated and Harriet Miers is not ? Refer to this post for more information http://hedgehogcentral.blogspot.com/2005/10/clarence-thomas-and-harriet-miers.html
>
This hullabaloo is but another piece of evidence in support of my long held view that the greatest unsung force in history is boredom. Yes, the rise and fall of nations, the comings and goings of eminences and fads, can be attributed to the seven deadly sins, to mere chance, or to a potentate dallying too long over lunch. But more often than the historians would have us know mere boredom has been the yeast for great events. At some point in every president's life, especially as his presidency ages, he finds himself in a sticky wicket because the politically engaged have become bored.
>
This is hilarious. And true. You got 3.5% GDP growth. You have lower taxes. You have 4 yrs since a major attack on US soil. A majority in Congress.
Boredom equates to . . . I can't find anything to rage about.
Thomas was a minority affirmative action student at Yale. However, now he does not support affirmative action.
Interesting post....thanks for the ping.
This is a good point. Too bad the White House hasn't done a good job making it.= Typical, sad but true.
My only point is that all of the conservatives who are jumping off the cliff on this one - and a large number of them are hold up Clarence Thomas as an example of what they want in a justice and @ the time of the hearings it seems like he was less qualified then Miers for the SCOTUS.
A promise made is now a promise broken.
IOW, Thomas was no more "qualified" than Miers, when he was nominated.
I think Harriet Miers is not the problem. She is the last straw excuse for conservatives to blow off steam about a president who billed himself as a conservative and then grew government as quickly as LBJ.
What would Miers critics say if Miers had been an affirmative action student at SMU as Clarence Thomas was at Yale? What would ANN say about that?
Excellent read, Thanks for posting the link
I would tend to agree with the pyschology of it all - to paraphrase Rumsfield - you fight the SCOTUS battles with the president you have and not the president you wish you had
I agree. See post #16.
Malarkey. The matter is as simple as Tyrell puts it. Is she reasonable competent in the law and is she honest? Beyond that it is up to the Senators to decide if they wish to vote for or against the President's choice.
True but Hon. Thomas didn't encourage a program where Jesse Jackson and Al Shapton were speakers (unlike Miers who invited Susan Faludi, Gloria Steinheim, and Patricia S. Schroeder for her women's studies' program). There may be similarities but there are differences between Hon. Thomas and Miers.
Perhaps the White House expects it's constiguency to behave as if it were an intelligent life form. The White House has been quite clear in expressing it's satisfaction with Miers' legal ability and her integrity.
Clint Eastwood said it best,“Extremism is so easy. You’ve got your position, and that’s it. It doesn’t take much thought. And when you go far enough to the right, you meet the same idiots coming around from the left.”
Do you think outsiders will give the left a pass on bashing SC nominees. Thinking now both sides do it?
A large part of this has to do with the war on terror. So implicitly they want on side of government to grow without the other growing also, Doesn't work that way.
Miers had nothing to do with the invitations to the Raggio lecture series.
I know all about it, indcons. You don't. Shall I post the link from the Dallas Morning News that says as much?
How so?
That principle is technically correct. So if the "true believers of the right" are upset, it is not becuase that principle has been violated.
The "true believers of the right" have written reams of thoughtful expression (and reams of garbage) that dessribe why they are vigorously opposed to this nomination. ANd it isn't opposition to Ms. Miers. It is opposition to GWB and the GOP for using "stealth" (and maybe cronyism) instead of overtly advancing conservative principles.
You don't have to feel the same way. Heck, obviously you are not upset with the nomination. But others are. If you wonder why they are angry, read what they have written. But telling them they are STUPID for being angry is, well, only going to isolate them from you, and maybe make them angrier.
The Founders who wrote the Constitution were not lofty a$$holes like George Will, and a few others, they were farmers and store keepers who had common sense and a deep appriciation of liberty
She didn't do the inviting. She simply encouraged the establsihemtn of the program. SMU is a liberal school by Texas standards but not be eastern or west Coast standards. so that many in the hall would not be agreeing with these ladies.
--- But telling them they are STUPID for being angry is, well, only going to isolate them from you, and maybe make them angrier.---
I would prefer to express it as a major tactical error on their part, and possibly a strategic error. But then stupid is as stupid does.
"...But telling them they are STUPID for being angry.."
They are not stupid for being angry, they are being stupid by making judgements of Miers without her having a fair hearing and knowing more information about her. Fear has overcome their judgment.
Please....
No one is opposing the war on terror and it has served to increase the security role of government at great financial cost. Wars enlarge the size of government.
Thanks for that link, cohokie. Good points made by the author.
Thomas also had written more extensively (or at all) about issues pertinent to the court. Characterizing Miers as more qualified is stretching it.
Do you want the links that contradict your assertions, or not? I have them, right here.
I see your point.
regardless of whether she invited these speakers, she led the effort to create this "women's studies" lecture series in the late 90s.
sinkspur are you even aware of what "women's studies" at the university level is all about? i dont think you do, but i don't expect you to be intellectually honest about it if you did. it's full of pure marxist feminist drivel. my girlfriend in college took a "women's studies" course-- themes were hate men, hate marraige, "keep your laws off my body", "womens right to choose", and so on. do you support that kind of propaganda used to poison the minds of young, impressionable women?
when the speakers that are invited are gloria steinem and patricia schroeder (who led the effort to weaken the military via the tailhook "scandal")....is no surprise.
