UMMM... BORK, BORK, BORK!
Posted on 10/18/2005 9:43:27 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite
Bush shows himself to be indifferent, if not hostile, to conservative values.
With a single stroke--the nomination of Harriet Miers--the president has damaged the prospects for reform of a left-leaning and imperialistic Supreme Court, taken the heart out of a rising generation of constitutional scholars, and widened the fissures within the conservative movement. That's not a bad day's work--for liberals.
There is, to say the least, a heavy presumption that Ms. Miers, though undoubtedly possessed of many sterling qualities, is not qualified to be on the Supreme Court. It is not just that she has no known experience with constitutional law and no known opinions on judicial philosophy. It is worse than that. As president of the Texas Bar Association, she wrote columns for the association's journal. David Brooks of the New York Times examined those columns. He reports, with supporting examples, that the quality of her thought and writing demonstrates absolutely no "ability to write clearly and argue incisively."
The administration's defense of the nomination is pathetic: Ms. Miers was a bar association president (a nonqualification for anyone familiar with the bureaucratic service that leads to such presidencies); she shares Mr. Bush's judicial philosophy (which seems to consist of bromides about "strict construction" and the like); and she is, as an evangelical Christian, deeply religious. That last, along with her contributions to pro-life causes, is designed to suggest that she does not like Roe v. Wade, though it certainly does not necessarily mean that she would vote to overturn that constitutional travesty.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
ping.
you can use bugmenot.com to bypass registration
Why do people always post excerpted articles that require registration? Man...that just ticks me off.
:)
Rift, rift, rift!!!!
Bork is bitter.
Bork for the Court!!
(And why the hell shouldn't he be bitter.)
Thanks, llevrok. I was just kidding, but thanks anyway. I appreciate it.
Slouching towards gungrabbing.
I guess Mr. Bork would concider all the Republican Senators on the Senate Judiciary committee to be lukewarm then.
Thier Statements...
Mr. Brownback (R) “I congratulate Harriet Miers on her nomination to be Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court and I look forward to learning at her confirmation hearing whether she possesses a firm commitment to the Framers' Constitution and to the rule of law,” Brownback stated. “I am hopeful that Ms. Miers will be, as President Bush promised, a qualified nominee in the mold of Justices Scalia and Thomas who will strictly interpret the law and will not create law.”
Brownback, a member of the Judiciary Committee and chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee, previously commented that he hoped the President would nominate a jurist who would strictly interpret the Constitution and who has a well-formed judicial philosophy and stated positions on important issues.
Brownback continued, “I have said in the past that I would like a nominee with a proven track record on important issues to all Americans and whose judicial philosophy is well-formed. I am not yet confident that Ms. Miers has a proven track record and I look forward to having these questions answered. President Bush has a long-standing working relationship with Ms. Miers and I trust the President knows her heart and her mind. Even so, the confirmation process has just begun and questions about her views on the Constitution need to be answered. As President Bush and President Reagan have commented in the past, in this regard I feel we must trust but verify.”
Mr. Coburn (R) “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.”
Mr. Graham (R) “President Bush has made a solid pick for the Supreme Court.
“Harriet Miers has been in the legal trenches throughout her career and has a tremendous understanding of how the law works in people’s everyday lives. Her legal experience combined with her life experience makes her a solid choice.
“I hope for and anticipate a smooth confirmation process with a significant bipartisan vote in support. In my opinion, there will be no filibuster as she is a mainstream conservative who will be a strict constructionist on the Supreme Court.”
Mr. Sessions (R) “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) "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."
It's called ''property''. Perhaps you've heard of the concept? (No bets, either way, on that one.)
Sorry if you find the Constitution inconvenient. Perhaps you can apply for a position on the Supreme Court when Hitlery is elected, eh?
(signed) Your Friendly Neighbourhood Professional Writer
Gotcha covered.
That bears repeating.
Oh, . . . That Robert Bork!!. Well, never mind.
I fully concur.
Bork gives us a new refinement to the definition:
" SOUR GRAPES "
What a small man -- in every sense of the word.
"Bork Here! Still Opposed! Number of days opposed is mounting steadily, and should soon reach the tipping point. And remember, not only do I still oppose this nominee for what we don't know about her, but I also oppose her because she is one of those nut-case gun owners who thinks the 2nd amendment applies to her"
:->
Still in the (now-minority) waiting-to-see camp.....
