Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Thomas Sowell: "Us" or "Them"
Creator's Syndicate ^ | October 25, 2005 | Dr. Thomas Sowell

Posted on 10/25/2005 2:24:39 AM PDT by RWR8189

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-148 last
To: edsheppa

"Hmmm, that's being very generous to Steyn."

I agree. Sowell is a genuine heavyweight. Tremendously erudite.


101 posted on 10/25/2005 9:05:48 AM PDT by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189
"A reader recently sent me an e-mail about a woman he had met and fallen for. Apparently the attraction was mutual -- until one fateful day the subject of the environment came up...

She was absolutely opposed to any drilling for oil in Alaska, on grounds of what harm she said it would do to the environment...

That was the end of a beautiful relationship."

Wasted opportunity. Liberal women are, well, ahem, more liberal with certain, ummm, "liberties." Best to keep your mouth shut about the environment and enjoy the lass while you have the chance.

102 posted on 10/25/2005 9:10:50 AM PDT by tom h
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tom h

The NOW "ladies" will be on your doorstep shortly.


103 posted on 10/25/2005 9:32:17 AM PDT by furball4paws (One of the last Evil Geniuses, or the first of their return.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: ABG(anybody but Gore)

looking at those witholding deductions on their first paychecks always begin to enlighten the young


104 posted on 10/25/2005 9:35:11 AM PDT by KC Burke (Men of intemperate minds can never be free....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189
I hope Dr. Sowell Lurks here. He has nailed the modern day liberal.

Wow... just wow.

105 posted on 10/25/2005 9:38:16 AM PDT by Toadman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pollyannaish
...The Democrat party should go the way of the dinosaur...

I'll agree with you, sofar as to say that the party - in its current state - needs to go the way of the dinosaur. I think that we need a healthy balance between liberalism and conservativism, though. A country governed completely by conservatives would be, at best, drab and boring, and at worst, a dictatorship. Conversely, a country completely governed by liberals would be at best, a dictatorship (think president-for-life Hillary!) and at worst, complete anarchy.

And, I would lump Republicans and Libertarians together as conservatives, as the distinction is lost to most people other than those that are (R) or (L). At least for now. :-)

The Republican party is looking less and less conservative, these days. Just as the Dems have been getting more conservative with their ideas since the (80s? 90s?) in an attempt to preserve their power base. Heck, they haven't had an original idea since Jimmy Carter told people to turn their thermostats down in the 70s to save electricity. Their platform of late has been 'Whatever the Republicans think, we think the opposite. Even if it's a good idea, and we've supported it in the past'.

I'd look for a 3rd party to spring up eventually - composed of Dems that have been driven out by the fringe elements, and Republicans that are either disillusioned by the current state of the party, or take a more moderate view.

I think that there's a real opportunity for the Libertarians to step up and grab a significant piece of the electorate, if they get off the 'Legalize Drugs' platform that they've run on over the past few years. If they take their message a little more mainstream - small government, lower taxes, etc - I think that they could make significant gains.

/Diatribe off. And I'm still shuddering at the thought of President-for-Life Hillary Clinton. Maybe it would make a good Halloween costume.

106 posted on 10/25/2005 9:41:56 AM PDT by wbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Our man in washington
She very much likes the ideas of Thomas Sowell. That's just one of many great things about her. So, I'll be getting married in May. I wonder if I should send Sowell a thank-you card.

Congratulations! Have a long and joy-filled life together!

107 posted on 10/25/2005 9:52:14 AM PDT by Toadman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189
It was about personal identification with lofty goals and kindred souls.

Great column. Thanks for posting it.

Lofty goals and kindred souls
Melting icecaps at the poles
Enviro-nuts who brook no "buts,"
They live to give us all, "Tut-tuts."

108 posted on 10/25/2005 10:07:59 AM PDT by syriacus (Bush hasn't done a bad job, all things (WOT, vagaries of Nature, Lib lies + obstruction) considered)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Our man in washington

Congratulations!


109 posted on 10/25/2005 10:17:59 AM PDT by syriacus (Bush hasn't done a bad job, all things (WOT, vagaries of Nature, Lib lies + obstruction) considered)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

marking


110 posted on 10/25/2005 10:18:40 AM PDT by TAdams8591 (It's the Supreme Court, stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sauropod

Yes, that T.S. Eliot quote is a keeper.

Thanks for the ping, 'Pod!


111 posted on 10/25/2005 10:20:57 AM PDT by BufordP (Excluding the WOT, I haven't trusted W since he coined the term "compassionate conservative")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189
"Reagan beefed up the military and entered into an "arms race" that he knew would bankrupt the Soviet Union if they didn't back off, even though arms races are anathema to members of "peace movements." The fact that events proved him right was no excuse as far as members of "peace movements" were concerned. As far as they were concerned, he was not one of Us. He was one of Them."

Liberal "true believers" are not about the truth. They are not interested in it.

Good article by Mr. Sowell.

112 posted on 10/25/2005 10:21:24 AM PDT by TAdams8591 (It's the Supreme Court, stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

You have made that point many times as of late. It's a point worth repeating over and over and over......


113 posted on 10/25/2005 10:25:58 AM PDT by TAdams8591 (It's the Supreme Court, stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

Excellent. Thanks for posting this.


114 posted on 10/25/2005 10:26:56 AM PDT by Rocky (Air America: Robbing the poor to feed the Left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: George Smiley
I just realized....I have been reading Thomas Sowell for 25 years.
115 posted on 10/25/2005 10:27:20 AM PDT by TAdams8591 (It's the Supreme Court, stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: TAdams8591

Great article. You could substitute welfare for the environment and have the same argument. It's irrelevent to the liberal "do-gooders" that welfare has completely wrecked the family and made things worse, they get to feel self-righteous for supporting it.


116 posted on 10/25/2005 10:27:23 AM PDT by half-cajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: half-cajun
"It's irrelevent to the liberal "do-gooders" that welfare has completely wrecked the family and made things worse, they get to feel self-righteous for supporting it."

How absolutely true!

117 posted on 10/25/2005 10:28:48 AM PDT by TAdams8591 (It's the Supreme Court, stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189
Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important

Sounds like a good tagline.