Read what I worte. Just that one post. Does it say anything about Miers' quaifications or performance?
It does not. So the anger or concern must come from spomewhere else. It's all been written. But we're (both sides of the nomination) so busy defending our respective sides that we don't see the rational for the difference of opinion. Stop being defensive - the "angry ones" are sincerely reaching out with a amessage, and the GOP is not listening. Here, for example ...
That sentiment is "division" writ small. How many are there? Many of them are eloquent. Many of them are utter assholes in delivery.
Anyway. Delivered in a spirit of concern and trying to make a positive impact. You get the last word. I;'m out this echo chamber.
Sorry. Not exactly. If that is what was so, I would not have a disagreement with Tyrell. The president ran on the promise of picking SC nominees in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. The POTUS raised the standard.
I hink I have already requested you to post the links. I also request you to post links that prove that women's studies is a conservative ideology. Also, links explaining her support for the ABA over the Federalist Society will be useful (while you are at it). Thanks.
SEN. LEAHY:Well, with all due respect, Judge, I have some difficulty with your answer, that somehow this has been so far removed from your discussions or feelings during the years since it was decided while you were in law school. You've participated in a working group that criticized Roe. You cited Roe in a footnote to your article on the privileges or immunity clause. You've referred to Lewis Lehrman's article on the meaning of the right to life. You specifically referred to abortion in a column in the Chicago Defender. I cannot believe that all of this was done in a vacuum absent some very clear considerations of Roe versus Wade, and in fact, twice specifically citing Roe versus Wade.
Could the Miers supporters provide a reference to anything Miers has ever written criticizing RvW? Could y'all refer to anything that Miers has written about anything controversial?
---claudiustg: I would prefer to express it as a major tactical error on their part, and possibly a strategic error. But then stupid is as stupid does.
So much for reaching out to claudiastg. Sayonara, says me, the reader.---
Just a short while ago conservative were giving spirited affirmation to the idea that George Bush's nominees deserved an up or down vote before the Senate. Remember that? Now many of them are signing a petition to keep one of his nominees from having an up or down vote before the Senate and NRO is hosting it!
Just incredible.
Exactly! Nothing is different about this appointment, other than the MSM is now convincing those on the right to attack their own.
Pitiful......
Until we know the answer... and the ranting and raving that has attended this nomination is lunacy.
I'm still doing that. Where is the vote for Myers (9th Circuit)? Boyle? Those nominations are on the Senate calendar. Haynes, Kavanaugh, Saad? In Committee since February.
I bring them up, and sinspurs (and may others) tell me, "those are DOA, we can't win that fight."
Darn right I rmeber that, and that (acquiescence to cloture abuse) has me steaming. It has me steaming because I see it as an imbalance of power, in favor of obstrucionist liberals who are staning in the way of the President getting what he damn well deserves.
And "being chicken" to confront the sniveling liberals with an overt conservative brought us a stealth nomination with all the baggae that attends the mere fact of "stealth."
And that chaps me too. That we'll send up less than we want but call it the best there is. What the hell kind of "standing up for principle" is that? Are you PROUD of that? Are you PROUD of what the GOP is doing against cloture abuse? Are you SATISFIED? Maybe you are. But if you look around, you will find some people are not on board, and they are not all a bunch of barking moonbats.
When somebody is angry, or upset, then says they want you to suceed, that is a special combination of feeling. ANd when is backed up with rational expression of "why," Y'all ought to take the time to understand where that person's head and heart are.
Now many of them are signing a petition to keep one of his nominees from having an up or down vote before the Senate and NRO is hosting it! Not me. Form this very thread, just above ...
What else has been known to get their attention?Reasoned persuasion, backed up with credible threats of finding ways to implement the ideals one is promoting.
The current GOP-power elite knows somthing is afoot, and it will fight tooth and nail against an incursion of social and constitutional and small government conservatives. They'll get the message - but sending the petitions initiated by the fired WH speech writer will just piss them off. It's not productive.
Listen, it just my opinion. I don't want to be your leader. I think the petition is counter productive for reasons of human interaction and sociology - but I know as much about that as brain surgery. I could be all wet ;-)
Listne. You are free to think I'm nuts, wrong, whatever. But the rationales that have been put out by the GOP and GWB defenders are just not satisfying me. Call me unappeasable, think of me as a fringer, 1 percenter, 5 percenter, not a team player, whatever you need to do to rationalize me away.
At this point, I don't really care if I change your mind. That is not why I am ranting. I am telling you part of why I feel so passionately about this nomination.
I really do not want a reply. Not even so much as an "I hear you."
Peace, good luck, God bless. And that is not meant to be sarcastic in the least. I mean those good wishes for you.
But, what makes you so certain that Miers is not in the mold of Scalia and Thomas?
The problem is that the most petulant and loud conservatives in this Meirs situation are coming across as extremists.
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.