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 ...
Are you another one of the knee jerkers who ascribe to Bork a "liberal" view of the Second Amendment?
So far, I've seen one footnote in one of his books cited as evidence in support of that proposition. A footnote.
What other evidence can you cite in support of the proposition that Bork is a "gungrabber"? Seriously, I'm interested.
Exactly. NO ONE does. That is the whole point of opposing her nomination. This is the first time in over thirty years to tip the balance of the SC back toward actually using the Constitution, and instead of choosing out of a large field of tried and true jurists, Bush went for a total cypher.
Thirty years of investment is being risked on a chuck of the dice. Hell, amateur as they may be, I have published more Constitutional arguments right here on FR than Miers has published in an entire career as a "top lawyer".
Managing partner is an administrative job. And the fact that her law firm has 400 people says nothing about the quality of the firm. Locke Lidell is one of the top 10 Texas-based law firms, but isn't even in the top 100 nationally.
There are plenty of qualifications, unless you think that a 5-year-old Ethiopian could do the job?
There just aren't any Constitutionally mandated qualifications. The list of qualifications is generated from experience, common sense, and standards of excellence.
"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."
Is that smear for the benefit for those here who don't think for themselves?
Not a very good argument for us "elitists" who need persuasion not to hold this against the Republican establishment.
"The one who got Borked is now borking, can you see the hypocrisy ?"
Relativist conclusion.
He's not Borking because there's two sides to the issue, and he's on the right one.
I forgot to add: your point really isn't about hypocrisy is it? You want those of us not on your side to ignore what Bork has to say, so you use poor logic to try and railroad us off the issue. Just like a liberal would.
RINO.
"I'd sooner not slouch towards gun grabbing, thank you very much. Bork has really said "up yours" to GOA and NRA. Miers probably never will."
I doubt it. But how about we hold you accountable to that. And if Miers does anything to weaken the 2nd Amendment (assuming she makes it in), we get to shoot you?
Fair?
"Your mental giants have given us all these abominations."
No. Idiot populists like you have elected governments who have nominated Justices who have given us these abominations.
If you are truly anti-elite, then say you prefer the court system to be abolished. It is, by it's very nature, "elite."
"I just can't get over how the people opposing this nomination, to the last person, are elitists, sexists"
I stopped right there. You're no conservative, and you have no place telling me I'm a traiter to "the cause."
Which cause is that? The left's leviathan sized government agenda?
Your mental giants have given us all these abominations.
******************
I agree. I hope Harriet Miers is that person.
He [President Bush] appears embittered by conservative opposition to his nomination, which raises the possibility that if Ms. Miers is not confirmed, the next nominee will be even less acceptable to those asking for a restrained court. That, ironically, is the best argument for her confirmation.
That's gonna leave a mark.
If what Bork says is true, it takes the "trust" part clean out of "trust me."
Not that "trust me" is even an adequate argument to begin with.
GWB is not only shooting himself in the foot, his shooting at the traditionalsists and invoking the "trust me" line of defense is creating a burden to the GOP.
"My only point is that his sustained carping adds nothing to the debate, IMO. It only reflects an unmanaged ego that reflects badly on him."
He makes a very good point that Miers will be unable to say one way or another her thoughts on the Originalist judicial philosophy, due to the politics going on. Therefore, giving her a fair hearing won't reveal anything.
I trust a person who's actually been in that situation to know what use the senate's judicial committee will be in revealing anything not previously known.
Other than advancing this point, he makes the valuable contribution of stepping outside of the supposed judicial independance and demonstrating solidarity with conservatives. Some of you will point out that he's not a perfect one. But he firmly goes on record to being to the Right of President Bush, the guy who gets to nominate someone for the open slot on the SCOTUS. If Bork is weak on the 2nd Amendment, that makes Bush, in my eyes, look vastly worse, and does not make me trust him any longer. Bush has gone Left.
"There are NO listed qualifications,NONE, for justices of the SCOTUS. Ergo, nobody can be 'least qualified', if there are NO QUALIFICATIONS."
Red Herring.
You know as well as the rest of us that there is an informal set of qualifications that we look for in a conservative judge. Leftists have their own quote unquote qualifications too.
For you to say to people who have spent a lot of time and effort to see that Souter II doesn't happen, your red herring is a slap in the face.
Good news for all you rock-ribbed hard right conservative Bush & Miers backers [the biggest oxymoron I've typed]:
"Bush, Bono Have Lunch at the White House"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051019/ap_en_ce/bush_bono_4
Well, if all us elitists won't back the Tory in the White House, at least he now has Bono on his side. That'll be good for some votes, huh?
"Call her stealth -- but POTUS is the last man who wishes to make the mistake of his father, which is why he selected her."
Nonsense. He wants one of his people on the high court in case he's ever hauled before it for some sort of war crime case that Democrats will inevitably push through. Bush won't trust a strict constuctionist or a libertarian justice to be on his side - only his friends.
"POTUS is trying to play the senate he's been dealt. The senate with the cabal of 14 plus Chaffee and the two women from Maine. "
More nonsense. By backing away on this historic opportunity, he's giving power and ammunition to the RINO senators. Unless he gets them drawn out into the open with their stand on the judicial issue, we do not know FOR SURE who's not on our side, and we as conservatives will have little to campaign against them on, in the primaries.
Bush is purely partisan. He won't do anything to hurt incombant Republicans, even if they are hurting the conservative cause at the federal level.
Now more than ever, I believe he's drawn a line in the sand against movement conservatives and has demonstrated his hostility towards us. He never was with us, but now it's out in the open.
"LOL Hypocrisy reigns on the right fringe."
LOL I'd like to see what happens to the GOP when the right fringe doesn't show up the next time.
Ask Bush41 what it's like. And get a sneak preview in the '06 mid term elections.
That's Bork's point.
The post was ironical. The fact that you took it for real makes my point. It does look a lot like some that were meant for real.
The pro-Harriet philistine mob is really on a roll today! Anonymous nobodies with keyboards spouting cliched, tired insults at distinguished jurist Robert Bork. Wow, that really convinced me! What's my senator's number? Hello, is this the office of Honorable Philip Uster? Please tell the Senator to vote for this stellar holy roller office manager candidate, whatever the heck her name is!
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.