118 posted on 10/25/2005 10:29:52 AM PDT by GSWarrior (Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws
"The NOW "ladies" will be on your doorstep shortly. "

Too late. I've been in their sights for years. My wife and 12-year old daughter, both rabid conservatives, will argue them down.

119 posted on 10/25/2005 10:34:37 AM PDT by tom h
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: TAdams8591
Then your bookshelf must be quite laden.

From Dr. Sowell's website

Any of the titles desired may be ordered by clicking either on Amazon.com or on Laissez-Faire Books

BOOKS WRITTEN:
Black Rednecks and White Liberals (2005) amazon.com laissezfairebooks
Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study (2004) amazon.com laissezfairebooks
Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy  revised and expanded edition (2004) amazon.com laissezfairebooks
Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One (2003) amazon.com laissezfairebooks
The Einstein Syndrome: Bright Children Who Talk Late (2001) amazon.com laissezfairebooks
Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy (2000) amazon.com laissezfairebooks
A Personal Odyssey (2000) amazon.com laissezfairebooks
The Quest for Cosmic Justice (1999) amazon.com laissezfairebooks
Conquests and Cultures: An International History (1998) amazon.com laissezfairebooks
Late-Talking Children (1997) amazon.com
Migrations and Cultures: A World View (1996) amazon.com laissezfairebooks
The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for
      Social Policy (1995)
amazon.com laissezfairebooks
Race and Culture: A World View (1994) amazon.com laissezfairebooks
Inside American Education: The Decline, The Deception, The
      Dogmas (1993)
amazon.com laissezfairebooks
Preferential Policies: An International Perspective (1990) amazon.com
Choosing a College: A Guide for Parents and Students (1989) amazon.com
A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political
      Struggles (1987)
amazon.com laissezfairebooks
Marxism: Philosophy and Economics (1985) amazon.com
Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality (1984) amazon.com laissezfairebooks
The Economics and Politics of Race: An International
      Perspective (1983)
amazon.com laissezfairebooks
Ethnic America: A History (1981) amazon.com laissezfairebooks
Markets and Minorities (1981)
Knowledge and Decisions (1980) amazon.com laissezfairebooks
Race and Economics (1975) amazon.com
Classical Economics Reconsidered (1974) amazon.com laissezfairebooks
Say's Law: An Historical Analysis (1972) amazon.com
Black Education: Myths and Tragedies (1972) amazon.com
Economics: Analysis and Issues (1971)

BOOKS OF COLLECTED WRITINGS:
Controversial Essays (2002) amazon.com laissezfairebooks
Barbarians Inside the Gates (1999) amazon.com laissezfairebooks
Is Reality Optional? (1993) amazon.com laissezfairebooks
Compassion versus Guilt (1987)
Education: Assumptions versus History (1986) amazon.com laissezfairebooks
Pink and Brown People (1981) amazon.com
Essays and Data on American Ethnic Groups (1978) amazon.com

MONOGRAPHS:
Judicial Activism Reconsidered (1989) amazon.com
Affirmative Action Reconsidered: Was it Necessary in Academia?(1975) amazon.com

ARTICLES IN SCHOLARLY PUBLICATIONS:

"A Student's Eye View of George Stigler," Journal of Political Economy, 
           October 1993, pp. 784-792.
"Jean-Baptiste Say," The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics, Vol. 4, p. 249;
           "Say's Law," Ibid., pp. 249-251; "Jean Charles Leonard Simonde de Sismondi,"
           Ibid., pp. 348-350; "Stigler as a Historian of Economic Thought,"
           Ibid., pp. 498-499; "Thorstein Veblen," Ibid., pp. 799-800.
"Assumptions versus History in Ethnic Education," Teachers College Record,
           Fall 1981, pp. 37-71.
"Weber and Bakke, and the Presuppositions of 'Affirmative Action',"
           Wayne Law Review, July 1980, pp. 1309-1336.
"Adam Smith in Theory and Practice" Adam Smith and Modern Political Economy,
           edited by G. P. O'Driscoll, pp. 3-18. (1979)
"Sismondi: A Neglected Pioneer," History of Political Economy,
           Spring 1972, pp. 62-88.
"Samuel Bailey Revisited," Economica, November 1970, pp. 402-408.
"The 'Evolutionary' Economics of Thorstein Veblen,"
           Oxford Economic Papers, July 1967, pp. 177-198.
"Marx's Capital After One Hundred Years," Canadian Journal of Economics
           and Political Science, February 1967, pp. 50-74.
"The Shorter Work Week Controversy," Industrial and Labor Relations
           Review, January 1965, pp. 238-246.
"The General Glut Controversy Reconsidered," Oxford Economic
           Papers, November 1963, pp. 193-203.
"Marxian Value Reconsidered," Economica, August 1963, pp. 297-308.
"Karl Marx and the Freedom of the Individual," Ethics, January 1963, pp. 119-126.
"Malthus and the Utilitarians," Canadian Journal of Economics
           and Political Science, May 1962, pp. 268-274.
"Marx's 'Increasing Misery' Doctrine," American Economic Review,
           March 1960, pp. 111-120.

ESSAYS IN PERIODICALS AND BOOKS:

