Posted on 10/13/2005 2:18:54 PM PDT by NixonsAngryGhost
Yeah, it's elitist to suggest that someone who's going to spend 20 years interpreting the Constitution have demonstrated a 'real understanding of the constitution and its principles'.
Why bother with a law degree at all? Heck, why insist the nominee be able to read and write? Isn't that elitist?
Nothing wrong with that, Shakespere agreed with that.
In this case I agree with you, though I hope that she is not confirmed. If she was not such a Rorschach inkblot of a candidate, we might not be so interested in her ambiguous statements from 15 years ago.
We keep seeing evidence that she's closer to the left than to the right and no evidence that she's a solid conservative.
It's not elitism to point out that two things are different.
Nor is it elitism to say that it's very, very stupid not to understand this.
Now that is ridiculous comment. The NAACP was every bit as "politically-charged" in 1990 as it is today, pushing socialist ideals and bashing conservatives and Republicans.
She has strong feminist ties as well that has led her to support quotas from women in the Dallas fire department, Title IX and women in combat. She also idolizes left-wing feminist Louise B. Raggio. Such strong feminist ties make it questionable if she'd vote to overturn Roe.
Centralization of power is means by which all the evil the Liberals have promoted has been achieved, and we can now see for sure (as if the earlier support for an International Criminal Court wasn't enough) that she will support Big Mommy Government having control of everything, with or without a grant of power from the People.
Regrettably, the same Christians who can see the problem when the Supreme Court outlaws school prayer cannot even see the (same) issue when the Feds tell Dallas how to structure its City Council elections. Mark my words, unless this nomination self-destructs, her elevation to the Supreme Court will be another knife in the back of a Free Republic.
Mr. Sessions (R)Mr. Sessions affirmative…. “My conversations with Harriet Miers indicate that she is a first-rate lawyer and a fine person. Her legal skills are proven and her reputation throughout the legal community is excellent. It is not necessary that she have previous experience as a judge in order to serve on the Supreme Court. It’s perfectly acceptable to nominate outstanding lawyers to that position. I look forward to the confirmation process and to learning more about her judicial philosophy.”
Mr. Cornyn (R) Mr Cornyn…affirmative "The President has announced his nominee to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court of the United States: Harriet Miers, currently serving as White House Counsel. As he did with Judge John G. Roberts, Jr., the President has chosen an outstanding nominee for our nation's highest court. The Senate should consider this nomination in both a thorough and expedient manner.
"Harriet Miers is a brilliant legal mind. She is a woman of outstanding character who clearly understands what it means to follow the law. She is deeply committed to public service, and has a distinguished history of professional achievement. It is clear that her past experiences have well prepared her for the honor of serving our country as a Supreme Court Justice. I strongly support her nomination.
"It is important that we put aside partisanship, and that the Senate fulfill its constitutional responsibility of advice and consent. This fine nominee must be treated with civility and respect, not as a political pawn. I hope that we in the Senate can move forward in a manner worthy of the American people."
Mr. Coburn (R) Mr.Coburn..affirmative. “Harriet Miers deserves a fair and thorough hearing and confirmation process. I look forward to learning more about her qualifications and judicial philosophy in the coming days,” Dr. Coburn said, adding that he plans to meet with Miers this week.”
.
Know what you mean. Probably maybe, possibly, might......
Exactly. We are dealing with a whole forest of "ifs."
They may deserve equal rights and the opportunity to pursue their own happiness, but all of this outcry against elitism is a straw man. Few would deny that enormous inequalities are already built into nature, and that survival of the fittest is a fact of life.
The affirmative action angle of this story is alarming. From Bush's use of affirmative action in nominating her, to the affirmative action slanted defense of her less than Supreme Court worthy resume - to her own apparent support for affirmative action in the 1990's.
Cries of elitism here are nothing more than a continued insistence that we disregard the reality that she in fact does not measure up on an objective scale compared to other potential candidates, both male and female. Rather, they are demanding that we adhere to the principals of affirmative action, and confirm her because she's accomplished a lot, for a woman.
