Skip to comments.Is Miers Pro-Wife?
Posted on 10/18/2005 1:59:34 PM PDT by Daralundy
Is Miers Pro-Wife?
Here's a fascinating detail from a Reuters report on an appearance by six former Texas Supreme Court justices supporting the nomination of Harriet Miers to the U.S. Supreme Court:
The six former justices, all of them men, said they had worked with Miers while she was a lawyer in Dallas and they endorsed her Supreme Court nomination.
"I'd trust her with my wife and with my life," former Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice John Hill told reporters on the White House driveway after a meeting with President George W. Bush.
"I'd trust her with my wife"? This sounds like a strong endorsement of Miers's character. But there's another theory that would explain why Hill would trust Miers with his wife--a theory that we first put forward yesterday. Could it be that President Bush has appointed a woman to the Supreme Court?
Why Intellect Matters On National Review Online, Catholic University political scientist Dennis Coyle offers a powerful rebuttal of the anti-intellectual defense of Harriet Miers's nomination:
Perhaps President Bush was conflating liberal dominion over constitutional law and activist courts since the New Deal with intellectualism. That is easy to do, given the pervasiveness of liberal ideology in legal scholarship and academia more broadly. It is tempting to blame the root for the branch. If the liberal jurisprudential establishment emerged from elite schools and journals and spoke in large words and grand theory, the thinking might go, it can only be tamed by reaching outside the Washington-New York intelligentsia to let some Texas common sense cut them down to size.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Nope, nothing to see here, just move along. Don't get us wrong, though; we like the U.N.'s ineffectiveness. If the U.N. were effective, after all, America would no longer run the world, and Israel would no longer exist.
Sorry, but I don't see what the Opinion Journal is trying to get at here.
Is there a lesbian joke in there or something?
That she's a lesbian? Got me?
What an odd thing to say.
No doubt, by now John Hill wishes he had chosen his words differently.
And no doubt, Justice Hill meant he trusted her with what he values most. It's a Texian thing.
btw, between the Griswold backtracking and this bizarre statement by the Texas judge, this would be starting to get funny, if a Supreme Court position weren't so important.
Near as I can tell, they're saying that the remark "I'd trust her with my wife" is vacuous. Once upon a time it was a complimentary thing to say about another man: I'd trust him with my wife. When said about a woman, it's utterly meaningless. It's on a par with trusting a dog not to eat your fruit salad.
Taranto is against this nomination and he has a habit of making cutesy plays on words. I've stopped reading these pundits because I want to wait and hear what the lady has to say for herself.
Yesterday the news was quick to jump on her support of a right to privacy. Today she had to correct the record and state that that was not what she said at all. Already people are countering saying that she must have been unclear in her statement, or that she did not know what she was saying. Were her words ever actually reported for us to judge? No. Just reports of reports of reports.
Everyone should just back off and wait until the hearings. Then we'll see what she's really made of.
Remember when the press and the DU and Daily Kos were surmising all over the place that Jack Jr. was "gay" because he was reported to be dancing at the nomination? Then someone actually watched the tape and noticed that he was about 4 years old!
I thought only lesbians were twenty something hotties. LOL
It's actually from an old joke in the military - "I trust you with my life, but not my money or my wife."
Heh... you've never met my dog. She loves vegetables. :)
I'm not really sure, maybe that's the point. Just to plant a plausibly deniable seed of doubt among "the faithful's garden? I do hope not.
Ah, thank you. Now it makes sense. :)
I think you are confused.
The MAN said it about HER. It was his comment. And you're blasting Ms. Miers for it?
In Texas, that's a big comliment if someone would trust another person with their wife. Normally it's another man but maybe the guy who said it isn't sexist.
My dog would eat your fruit salad.
UH, that'd be his horse and rope. Right? A Texas thing...
If it was in a plastic bowl or a wicker basket, my dog would eat those too.
Maybe once upon a time.
Can you imagine if at an event, the wife revealed that John wore boxers with hearts on 'em, and Harriet made sure this data went to opponents of John Roberts? "Girlgames". Blech. I hate 'em. I want a professional in the job of SCOTUS, not some flinty little bit of gust playing "feminist politics".
Meaning? The personal is NOT political. Oh thank God should that day come when we see an end to that one.
NO. You must TRUST GW, not the people or a record. No trust someone who stated that he looked in Puttin's eyes & knew he could deal with him. Yea, put your trust in that!
LOL. Beware - some dogs will eat fruit ;-)
So far, fruit salad is the only thing my dogs won't eat. It could be simply that they've never had a chance, since I don't eat it.
They'll even eat plain lettuce.
Our dogs love salad. Just the other day one of them snatched an avocado off the kitchen counter and devoured it.
Just wanted to emphasize this point. My general sense (not terribly reliably) is that Bush sees Miers as just another vote on the SCOTUS. How effective she might be at pursuading the other justices to her position doesn't enter into it. I liked Roberts, on the other hand, because of this potential on his part. Maybe that's the idea. Put the burden of pursuasion solely on Roberts. Dumb idea if it is.