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 ...
Bork's opinion regarding this nomination are genuine and sincere, as is usually the case when we hear from him. His tendency to be honest regarding his beliefs, is the primary reason he was Borked in the first place.
He believes David Brooks discredited Miers. He couldn't do it himself, so he resorts to a NYTimes staffer to do the work for him.
Talk about ugly!
Bork didn't attack Roberts because Roberts was the most brilliant witness to ever testify before the judiciary committee.
Harriet Miers qualifications for the Supreme Court are as thin as her paper trail which is virtually transparent.
She is not only the least qualified candidate to be nominated in recent memory, but she was the least qualified known candidate on the president's list.
nopardons never said Thomas wasn;t a judge -- she correctly stated that he had a thin paper trail.
She may very well be the least qualified (not a judge) on his list, but she is the one he knows best. Personally and professionally, which led him to state that she won;t take a left turn once on the bench.
Bork didn't attack Roberts because Roberts was the most brilliant witness to ever testify before the judiciary committee.
Correct, but that didn't stop Ariana Coulter, did it?
Quite a reputable source the judge has got here.
Coulter jumped the shark in my mind when she went on record, in typically sophomoric fashion, against the now Chief Justice.
Coulter's credibility went down the drain with her column saying Miers wasn't qualified because the average LSAT scores at Harvard are apparently higher than at Southern Methodist University - that was really stupid.
Then she turned around and sucked up to Bill Maher or whatever his name. Menopausal perhaps...lol.
Ronald Reagan was elected by the people to a finite term for office. He was not a candidate to the Supreme Court, a lifetime appointment.
Furthermore, from the time of his defection from the Democratic Party (which was far less liberal in the 60's then in 1988, the time of Harriet Miers defection) to the Republican Party, until the time of his first bid for the presidency, he had built up many and obvious conservative credentials including his enthusiastic and ceaseless attempts to persuade people to it.
There is NO COMPARISON between he and Harriet Miers. It isn't even close.
And just WHY ( please be detailed and specific ) is Harriet Miers "the least qualified candidate to be nominated in recent memory." ?
There actually are NO listed qualifications, listed anywhere, for justices for the SCOTUS. Are you aware of that? And such vastly superior nominees, such as O'Connor and Kennedy and Souter and Warren and Ginsberg and on and on and on and on, gave us some of THE worst "opinions" handed down and NOT to be found in the Constitution; "penumbras" be damned!
-Senator Hatch: A lawyer who received his degree from the Pittsburgh Law School. He then practiced law for 14 years until his election to the Senate
-Senator Chuck Grassley: Not a lawyer. A farmer and Senator
-Senator Kyl: A lawyer who graduated from the University of Arizona (he did serve on Law Review and was one of the names touted for SCOTUS)
-Senator DeWine: A lawyer who graduated from Ohio Northern University Law School
I'll grant you that he was elected for two terms/8 years, which is very different from a lifetime appointment, with one caveat....if it hadn't finally been formally written into law, after FDR, many here, would have kept on re-electing Reagan,even when he had Alzheimer's; or so they claim today.
That being said, FDR was a Commie coddling socialist, who, Reagan loved and praised all of his life. Yet, he is now so demi deified and mythographized, that facts seem to bother most here; you included. The Dems were far more to the left, in the '30s and '40s than they were in the 1960s. And yes, that is a fact.
Good night, ETOM.
A few facts scattered here and there and they're left with hysteria and personal opinion...lol.
Why do you think I used the term,"least qualified," I'm well aware of it.
Have you read the resumes of the other known candidates? All of them have judical and constitutional experience. ALL of them. Miers who has neither, cannot compete. If this nomination was based on merit (a strong conserative principle), the way it should have been, Miers would NEVER have been appointed.
And POTUS appointed every one of them.
Laura made him do it.
She is going to get sliced and diced before the committee.
By the Democrats or the Republicans?
As to the MYTHOGRIFICATION of Reagan, I recognize GREATNESS when I see it and therefore thought he was a GREAT president at the time. MY esteem and admiration of him now is no GREATER than it was then. The same is true for many of his conservative admirers.
Hatch is squishy; always has been.
DeWine really is a RINO.
Grassley is a Hatch wannabe.
Kyl is a hold out?
Oh well, ETOM, you know me...that oh so "evil" believer of facts over emotions. :-)
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.