"The Education of Minority Children," Education in the Twenty-First Century, 
           edited by Edward P. Lazear (Hoover Institution Press, 2002) pp. 79-92.
"Discrimination, Economics, and Culture," Beyond the Color Line: New Perspectives 
           on Race and Ethnicity in America, edited by Abigail Thernstrom and Stephan 
           Thernstrom (Hoover Institution Press, 2002), pp. 167-180.
"Race, Culture and Equality," Forbes, October 5, 1998, pp. 144-149.
"Ability and Biology," Newsweek, September 8, 1997, p. 14.
"Yes, Blacks Can Make It on Their Own," Time, September 8, 1997, p. 62.
"The Nuance Excuse," The Weekly Standard, February 3, 1997, pp, 16-18.
"An Unnecessary War," Forbes, August 14, 1995, pp. 122-128.
"Ethnicity and IQ," The American Spectator, February 1995, pp. 32-37.
"Up from Slavery," Forbes, December 5, 1994, pp.84-93.
"The Unheavenly City Revisited," The American Spectator, February 1994, pp. 45-48.
"A Road to Hell Paved With Good Intentions," Forbes, January 17, 1994, pp. 60-65.
"Culture, Economics, and Politics," The Cultural Context of Economics and Politics,
           edited by T. W. Boxx and G. M. Quinlivan, pp. 7-14.
"Middleman Minorities," The American Enterprise, May/June 1993, pp. 30-41.
"Multicultural Instruction," The American Spectator, April 1993, pp. 47-49.
"The Scandal of College Tuition," Commentary, August 1992. pp. 23-26.
"Have the Democrats Really Changed?" Commentary, September 1992, pp. 27- 32.
"Cultural Diversity: A World View," The American Enterprise,
           May/June 1991, pp. 44-55.
"Western Civilization: Achievements and Prospects," The World & I,
           May 1991, pp. 585-603.
"On the Higher Learning in America: Some Comments," ThePublic Interest,
           Spring 1990, pp. 68-78.
"Affirmative Action: A Worldwide Disaster," Commentary,
           December 1989, pp. 21-41.
"Morality versus Sanctimoniousness," St. Croix Review, April 1989, pp. 12-18.
"The New Racism on Campus," Fortune, February 1989, pp. 115-120
"Preferential Policies: An International Perspective,"Thinking About America: The United
           States in the 1990s, edited by A. Anderson and D. L. Bark, pp. 469-476.
"Democracy and the Market," The World & I, February 1988, pp. 667-674.
"Visions of War and Peace," Encounter, December 1987, pp. 40-49.
"Rose Bird on Trial," The American Spectator, September 1986, pp. 23-26.
" 'Racial Discrimination': Intellectual Definition or Political Slogan?"
           Ethnic and Racial Studies, October 1986, p. 537.
"The Economics of the Bishops' Letter," St. Louis University Public Law Review,
           Vol. V (1986), pp. 297-308.
"Die Zukunft der ökomischen Freiheit," Produktivität,
           Eigenverantwortung, Beschäftigung, pp. 171-189.
"Remarks on Racial Economic Equality," Journal of Ethnic Studies, Fall 1983, pp. 127-128.
"By the Numbers," Policy Review, Winter 1982,pp. 9-27.
"Media Smears: One Man's Experiences," The American Spectator,
           May 1982, pp. 17-20.
"We're Not Really 'Equal'," Newsweek, September 7, 1981, p. 13.
"Thoughts and Details on Poverty," Policy Review, Summer 1981, pp. 11-25.
"Side-Stepping the Facts," Journal of Contemporary Studies, Winter 1981, pp. 91- 92.
"Heresies on Race and Education," Taxing and Spending, Fall 1980, pp. 5-18.
"Ethnicity: Three Black Histories," The Wilson Quarterly, Winter 1979, pp. 96- 106.
"Undue Process," Southwestern Law Review, Winter 1979, pp. 1361-1370.
"Status versus Behavior," Washington University Law Review, Winter 1979, pp. 179- 188.
"Motivating the Law School Faculty in the Twenty-First Century: Is there Life in Tenure?"
           Journal of Legal Education, Vol. 10, Nos. 102 (1979), pp. 11-12.
"Myths About Minorities," Commentary, August 1979, pp. 33-37.
"The University of California v. Bakke: Landmark or Curiosity?" Regulation,
           October 1978, pp. 30-34.
"Introduction," Lino A. Graglia, The Supreme Court's Busing Decisions
           (I.E.E.R., September 1978), pp.1-3.
"Equal Opportunity or Numbers Game?" American Educator, Fall 1978, pp. 12 ff.
"Are Quotas Good for Blacks?" Commentary, June 1978, pp. 39-43.
"Tuition Tax Credits: A Social Revolution," Policy Review, Spring 1978, pp. 79- 83.
"Ethnicity in a Changing America," Daedalus, Winter 1978, pp. 213-238.
"New Light on Black IQ," New York Times Magazine, March 27, 1977, pp. 15 ff.
"Quest for the Elusive Green," Black Enterprise, March 1977, pp. 57 ff.
"Economics and Economic Man," The Americans: 1976, edited by Irving Kristol and
           Paul H. Weaver, Vol. II, pp. 191-209.
"A Black 'Conservative' Dissents," New York Times Magazine,
           August 8, 1976, pp. 14 ff.
"Social Science," The American Scholar, Summer 1976, pp. 354-356.
"Adam Smith's Shot Heard Round the World," Fortune, March 1976, pp. 179- 180.
"Patterns of Black Excellence," The Public Interest, Spring 1976, pp. 26-58.
"The Intellect of the Intellectuals," The Chronicle of Higher Education,
           December 8, 1975, p. 20.
"Social Science and General Education," The Philosophy of the Curriculum,
           edited by Sidney Hook, pp. 166-168.
"Black Seniors: Work or College?" Almanac, 1975,p. 66.
"Black Excellence: The Case of Dunbar High School," The Public Interest,
           Spring 1974, pp. 1-21.
"Minorities and the City," The Future of the Metropolis,
           edited by Eli Ginzberg (1974), pp. 111-130.
"One Viewpoint," Today's Education, November-December 1973, pp. 84-86.
"Black Students: The Rush to Catch Up," Nutshell, 1973-1974, pp. 76-77.
"Arthur Jensen and His Critics: The Great I.Q. Controversy," Change,
           May 1973, pp. 33-37.
"Violence and the Pay-Off Society," University of Chicago Magazine,
           November-December 1971, pp. 2-7.
"Economics and Black People," Review of Black Political Economy,
           Winter-Spring 1971, pp. 3-21.
"Colleges are Skipping Over Competent Blacks to Admit 'Authentic' Ghetto Types,"
           New York Times Magazine, December 13, 1970, pp. 34 ff.
"The 'Available' University," University of Chicago Magazine,
           November-December 1970, pp. 2-6.
"Veblen's Higher Learning After Fifty Years,"Journal of Economic Issues,
           December 1969, pp. 66-78.
"Black Studies: Slogan or Social History?" Black Studies,
           edited by Bayard Rustin, pp. 33-35.
"The Cheap and Easy Way," Western Review, Summer 1967, p. 28.
"The 'Need' for More 'Education'," AAUP Bulletin, December 1966, pp. 380- 384.
"New Dawn in Antitrust? A Comment," Quarterly Review of Economics and Business,
           September 1965, pp. 87-88.
"The Balance of Payments Dilemma," Bell Telephone Magazine, Spring 1965, pp. 87-88.

