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 ...
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.
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.