The only people who care that she's a woman at all, are those using her gender to exaggerate her accomplishments. The rest of us were looking for an exceptional candidate, period.
Enough said for me.
I'll bet that right now, there is a heck of a lot of goings on behind the scenes: conference calls; e-mails; power lunches and so forth on this nomination by GOP power brokers. I don't think this nomination has picked up any momentum in the last 10 days---if anything, it's starting to roll downhill. There's a delegation being put together right now to have a "Come to Jesus" meeting with GW, and most likely give him an ultimatum: find a way to dump the Miers nomination, or get served up with scallions and duck sauce.
Well put.
Has Coburn released anything after meeting with Miers?
What's the latest on Brownback's position?
If you have it handy I'd like to know.
He and she must be quaking in their boots. NOT.
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011936.php
Who's Cracking Up?
Liberals everywhere are convinced that their hour is at hand. The latest voice of left-wing triumphalism is Newsweek's Howard Fineman, who announced "The Conservative Crack-up" today:
The “movement” – that began 50 years ago with the founding of Bill Buckley’s National Review; that had its coming of age in the Reagan Years; that reached its zenith with Bush’s victory in 2000 — is falling apart at the seams.
Fineman's theory is that one by one, the "constituent parts" of the conservative coalition are "going their own way," which is to say, turning their backs on the Bush administration. He goes down the list; in most cases, however, his analysis is dubious at best:
About religious conservatives, Fineman writes:
The Harriet Miers nomination was the final insult.***[W]hat really frosts the religious types is that Bush evidently feels that he can only satisfy them by stealth — by nominating someone with absolutely no paper trail. It’s an affront. And even though Dr. Dobson is on board — having been cajoled aboard by Rove — I don’t sense that there is much enthusiasm for the enterprise out in Colorado Springs.
I expect that any GOP 2008 hopeful who wants evangelical support — people like Sam Brownback, Rick Santorum and maybe even George Allen — will vote against Miers's confirmation in the Senate.
With all due respect to Mr. Fineman, this is the dumbest bit of political analysis I've seen in a long time. I am not aware of a single religious leader who has in any way objected to the Miers nomination or called it an "affront" to religious people. I know a great many religious conservatives, and not a single one of them adopts this view.
The idea that "religious types"--do you get the feeling that Fineman is writing about a group with whom he has little personal experience?--are "frosted" because Miers is a "stealth" candidate with "absolutely no paper trail" is mystifying. Miers has no paper trail as a judge or legal scholar because she has spent her career as a (circumspect) practicing lawyer, but one area where she is anything but "stealthy" is her religious life, about which a great deal--too much, in my opinion--has been said.
So Fineman's analysis makes no sense, and is supported by no data or even anecdotal observation. Here's a prediction, the exact opposite of Fineman's: not a single Republican Senator--least of all a Senator associated with the religious right--will vote against Miers.
The second group Fineman addresses is "corporate CEOs," who, he says, consider the federal government's response to Hurricane Katrina "a mortal embarrassment to their class." Huh? This rather weird claim is supported by a single CEO whom Fineman met at a "typical CEO haunt." I suspect, however, that a large majority of CEOs understand that the federal role in disaster response is limited. In any event, if Fineman thinks that top corporate executives constitute a major part of the Republican Party, he hasn't been paying attention.
So far, we have two categories of people who supposedly have abandoned the President, with the evidence adduced consisting of exactly one human being. Fineman's next group is "smaller government deficit hawks." Here he is finally on to something, although "spending hawks" would, I think, be more accurate. There are two significant issues on which the Republican base is upset with the administration: illegal immigration and out-of-control domestic spending.
But does Fineman seriously think that small-government types will start turning to the Democrats? I don't. And he may not have noticed that, while the administration is still AWOL, Republicans in Congress seem to have gotten the message from the party's faithful, and serious efforts to cut Katrina spending, and find offsets elsewhere in the budget, are underway.