BOOK REVIEWS:

Hayek: the Man and the Hero, THE AMERICAN SPECTATOR, July/August 2001, 
           pp. 122-124.
The Age of Mass Migrations: Causes and Economic Impact by Timothy J. Hatton and  
           Jeffrey Williamson, JOURNAL OF WORLD HISTORY, Spring 2000, pp. 145-147. 
Property and Freedom by Richard Pipes, WASHINGTON TIMES, June 6, 1999, p. B8. 
Cornell '69 by Donald Alexander Downs,THE WEEKLY STANDARD, May 3, 1999, 
           pp. 31-33
The Shape of the River: Long-Term Consequences of Considering Race in College and  
           University Admissions by William G. Bowen and Derek Bok,
 
           THE AMERICAN SPECTATOR, April 1999, pp. 24-27.
Out of America: A Black Man Confronts Africa by Keith Richburg, 
           NATIONAL REVIEW, April 21, 1997, pp. 74-75.
The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism by F.A. Hayek,
           REASON, December 1988, pp. 35-37.
The Hispanics in the United States: A History by L. H. Gann
           and Peter J. Duignan, REASON, January 1988, pp. 52ff.
College: The Undergraduate Experience in America by Ernest L. Boyer,
           WALL STREET JOURNAL, April 9, 1987, p. 26.
Years of Poverty, Years of Plenty by Greg J. Duncan, et al,
           REASON, December 1985, pp. 46-48.
The Nightmare Years by William L. Shirer, REASON, May 1985, pp. 54ff.
Who Will Do Science? by Sue Berryman, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL,
           February 8, 1984, p. 24.
The Economics of Justice by Richard Posner, FORTUNE,
           November 2, 1981, pp. 175-176.
Equality, the Third World, and Economic Delusion by P. T. Bauer; Investing in People
           by Theodore W. Schultz, THE NEW YORK TIMES BOOK REVIEW,
           October 16, 1981, p. 13.
The Ethnic Myth by Stephen Steinberg, POLICY REVIEW, Fall 1981, pp. 169- 170.
The Chinese of America by Jack Chen, THE NEW YORK TIMES BOOK REVIEW,
           June 7, 1981, p. 13.
Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups, edited by Stephan Thernstrom, et al,
           COMMENTARY, January 1981, pp. 70-71.
Adam Smith's Politics: An Essay in Historiographic Revision
           by Donald Winch, JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC HISTORY, June 1979, p. 604.
Knowledge and Ignorance in Economics by T.W. Hutchinson,
           JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC HISTORY, June 1978, p. 557.
The Classical Economists by D. P. O'Brien,
           THE AMERICAN HISTORICAL REVIEW, December 1976, p. 1069.
The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom by Herbert G. Gutman,
           FORTUNE, November 1976, pp. 237-238.
A Rehabilitation of Say's Law by William Harold Hutt,
           JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC HISTORY, December 1975, pp. 870-871.
Money by John Kenneth Galbraith, COMMENTARY, December 1975, pp. 82ff.
On Economics and Society by Harry G. Johnson,THE ALTERNATIVE,
           October 1975, pp. 26 ff.
Private Black Colleges at the Crossroads by Daniel C. Thompson;
           Black Educators in White Colleges, CHANGE, June 1974, pp. 55 ff.
The Education of Black People by W. E. B. DuBois; The Education
           of Black Folk by Allan Ballard, JOURNAL OF HIGHER
           EDUCATION, April 1974, pp. 305-308.
A Primer on Social Dynamics by Kenneth E. Boulding,
           ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCE QUARTERLY, March 1972, pp. 146-147.
Crisis in World Communism by Frank O'Brien, AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW,
           September 1965, pp. 911-912.
Essays in the History of Economics by George J. Stigler,
           AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW, June 1965, pp. 551-553.
Modern Economics by Wronski, Doody, and Clemence,
           AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW, December 1964, pp. 1095-1096.
Employer Concentration in Local Labor Markets by Robert L. Bunting,
           AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW, September 1963, p. 828.
Slums and Suburbs by James B. Conant, SOCIAL RESEARCH,
           Winter 1961, pp. 508-510.
Selected Writings by Karl Marx, SOCIAL RESEARCH, Spring 1960, p. 119.

MISCELLANEOUS:

Regular columns:    Creators Syndicate, 1991-present; Forbes magazine, 1991- 1999; 
Scripps-Howard News Service 1984-1990; Los Angeles Herald- Examiner, 1978-1980.
Occasional columns:    Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, Los
Angeles Times, Washington Star, Newsweek, The Times (London), Newsday, Stanford Daily.

120 posted on 10/25/2005 10:35:48 AM PDT by George Smiley (This tagline deliberately targeted journalists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: XJarhead
My crowning achievement was converting my very own sister from a frothing "keep your politics off my body!" pro-abortion, NOW type to a Bob Dole voter(Bob Dole, of all people! The most boring candidate since Walter Mondale!) in one month in '96. She's now a staunch Republican and Rush fanatic, LOL!

But my favorite will always be the girls who lived next door to our frat house. They decided to throw an Earth Day party in '91 or '92. They were all radical feminists and faithful liberals, so as they were decorating their house with eco-whacko symbols, I asked, as we, being the masters of such matters were tapping the keg and testing to make sure the beer was fresh, what type of cups they'd use to serve the beer. They jumped headfirst into the trap.

They pulled out a couple of packages of styrofoam cups. Now, styrofoam is not the preferred container for any beer connoisseur. But I asked them how they could possibly justify using such a non-biodregradable container as styrofoam on Earth Day?! They suddenly realized that I was right! "Jen, get the receipt and bring these back to the store and exchange them for paper cups!" Paper cups?! Your cutting down the rainforests! They were in a solid conundrum for about 5 minutes before they realized I was making a point at their expense. I had my glass beer mug from the frat house and I could have cared less what they drank their beer in. ;^)

If I didn't swing those girls to the conservative point of view, I was usually able to put enough doubt into their heads about the RATS that they either stayed home on election day, or voted third party.
121 posted on 10/25/2005 10:41:37 AM PDT by ABG(anybody but Gore) (This tagline is under remodeling, thank you for your patience...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

[[There is no reasoning with trust ...]]