My apols for the poor phrasing.
Take a valium. I was kidding, my friend. But I guess the smiley face confused you. (The bets still out on that one.)
Your neighborhood unprofessional writer.
Graham is such a weasel. He's asking for a paper trail now to cover his butt. His base needs to replace him. He's had his chance to lead. Now, he needs to let others have the opportunity.
In Bork's hysterical bromide, the above is his punch line. We cannot know that she is an "originalist." But then, Roberts made clear he was not an originalist in the Scalia paradigm, not am I. Isn't in the Bork universe, one whom one does not know is an orginalist, better than one, one knows one is not? Did Bork oppose and traduce Roberts? Where was he?
"Originalist" is a buzz term, now a jurisprudential football. So much of the Constitutional interpretation, cannot be resolved by the bare words of the original text. Words are often imprecise, intent is often unknown, including whether the intent or not was to suffuse the words with modern meaning, such as "cruel and unusual." Nobody really knows what the intent of the second amendment was. Nobody. The text itself is confusing. What does equal protection of the laws mean, exactly, or the preface about the right to liberty etc? What was the true intent about the commerce clause, and the binding together economically of the fruited plain? What was the intent of its ultimate reach, and does it matter that the nature of the economy changed? Was the intent to accommodate changing economic conditions? The founders understood that the fruited plain was poised for vast change over the decades, with unlimited potential. They understood and saw in their crystal ball that much.
The originalist approach is a good starting point, but not a universal solvent, and to suggest otherwise is superficial, it is polemical, it is ignorant, and I am tired of it.
Oh yes, Bork is not ignorant, just cynical. And his bromide sucks. It has no redeeming social value. That is my call.
Judge Bork has forgotten more about constitutional law than Harriet will ever know.
Yeah, I understand the policy. My comment was aimed at Stellar Dendrite, who has a sense of humor, knowing that I was kidding. The smile face meant that I was kidding. Stellar Dendrite recognized that and felt no need to respond.
The rift, rift, rift was a comment made about another article posted by Stellar Dendrite, of course, which SD knew too. It seems an inside joke has now gone to the dogs.
But wouldn't it serve the conservative cause if she goes into the hearing and actually defends an originalist doctrine? She is a competent lawyer. What if she is the one to deliver the empassioned plea for the correct judicial philosophy?
And if that causes her to lose her consent, wouldn't that just be icing on the cake for her critics?
will you buzz off already? i never asked for your comments.
;)
How curious that you should say that someone arguing on a pure Constitutional basis should go and take mind-altering drugs.
That speaks VOLUMES about you.
Good night, and, with any luck at all, good-bye.
This argument keeps getting repeated but it's just not the case.
First, the "stealth candidate" strategy only applies in the one set of circumstances where the president believes there are not enough Senate votes for an established originalist candidate for the Supreme Court to defeat a Dim filibuster or to get confirmed. If Bush and Frist were certain they had 60 votes to defeat a Dim filibuster and 50 votes to confirm an established originialist, you can be sure Bush would have nominated one. How do we know that? Because that's what he's done at the lower court levels.
Second, at the lower court level Bush has nominated exclusively open, established conservative judges. If you are an aspiring young originalist and you want to be considered by President Bush for a district or court of appeals judgeship, you had better have a track record establishing your judicial bona fides, or you will not be considered.
Torie going postal, and reasonably calculated to offend most. :)
Far better simply to state what one believes, regarding the particular thread, no?
Suum cuique.
Hysterical we all understand. What's this bromide stuff? . I guess this definition is meant: A commonplace or conventional saying.
So the piece is a hysterical commonplace saying. Now I get it.
Read my homepage, that speaks volumes about me. And I liked the Constitutional argument. It seems rare these days.
Goodnight, SAJ.
Exactly so!
Touché!!!
According to WH acolytes, Miers critics "repeat Democrat talking points," or "adopt the rhetoric of the Far Left." Of course, meanwhile the Bush WH is implementing the agenda of the Democrats and the Left. So the Democrats are put by the Bush WH in the wonderful position of being an "opposition" party with nothing really to "oppose"----such a deal!!