Next, "isolationists," who Fineman says "are back." Nonsense. Fineman's claim that concern about illegal immigration is the new cause of the "isolationists" is a complete non sequitur which is supported only by Fineman's reference to Pat Buchanan, one of the few actual isolationists who is, or once was, a Republican. Virtually all actual isolationists--bring the troops home from Iraq now, and who cares about the consequences?--are already Democrats.
Next, "neocons," by which Fineman apparently means anyone who supports the war in Iraq. These people, Fineman asserts, "seem to have given up on the ability of the Bush Administration to see that vision through."
Again, this is an assertion with no apparent support, save for a reference to the Weekly Standard. As a contributor to the Standard, I will say that if Fineman actually believes that magazine's writers and editors have abandoned the administration, let alone jumped ship to the Democrats, he is deluded.
And finally: "supply siders," Fineman acknowledges, "have yet to be disappointed" by the administration. However, he predicts that the President will call for a tax increase, thereby making the conservative crack-up "complete." I think the chance of that happening is close to zero, and I think Fineman and many others underestimate the depth of support among Republicans for a President who cuts their taxes.
The question remains, though, what is fueling this liberal triumphalism? The answer, no doubt, is President Bush's falling poll ratings. Another one came out today, showing the President at a record low for his Presidency. It seems that Bush's poll numbers have been in a steady decline almost from the day of his second inauguration. This, fundamentally, is what has the left dancing in the streets.
But are Bush's numbers really that bad? His current Real Clear Politics average stands at 41.7% approval. That is at or about the low point in nearly five years in office. How does it compare to other presidents' lowest poll ratings? Actually, it's not bad. Here are the low approval ratings for the last seven presidents:
*Johnson: 35%
*Nixon: 24%
*Ford: 37%
*Carter: 28%
*Reagan: 35%
*Bush I: 29%
*Clinton: 37%
Yes, that's right: Every president since 1963 has had approval ratings, at one time or another during his administration, at least five points lower than Bush's current nadir.
Objectively, the evidence for a "conservative crack-up" is thin, at best. The reality is that the Republican base is holding remarkably firm, in the face of a media onslaught against the Bush administration that has no parallel in modern history, and following months of little but bad news: gas prices, hurricanes, and casualties in Iraq (the only news most people hear from that part of the world).
Things could change, of course, but my guess is that the next year's news will be better for the administration and for Republicans than the past year's. The price of gas has likely peaked; Iraq will continue to stabilize, and troops will come home; absent more natural disasters, the economy will resume its steady growth; Harriet Miers will be confirmed and start voting with conservative majorities on the Court. Most likely, liberal dreams of the end of the conservative era will have to be deferred again.
Posted by John at 07:41 PM | Permalink
Lately I have grown cynical and Micheal Savage has been mirroring my mood. The Media and Entertainment complexes have reverted to the pre 911 configuration and mindset but the world is s dangerous as ever. I will go so far as to say that I fear for our safety. Since I believe in God, our conduct as a nation morally and intellectually nears bankruptcy. Our culture is decadent beyond anything, I, no prude, would ever had imagined.My take on things is that the storm-clouds of a major war are gathering coincidental with another attack or not.
Media are nothing more than a political party with a political agenda. Isikoff, Matt Cooper and Fineman are all cut from the same cloth. It is all media mental masturbation risking our nation as it did in the 90's and during the terrorist attacks.
Next, "neocons," by which Fineman apparently means anyone who supports the war in Iraq. These people, Fineman asserts, "seem to have given up on the ability of the Bush Administration to see that vision through."
Neocons are Christians and predominantly Jews but then again Christianity is the target all day long. Actually Christianity and all of Western Civilisation are targets for the Left.
You have these areas nailed down:
"Media are nothing more than a political party with a political agenda. Isikoff, Matt Cooper and Fineman are all cut from the same cloth. It is all media mental masturbation risking our nation as it did in the 90's and during the terrorist attacks."
"Next, "neocons," by which Fineman apparently means anyone who supports the war in Iraq. These people, Fineman asserts, "seem to have given up on the ability of the Bush Administration to see that vision through."
"Neocons are Christians and predominantly Jews but then again Christianity is the target all day long. Actually Christianity and all of Western Civilisation are targets for the Left."
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.