Flawed reasoning to give yourself an 'out'. You simply dismiss out of hand that someone who disagrees with you can have a reasoned position. I could turn your claim around and say there is no reasoning with an entrenched ideologue. That is not only disingenuous, but intellectually dishonest. What you actually do is prove my point of attributing the conservative rift to a 'them or 'us' attitude, which you exhibit.


122 posted on 10/25/2005 10:43:03 AM PDT by KMAJ2 (Freedom not defended is freedom relinquished, liberty not fought for is liberty lost.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: js1138

I agree.


123 posted on 10/25/2005 10:52:20 AM PDT by LiberationIT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: KMAJ2

You make a good point. There are idealogues on both the right and left. People like Dick Durbin, Howard Dean, or the U-Boat Commander are beyond reasoning with, but there are some on the right who are just as self-righteous and narrow-minded. Pat Buchanan comes to mind, but I don't think he's as extreme as he likes to portend.

But they're out there. My dad, as much as I love him, is a born-again Baptist who loves to try and convert me every time he gets the chance. At the same time he keeps up a running correspondence with Bibi Netanyahu, who he considers the greatest conservative since Reagan and Thatcher, yet he tells me that all the Jews are going to Hell for not accepting Christ as their saviour.

I have a coworker who is a devout liberal but was forced to accept an hourly wage without commission, even though he's a good salesman, because he couldn't, and still can't, leave his politics at home. He's never figured out that sermonizing on the evils of voting for a Republican while trying to close a sale is not the best way to make a living, especially in a conservative town where most of your customers are upper-middle class Republicans.

One of the reasons I've always managed to convert people to a conservative or even less liberal way of thinking is that I don't try and force it down their throats. Yeah, it can be fun, like my Earth Day encounter, to point out certain hypocricies of the left, but I prefer to do it slowly, and let them bring up the subject. Reasonable conversation goes a lot farther than full-bored fanaticism.


124 posted on 10/25/2005 11:13:01 AM PDT by ABG(anybody but Gore) (This tagline is under remodeling, thank you for your patience...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: KMAJ2
Flawed reasoning to give yourself an 'out'. You simply dismiss out of hand that someone who disagrees with you can have a reasoned position.

That is a flawed conclusion. My statement was that when the opposition argument bottoms out on "trust," dialog on that issue leads nowhere. That position isn't all or nothing against any person. It is the closing off of discussion by the person who asserts that "trust" is the justification for holding a position.

I could turn your claim around and say there is no reasoning with an entrenched ideologue.

That is a variation of the same argument, and I agree - some people on some positions argue irrationally.

What you actually do is prove my point of attributing the conservative rift to a 'them or 'us' attitude, which you exhibit.

The rift exists. Both sides blame the other. Both sides assert they are right. One side uses arguments that bottom out on "trust."

Sowell is saying the same thing I am. Do you disagree with him?

125 posted on 10/25/2005 11:28:42 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

[[My statement was that when the opposition argument bottoms out on "trust," dialog on that issue leads nowhere. That position isn't all or nothing against any person. It is the closing off of discussion by the person who asserts that "trust" is the justification for holding a position.]]

You create a semantically circular argument, but you skew it when you assign 'trust' to one side, the opposition and claim it to be the sole reason for their position. Both sides engage in 'trust', one in a persons track record, the other in a 'belief' that their ideological position is correct. What is interesting in that concept is that 'trust' in a belief has no documented track record to be based upon other than opinion.

[[The rift exists. Both sides blame the other. Both sides assert they are right. One side uses arguments that bottom out on "trust."

Sowell is saying the same thing I am. Do you disagree with him?]]

See my response above, both sides argument bottom out on 'trust'. To claim otherwise is fallacious. Sowell did not say the 'same' thing you are. You serendipitously skew his words to support your argument. His focus was on beliefs and not 'trust', and more about ideological entrenchment of those beliefs, an unwillingness to compromise, an inflexibility hidden under the guise of self-aggrandizing claims of adhering to 'principle'. That 'principle' based in the entrenched 'trust' of ones beliefs.


126 posted on 10/25/2005 12:08:17 PM PDT by KMAJ2 (Freedom not defended is freedom relinquished, liberty not fought for is liberty lost.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: KMAJ2
You argument boils down to "you're wrong and I'm right."

My position vis-a-vis Miers has been supported with an analysis of her writings, etc. to support a conclusion. That argument can be rebutted substantively. But if the object of the argument is whther she has a traditionalist judicial philosophy, the pro-Mires argument is short on facts to support its position.

We're not arguing ideology, I don't think. The question at hand is whether or not Miers subscribes to a traditionalist jurisprudence, ala Thomas or Scalia. And in that discussion, we have the benchmarks of Thomas and Scalis to work comparisons against.

both sides argument bottom out on 'trust'

If that's the way you see it, then there is no point in discussion.

one in a persons track record, the other in a 'belief' that their ideological position is correct

See above. This isn't about my ideological postion. I could mount the same arguments I have regardless of my personal ideology.

You are painting as equially strong rational grounds, the notion of "trust in a persons [I assume GWB's] track record" and "belief that an ideological position is correct." To the extent that each represent rigidity without reason, they are the same.

See my response above, both sides argument bottom out on 'trust'. To claim otherwise is fallacious.

.... 'nuff said.

127 posted on 10/25/2005 12:31:16 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: George Smiley
If you like this, read his "Vision of the Anointed".

I started reading it a couple of years ago. It is not light reading. I had to return it to the library before I was finished. I hope to complete it some day. It is a wonderful book, though it requires thought and concentration to work through.

128 posted on 10/25/2005 12:32:31 PM PDT by Blue Eyes (I love Lucy. How 'bout you? Do you love Lucy, too?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: thompsonsjkc; odoso; animoveritas; mercygrace; Laissez-faire capitalist; bellevuesbest; ...

Moral Absolutes Thomas Sowell Ping.

Insightful article about why some people - particularly leftists - hold certain beliefs. Not because their beliefs actually do any good - in fact most cause great harm - but because their beliefs make them feel good about themselves. It's all about feeling good about themselves. Living in castles in the air does nobody any good, and meanwhile, in the real (albeit temporal) world, fantasy beliefs cause actual harm to real people.

Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.

Note: It's all part of the "I am God" mindset. Whatever I believe is true - because *I* believe it! My own mind (and the minds of others - at least the parts my mind agrees with) is the arbiter of truth, reality, right and wrong.