The Great Borkian.
Yes at once hysterical and commonplace. Perfect.
What a disgrace this nomination-process loser Mr. Bork has become. He wants nothing more than somebody else to join him in the ranks of those who couldn't get confirmed.
He relies on David Brooks - no person more or less than ol' Krypt himself has discredited the hit piece he refers to from the *conservative* at the NY Times, instead of himself, to *attack* Miers' writings.
Bork WILL be ashamed of himself, eventually.
Far better simply to state what one believes, regarding the particular thread, no?
Unfortunately, you're correct.
My thoughts about the thread. I agree.
Bromine compounds were at one time used as sedative drugs. Bork should take a bromide chill pill.
Precisely, and what a pity.
I'm buzzing off and weaping. I hope you're happy.
I don't know. Old people lose it sometimes. The tuck goes out of their sails and they never amount to anything else. He'll probably die a bitter loser who tried to bite the ankles of those who will do the work he could not.
Bork is a crybaby, crapping in his adult diapers.
The complaint isn't that a buzzword be espoused during the hearings; the post-Bork environment militates against that.
Roberts danced, but there WAS a songbook.
Bump for what you said!
The attack on Miers' writing surprised me. Unless I'm absolutely off the mark, Scalia is the only Justice who pens his own draft opinions.
The role of the clerks is . . . large: Bork should have known better. One brief description here:
Q – Ole Moen:
My impression is that the clerks play a greater role in writing opinions now than previously. I know that practice varies from justice to justice (and from case to case). Also, by the pooling of the certiorari* screening process, [some] clerks seem to play a more decisive role than previously. I would like your views on both questions. [*Note: a writ of certiorari is a decision by the Supreme Court to hear an appeal from a lower court.]
A – JOHN YOO:
I think that clerks have played a significant role in writing opinions for many decades. If one looks at reports of the late [Chief Justice Earl] Warren and early [Chief Justice Warren] Burger courts, it seems clear that clerks were already at that time playing an important role.
Much earlier in American history, there were no clerks and justices wrote the opinions themselves. If one looks at the records of the early Supreme Court, for example, it seems clear that the justices wrote all of their opinions on their own. I think that clerks play their most influential role in what is known as the "cert pool." The cert [certiorari] pool refers to the cases that are appealed to the Supreme Court. The justices vote every few weeks on what cases to accept from that pool. It is the clerks who review those cases and draft a memo summarizing the issues and recommending to the justices where to grant or deny an appeal.
Your post is deleted.
Publications requiring excerpts cannot be posted here in their entirety. FR can be sued.
Not always.
What's a good backfire, between friends?
Te deum.
In the early '90s, while she was president of the Texas bar association, Miers wrote a column called "President's Opinion" for The Texas Bar Journal. It is the largest body of public writing we have from her, and sad to say, the quality of thought and writing doesn't even rise to the level of pedestrian.Nothing excuses sentences like this: "More and more, the intractable problems in our society have one answer: broad-based intolerance of unacceptable conditions and a commitment by many to fix problems."
Or this: "We must end collective acceptance of inappropriate conduct and increase education in professionalism."
Or this: "When consensus of diverse leadership can be achieved on issues of importance, the greatest impact can be achieved."
Or passages like this: "An organization must also implement programs to fulfill strategies established through its goals and mission. Methods for evaluation of these strategies are a necessity. With the framework of mission, goals, strategies, programs, and methods for evaluation in place, a meaningful budgeting process can begin."
I don't know if by mere quotation I can fully convey the relentless march of vapid abstractions that mark Miers' prose. Nearly every idea is vague and depersonalized. Nearly every debatable point is elided. It's not that Miers didn't attempt to tackle interesting subjects. She wrote about unequal access to the justice system, about the underrepresentation of minorities in the law and about whether pro bono work should be mandatory. But she presents no arguments or ideas, except the repetition of the bromide that bad things can be eliminated if people of good will come together to eliminate bad things.
Throw aside ideology. Surely the threshold skill required of a Supreme Court justice is the ability to write clearly and argue incisively.
How on God's good earth did George Bush think he could get away with putting such an unqualified, mediocre crony on the court? She is going to get sliced and diced before the committee.
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.