Posted on 10/17/2005 12:20:04 AM PDT by tallhappy
concur
The criticism isn't that her writing is bad -- it's that there is essentially no writing relevant to the issues that pertain to a Supreme Court nomination. These articles don't help at all in that regard.
She has no identifiable legal philosophy, no identifiable Constitutional theory. As far as we know, she's never written or taught or argued in court on any of these matters. That makes it likely that she can be swayed by what's fashionable among her fellow Justices.
Here are the root causes of crime: lack of intact, two-parent families, crime-infested neighborhoods with little or no law enforcement, and weak judges who give pitifully light sentences for heinous crimes. (Dysfunctional education doesn't help either.)
Note that these are all products of liberalism, and note that it's liberals who favor teh continuation of these conditions.
If you were on the SCOTUS would you be swayed like that?
I would only believe she could be swayed if her involvement in nominating all the strict constructionists over the last 5 years was based purely on politics and not her princables.
Is that what you are saying?
No, but I have a clear understanding of the Constitution and a coherent set of principles.
Where did that come from? Who said she was not going to get an up-or-down vote? What you Republibots are afraid of is that it won't automatically be an "up" vote.
Conservatives have loked at the evidence on this nomination and mny of us see clearly that there is no there there.
I think it would be a disatrous sign of weakness to withdraw the nomination. Mistake or not, I believe it would be worse to backtrack.
Why? It would be worse to withdraw a bad nomination than proceed with it? That doesn't make any sense.
Her writing is cloddish and hamhanded.
You just need to get with the Bush agenda!
1) Spend some money on some kind of international bullcrap that will end up in the pockets of dictators
2) Appease Palestinian terrorists
3) Spend some more money on free drugs for seniors
4) Pretend like you care about border security when you really don't
5) Pay people reparations for the harm mother nature caused in the form of $2000 debit cards so the victims can go on a shopping spree to replace the electronics and high fashion items they stole which recieved water damage
5) Sign unconstitutional bills like Campaign Finance Reform
6) Call Pooty-poot and ask him why, with his good soul, he's still helping the Iranians build nukes
7) Sign some more spending bills Veto? What's that?
8) Wonder why so many Conservatives are mad about that nice lady who sends the sweet greeting cards
Yes, it's bad writing. My guess is she frequently consults a thesaurus so she can repeat herself without sounding like a total moron.
"What I deplore about all this is the hypocracy of the Right, in not giving the woman a fair hearing and up-down vote."
The opposition party using filibuster to prevent an up or down vote is obstructionism.
A nominee appointed by one of our own who faces criticism from our own side is most certainly not!
Gag me with a spoon.
"I just don't know what the quality of her writing ability means in the big picture."
It means she could never write the lead opinion without being laughed at. The articles reflect the bright meanderings of a college freshman, not the deliberations of a top notch jurist. Neither article ever really comes to a point, they are both filled with self defeating references ("misguided and erroneous", why not one or the other?). I could write better as a freshman, maybe I should be supreme court justice.
Thanks for your response - I don't know what organizations you belong to, but I can say that this type of article is consistent with what you will find in 99% of the business, trade or professional journals in America. Leaders often take middle of the road postions while pushing the membership to "get involved."
Miers: "However, discerning correctly synergies from a merger and making certain they are achieved maximizes profits in the most remarkable manner."
She does have a way of torturing syntax.
She ain't even a female Sandra Day O'Connor, for cripes sake.
I don't care if her written opinions look like this:
Abortion Bad.
Privacy Good.
Endangered Species Act too broad. Humans count too.
Under God sounds OK to me.
Public Use means Public Use.
Government must control illegal immigration.
Patriot Act is necessary to protect our society.
She can get a brillian law-clerk to write her opinions like many other justices have done. The key is how she votes.
She writes like a bad automated translation program translates.
I don't have a problem with reasoned criticism. I'm talking about those that want her dumped now before any hearing.
"I don't have a problem with reasoned criticism. I'm talking about those that want her dumped now before any hearing."
Nothing substantive will come out of the hearings, thanks to the Hinsburg precedent.
Given that, it's not unreasonable to ask her to step down as the logical follow through for opposing her nomination.
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.