Actually the mind of God is the decider and creator of right and wrong, truth and reality.


129 posted on 10/25/2005 12:50:28 PM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

[[My position vis-a-vis Miers has been supported with an analysis of her writings, etc. to support a conclusion. That argument can be rebutted substantively.]]

Let me state one thing first, I do not disavow your right to your opinion, nor a view it is necessarily incorrect. But writings are not a substantive means of judgement, were that the case, Thomas would not be on the Court. His previous writings, prior to being seated, were not up to 'intellectual snuff'. His positions might have been clearer, but there is no proof she may or may not be of similar bent. One side grasps at anecdotal evidence and extrapolates or divines her position. When that extrapolation or divination is contrary to what the person, herself says, and those who know her say, it reveals that the argument breaks down to one side wanting guarantees, i.e. a paper trail to hang their hat on.

Actually, there are three sides in this debate, anti-Miers, pro-Miers, and the I need to know more. I fall in the latter group, I am leaning against her now, after staking a middle ground while more information was still coming out. My position has shifted due to what I feel is ineptitude in the presentation of this nomination. Only Miers performance in the hearings is left that could make me switch from opposing her. Can she pull it off ? I don't know, I am skeptical, but I am keeping an open mind.

[[This isn't about my ideological postion. I could mount the same arguments I have regardless of my personal ideology.]]

Certainly it is about ideological position, people want some guarantee of her judicial philosophy. You would not be mounting your argument if she had the paper trail you desire.

[[You are painting as equially strong rational grounds, the notion of "trust in a persons [I assume GWB's] track record" and "belief that an ideological position is correct." To the extent that each represent rigidity without reason, they are the same.]]

I contend there is a slight difference. Trust in a track record, you are correct, GWB's on judicial nominations, has a factual basis, all his past nominations. One should not be swayed by the diversion of citing Bush's choices in other areas of policy, of which there are some I disagree with, that have no relation to his judicial nomination track record. Trust in one's beliefs has no such track record to call upon. Instead, it is usually based on the opinions put forth by pundits who may share your ideological inclination and beliefs. I find pundits are much better at hindsight then foresight, at least as far as their track records go.


130 posted on 10/25/2005 1:07:12 PM PDT by KMAJ2 (Freedom not defended is freedom relinquished, liberty not fought for is liberty lost.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: KMAJ2
One should not be swayed by the diversion of citing Bush's choices in other areas of policy, of which there are some I disagree with, that have no relation to his judicial nomination track record.

His judicial nomination track record is not helpful in the Miers case either. The past track record was based on a vetting process that was not followed for Miers.

Each nomination has a certain flavor of its own, uncolored by past or future nominations.

131 posted on 10/25/2005 1:43:14 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

[[His judicial nomination track record is not helpful in the Miers case either. The past track record was based on a vetting process that was not followed for Miers.]]

And you know what vetting process was employed with Miers how ? Did someone in the White House tell you ? Or is this based on some pundits opinion ?

[[Each nomination has a certain flavor of its own, uncolored by past or future nominations.]]

Of all the things I have seen you write, this makes the least sense. Were this concept to be employed, there would be no such things as a track record to be cited on any issue, each decision would have 'a certain flavor of its own, uncolored by past or future' decisions.


132 posted on 10/25/2005 1:58:56 PM PDT by KMAJ2 (Freedom not defended is freedom relinquished, liberty not fought for is liberty lost.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189
Well written, well chosen.

My cheap and tawdry two-cents' worth:
Liberals are much like people who have fallen out of love, but are willing to fight to the death [figuratively of course, liberals don't raise a fist except for peace] to keep the relationship alive. They start saying "I love you" too often in an attempt to convince themselves of the lie and to manipulate their partner into saying it back. The more people speaking the lie, the easier it is to pretend it's true. After a while, they themselves are so convinced the lie is true it becomes the moral highground from which they play king of the mountain. They dance around on top goading passers-by to try to knock them off. The rest of us just watch the scene wondering when the fool will realize his footing is washing away faster than a 10 million dollar home in a mudslide.

That's what I think at 0530 anyway, I'll read it again later and see what I get out of it.

133 posted on 10/25/2005 2:09:43 PM PDT by Laurita ("I feel hot. It's the last stage of hypothermia.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KMAJ2
And you know what vetting process was employed with Miers how ? Did someone in the White House tell you ? Or is this based on some pundits opinion ?

She [Miers] was in charge of the White House selection of a chief justice nominee, vetting candidates' records and often playing the tough questioner.

"We'd be talking about somebody's background," said Leonard Leo, now on leave as executive vice president of the Federalist Society, the conservative group whose headlined speakers have included Supreme Court justices and Bush administration official.

"There would be a moment of silence when she was clearly thinking about what was being said and then she would challenge it, asking, 'But what specifically in those opinions strongly suggests that this is someone who ascribes to judicial restraint?'" Leo said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051015/ap_on_go_su_co/miers_what_s_known

If Miers' fits the pattern of past nominees, the WH would express what specifically (generalities, like "strict constructionist" with no more, are not specific) in Ms. Miers' opinions (they won't be judicial, but that's okay - any writing, transcript of speech, etc. will do) strongly suggests (this admits a slight amount, but not much ambiguity) that she is someone who ascribes to judicial restraint.

The WH has not done this.

Each nomination has a certain flavor of its own, uncolored by past or future nominations.

Of all the things I have seen you write, this makes the least sense. Were this concept to be employed, there would be no such things as a track record to be cited on any issue, each decision would have 'a certain flavor of its own, uncolored by past or future' decisions.

I'm not citing the track record - I'm evaluating ONE nominee, Miers. You are correct, if I were evaluating a track record, the others are a necessary part of the evaluation. But citing a track record is a weak defense of this nominee, and in fact works against this nominee -- see Souter, O'Connor, etc.

Are you trying to argue that a nominee cannot be evaluated without reference to the nominator's track record?

134 posted on 10/25/2005 2:14:23 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189
"since oil was going to be drilled for somewhere in the world anyway, was it not better to drill where there were environmental laws to provide at least some kinds of safeguards, rather than in countries where there were none?"

That my friend was a perfectly logical and justifiable question to bring to the table. Don't ever let it happen again!..... /s

135 posted on 10/25/2005 2:21:58 PM PDT by patriot_wes (papal infallibility - a proud tradition since 1869)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189
I'm reading Sowell's book Basic Economics. He is the master of logic and the plain-spoken word.
136 posted on 10/25/2005 2:30:41 PM PDT by FlyVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VoiceOfBruck

Another great Sowell piece. Thought you might be interested.


137 posted on 10/25/2005 2:49:36 PM PDT by Zechariah_8_13 (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

[[If Miers' fits the pattern of past nominees, the WH would express what specifically (generalities, like "strict constructionist" with no more, are not specific) in Ms. Miers' opinions (they won't be judicial, but that's okay - any writing, transcript of speech, etc. will do) strongly suggests (this admits a slight amount, but not much ambiguity) that she is someone who ascribes to judicial restraint.

The WH has not done this.]]

I admit the White House has not done a good job in presentation of Miers, which is why I am now leaning against her nomination. Writings, or lack thereof, are not a sound basis for total rejection and pre-judgement. Nor is it evidence of a lack of or different vetting process, unless you are alleging that because she could not vet herself, somehow, the process was different.

[[I'm not citing the track record - I'm evaluating ONE nominee, Miers. You are correct, if I were evaluating a track record, the others are a necessary part of the evaluation. But citing a track record is a weak defense of this nominee, and in fact works against this nominee -- see Souter, O'Connor, etc.]]

You are isolating one nominee from all the others, and to not consider Bush's track record, which reflects on his judgement of judicial nominees, is dismissal of a relevant fact, and as such, skews your opinion. Were a track record being cited as the sole reason for confirmation, I would agree with you. I only cite it as one reason, among others, including the opinions of those who know her (which, in my opinion, is more valid than the opinions of those that don't) to wait and see and make my judgement based upon the hearings. That is where your argument falls apart, I am not calling for her confirmation based upon Bush's track record.

I find the incessant throwing up of Souter, O'Connor and Kennedy as examples to be a case of comparing apples and oranges, and providing a stronger argument against your demand for Miers having a paper trail. All three of them had paper trails, none of them ended up being conservative, not one of them was personally known by the president that nominated them.

[[Are you trying to argue that a nominee cannot be evaluated without reference to the nominator's track record?]]

No, I am certainly not. You can do so, but it skews your evaluation. What I am arguing is that the nominator's track record is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration.

You did see where staunch conservative judge Charles Pickering, who knows her, has endorsed her ?

----
PICKERING: John, you know, I think her resume speaks for itself. She has a very impressive resume. And one of the strengths that I think she has is that she has real-world experience.

I think it's unfortunate that we think someone has got to come from the bench or someone has got to come from academia to sit on the Supreme Court. During the history of our nation, half of the judges that served on the Supreme Court did not have previous judicial experience, so this is not a new phenomenon. This is not a new situation.

And the fact that she has had real-world experience, she was an experienced litigator. She served in local government, state government, and federal government. I think that's to her advantage. I think that's a prospective that the Supreme Court by and large misses.

GIBSON: Judge Pickering, what I'm going to hear and what I know you're going to hear is conservatives saying, "Look, we want a battle-tested nominee like Judge Pickering. We want somebody who's made decisions and had to stick by them. We want somebody who isn't going to wilt under this liberal pressure."

PICKERING: I understand that and I respect that and I think that is a position that, you know, certainly everyone has a right to a position that they want to choose in this, but she's been there before. She's been in litigation. She's represented clients who had $100 million at stake. She has had to advise the president.

You know, for people to suggest that the counsel to the president is not a significant position. She advises him on things that he does all over the world. She's had to stand in the trenches and fight before. I think she'll be able to hold her own with the justices of the Supreme Court.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,172016,00.html


138 posted on 10/25/2005 2:58:40 PM PDT by KMAJ2 (Freedom not defended is freedom relinquished, liberty not fought for is liberty lost.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: saveliberty
Milton Friedman calls Professor Sowell a genius and I think he is right.

Sowell was also one of Friedmans best and brightest students, so it makes sense.

139 posted on 10/25/2005 3:06:08 PM PDT by Sonny M ("oderint dum metuant")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: KMAJ2; Cboldt

"Writings, or lack thereof, are not a sound basis for total rejection and pre-judgement."

I've been following this discussion and I appreciate that it's a rational one and not a namecalling contest, but I have to disagree with you here, KMAJ2.

If Miers had written of her secret yearnings for Karl Marx or her love for Hitler, would you disagree that such writings were a sound basis for total rejection. I think your complete disqualification of writings as a basis for rejecting a nominee is too harsh.

I still think the best argument raised against her is based upon her writings--in favor of the WH position as Bush's counsel, which will force her to recuse on many highly important cases (including Guantanamo cases that Roberts will also be recusing on as a DC Circuit judge who worked on that court's opinion). No one has yet managed to address that concern.


140 posted on 10/25/2005 3:29:07 PM PDT by LibertarianInExile (Miers: A meticulous, detail-oriented woman...who forgets to pay her bar dues twice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianInExile

I accept the criticism and difference of opinion, but (I am sure you knew there was a 'but' coming) my statement infers an 'unwritten' ONLY or as the main basis for opinion.

Your example, while an obvious exaggeration, rises to level that her writings, or lack thereof, do not rise to. My disqualification was not complete, only that it should not be a sole determinator, or necessarily the major one. I actually prefer putting it in perspective to disqualification.

Recusal did come up in another thread, and while a legitimate point, it is not as major as some would paint it to be. Did Ginsberg recuse herself from any cases involving the ACLU ? By the same reasoning, why would Miers have to recuse herself from any case involving Bush, assuming there will be some ?

If she is a good lawyer, she would have given him the pros and cons on any advice, which would hardly disqualify her. Scalia recused himself from a case because he made a public comment on it before it came before the court, Miers has made no public comments. All judges have pre-conceived ideas, but they do not recuse themselves unless there is some strong pre-existing judgement/statement that would force them to recuse themselves.


141 posted on 10/25/2005 3:57:36 PM PDT by KMAJ2 (Freedom not defended is freedom relinquished, liberty not fought for is liberty lost.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: KMAJ2

"I accept the criticism and difference of opinion, but (I am sure you knew there was a 'but' coming) my statement infers an 'unwritten' ONLY or as the main basis for opinion. Your example, while an obvious exaggeration, rises to level that her writings, or lack thereof, do not rise to. My disqualification was not complete, only that it should not be a sole determinator, or necessarily the major one. I actually prefer putting it in perspective to disqualification."

Certainly, nothing has been produced that would rise to the level of 'Nazis rule!' out of Miers, but were that to pop up, I would hope you'd see the necessity of withdrawing her nomination. A minor point, to be sure, but you stated and seem to continue to state that writings shouldn't be the only evidence used to disqualify. I disagree wholeheartedly. I think a single particularly egregious writing, on its own, would disqualify any nominee.

"Recusal did come up in another thread, and while a legitimate point, it is not as major as some would paint it to be. Did Ginsberg recuse herself from any cases involving the ACLU ? By the same reasoning, why would Miers have to recuse herself from any case involving Bush, assuming there will be some?"

This ACLU-Ginsberg comparison is disingenuous. As John Wohlstetter has noted, "Under federal law, if Ms. Miers is confirmed, and has professionally advised on a matter that subsequently comes before her on the bench, she must recuse herself. Federal law is quite specific here. Title 28 U.S. Code sec. 455 covers recusal of judges, justices, and magistrate judges. Sec, 455 (b)(3) recites one ground for mandatory recusal: "Where [a judge, justice, magistrate judge] has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy." Sec. 455 (e) adds: "No justice, judge or magistrate judge shall accept from the parties to the proceeding a waiver of any ground for disqualification enumerated in subsection (b)."

One case already is wending its way to the Supreme Court: a July 15 unanimous decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, upholding the right of the government to detain and try unlawful combatants without giving detainees rights under the Geneva Conventions. One member of that three-judge panel was Chief Justice Roberts, who must thus recuse himself on appeal to the Supremes."

"If she is a good lawyer, she would have given him the pros and cons on any advice, which would hardly disqualify her."

Federal law says differently. Read the provision above.


142 posted on 10/25/2005 4:13:40 PM PDT by LibertarianInExile (Miers: A meticulous, detail-oriented woman...who forgets to pay her bar dues twice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianInExile

[[Certainly, nothing has been produced that would rise to the level of 'Nazis rule!' out of Miers, but were that to pop up, I would hope you'd see the necessity of withdrawing her nomination. A minor point, to be sure, but you stated and seem to continue to state that writings shouldn't be the only evidence used to disqualify. I disagree wholeheartedly. I think a single particularly egregious writing, on its own, would disqualify any nominee.]]

Certainly an egregious writing, if documented, would rise to such a level, I didn't say otherwise. But as you admitted, Miers has written nothing that rises to that level.

[[One case already is wending its way to the Supreme Court: a July 15 unanimous decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, upholding the right of the government to detain and try unlawful combatants without giving detainees rights under the Geneva Conventions. One member of that three-judge panel was Chief Justice Roberts, who must thus recuse himself on appeal to the Supremes.]]

I did not say she would never have to recuse herself, I am saying it would be an infrequrent occurence. Roberts will not have to recuse himself in the Hamdan case, he was a judge on an appeals court, not an advisor or counsel to the government. One has to assume he reached his opinion on the appeals court on the same basis he will reach an opinion on the Supreme Court, on the evidence presented. There are no grounds for Roberts to have to recuse himself. There is no stipulation in the federal code that prevents a judge having ruled on a case at one level and elevated to the next level from ruling again, as long as he feels he can rule fairly.

As far as Miers is concerned, if she advised the President on this issue, she would have to recuse herself, if she didn't, she would not have to. I believe Gonzalez was Bush's counsel at the time the Hamdan case arose, I could be wrong. Once a case is filed, it is in the hands of federal prosecutors, under guidance from the attorney general.


143 posted on 10/25/2005 9:52:46 PM PDT by KMAJ2 (Freedom not defended is freedom relinquished, liberty not fought for is liberty lost.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: KMAJ2
Well, I'm glad you've conceded the minor point. But again, you're wrong on the law. "No judge shall hear or determine an appeal from the decision of a case or issue tried by him." 28 U.S.C.A. § 47. The phrase "case or issue," as used in statute prohibiting any judge from hearing an appeal from the decision of a case or issue tried by him, refers to a final order of the lower court which may be appealed to a higher court. U.S. v. Garramone, 374 F.Supp. 256 (1974).

So no, Roberts will not be sitting on the Hamdan case. We shall see whether Miers will or not, but as WH counsel, if she's not going to produce her notes, the assumption should be on any case before the SCOTUS brought during her term of office, she would likely have to recuse. That is one big-ass arrow in the quiver to launch against the woman during the hearings.

144 posted on 10/26/2005 12:26:27 AM PDT by LibertarianInExile (Miers: A meticulous, detail-oriented woman...who forgets to pay her bar dues twice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
They deal in what they perceive to be moral absolutes - except that their absolutes are devoid of both morality and reality.

A great tagline for someone...

145 posted on 10/26/2005 6:16:13 AM PDT by GOPJ (Protest a democrat -- light your hair on fire -- and the MSM still won't take your picture.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: XJarhead
So they broke up over a discussion of environmental policy? Sheesh.

I'd say they broke up because as a true believer she couldn't handle dating someone whose opinions on the subject didn't agree with hers, and he probably couldn't stand dating someone whose thinking was so inflexible and feelings-based. I know I can't stand people who have taken a position but can't explain or defend it in any logical way.

146 posted on 10/26/2005 6:34:09 AM PDT by -YYZ-
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Zechariah_8_13

Thanks. Dr. Sowell is remarkable.

I've always felt a little uncomfortable and embarrassed for conservatives trying to argue any issue with a liberal.


147 posted on 10/26/2005 9:23:28 AM PDT by VoiceOfBruck (But what does chicken taste like?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: syriacus; Toadman; livius; wardaddy; CSM; pollyannaish; ArrogantBustard

Thanks for the congratulations, all! Sorry for the slow response, but I've been travelling.

At least one of you said you were also looking for a good conservative woman. I had been looking for six years and it was one failure after another. I even freepmailed a woman living in Ohio, which is quite a ways from me.

But luck finally came my way. I wish anyone else looking also finds happiness.


148 posted on 10/30/2005 6:47:18 AM PST by Our man in washington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-148 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson