Posted on 10/07/2005 6:05:08 AM PDT by slowhand520
OK, I followed your link and it's pretty unconvincing, especially the part about Judge Roberts. He became a federal judge based on his accomplishments, not because of who he knew. You can't seriously believe that she would have become White House Counsel in a different President's administration, do you?
"This is "more qualified" cr*p is ridiculous arrogance."
I disagree. I think there are numerous more qualified picks and I'm not arrogant. Just observant.
I agree. It's amazing to me the way this discussion has gone. I've stated my opinion that I'm very underwhelmed by this selection but that, well, we'll see. And that has exposed me to criticism for not trusting the President. Well, he's been right on many things and wrong on some things so he's not entitled to 100% trust.
There's nothing wrong with having debate. It doesn't mean that we're "eating our own" or some other nonsense, as long as the debate is rational or civil. Much of this has not been.
I just wish that we were having the debate with the other side, like over JRB or Luttig, rather than with ourselves.
I go round and round and round on this.
"We can't trust Bush on a judicial nomination."
"Well, okay, Bush (and Miers) have done pretty well on judicial nominations, but she's not qualified."
"Well, maybe she's qualified but there are more qualified candidates."
"Well, okay maybe I haven't actually read the paper trail of those other more qualified candidates, nor have I seen the FBI report, nor the interviews with friends and enemies, nor interviewed the candidate, nor do I really know the lanscape of the Senate in getting any of those candidates confirmed...but she is only been nominated because Bush knows her so well!
Fine. Here is my response to THAT. (scroll down to the "hiring an employee analogy)
"Oh yea.. so what you gonna do about it!?!? :)"
Well, I'm going to post my opinion that I disagree with your premise.
"My point... if you argue that the Republicans should not confirm her because you disagree with her politically, you are taking the position of the Democrats."
Not me. But I think that's a false dichotomy.
"If you argue that she is not qualified... what are the requisite qualifications and why are they not stated in the constitution???"
Me. Although I'm not so much arguing about it as wondering about it. I think the requisite qualifications include a serious engagement with Constitutional law over a sizable period of one's career. This can have been in many forms, including as an attorney, a scholar or as a judge. This list is not exhaustive. I havn't seen anything that convinces me that she has that type of qualification.
Not everything is spelled out in the Constitution either. Just for illustrative purposes (I am not comparing Ms. Miers to this hypothetical person), would you think that the most broken-down, ambulance chasing lawyer would be qualified for the Supreme Court? Why not?
Ms. Miers falls between that person and those who are most qualified, obviously closer to the most qualified ones. But not all the way up there. That's what gives me pause.
My first question had a " :) " in it.. hope you got that.
I agree with your argument as to whether she is qualified, but the means of investigating that should be quiet, deliberative, and polite. Not what a lot of conservatives are doing, which is screaming, whining, and threatening to bolt the party.
Within your argument you said that she was "eminently qualified."
This is my definition of "eminently": "Towering or standing out above others; prominent: an eminent peak."
I don't believe she fits that description.
Having said that, I can't find anything to disagree with about the rest of your argument. But that one bit prevents me from agreeing with you. It's the SUPREME Court. When you get the opportunity, you should try to place legal giants on that bench.
I am not here to disparage Ms. Miers. She is clearly a woman of great accomplishment. There are, I'm sure hundreds or thousands of others that the President could have named that would have been equally qualified. I would criticize them just the same, as being not quite qualified enough.
"My first question had a " :) " in it.. hope you got that."
I did. I also agree with you about the tone. I certainly am trying to keep it that way, and have not joined in a lot of the argument because, frankly, I wanted to keep my blood pressure down.
She is listed TWICE in the top 100 lawyers in the country. Most don't get on that list ONCE. That's emminent.
But that one bit prevents me from agreeing with you. It's the SUPREME Court. When you get the opportunity, you should try to place legal giants on that bench.
You're right. It should have been Miguel Estrada. Wanna take a bet on getting him past the Senate?
After that, we are back to argument number one: "I can't just trust the President on such an important judicial nomination" (see #41)
"She is listed TWICE in the top 100 lawyers in the country. Most don't get on that list ONCE. That's emminent."
Source? You may have posted it before but I havn't seen it.
"You're right. It should have been Miguel Estrada. Wanna take a bet on getting him past the Senate?"
Not really. But I think it would have been good for our side to have the discussion.
"After that, we are back to argument number one: "I can't just trust the President on such an important judicial nomination" "
Well, I'm not. I'm still back on qualifications. But I'll engage this one. With the other nominations he fought for, Brown, Owen, Pryor, etc., it was clear why. It didn't involve trust, it was obvious on it's face. On this pick, for the SUPREME Court, he is asking for the ultimate leap of faith. For many of us, it's extremely difficult (for many, impossible) because there's nothing (or too little) to point to to gauge what her performance as a Justice will be. You are prepared to make that leap of faith. I hope you'll be vindicated one day.
Having said that, I'm still looking for more confirmation on Harriett. Schaftley's comments are more reasoned than most of the screamers and a little disturbing when she says no woman close to Bush is anti-RvW so we cannot assume Miers is..... anybody know (have any specifics) about that?...I think it may be a valid observation but I don't know...(makes me wonder about Roberts also BTW)
I also think Miers needs to find a way to thread the needle in the hearings and give us some assurance..the typical "the case may come before the court" will not wash. We know the case is already headed to the court.. That's is what the concern with her appointment is largely about. I need to hear more on this and other core issues that is verifyable.
Grabbing randomly, the President is among my sources on this. (Honestly it is just a bit of Miers lore I've picked up.):
She is plenty bright. As I mentioned earlier, she was a pioneer in Texas. She just didn’t kind of opine about things; she actually led.
First woman of the Texas Bar Association; first woman of the Dallas Bar Association; a woman partner of her law firm; she led a major law firm. She was consistently rated as one of the top 50 women lawyers in the United States — not just one year, but consistently rated that way, as one of the top 100 lawyers.
[I wouldn't have taken a bet on Miguel Estrada passing the Senate,]But I think it would have been good for our side to have the discussion.
I'm not so sure. I would have enjoyed the spectacle, and I would have felt an invigorating contempt for Liberals, but in the long run I think it would have been more likely to hurt our cause. Rule of thumb: Victories are generally better than defeats. It doesn't always hold true, but that is the way to go if you have a choice.
With the other nominations he fought for, Brown, Owen, Pryor, etc., it was clear why. It didn't involve trust, it was obvious on it's face. On this pick, for the SUPREME Court, he is asking for the ultimate leap of faith. For many of us, it's extremely difficult (for many, impossible) because there's nothing (or too little) to point to to gauge what her performance as a Justice will be.
There is something. Bush's (and Mier's) track record on judicial appointments. If that wasn't obvious to you from the start, I suppose it won't be just because I mentione it. But there it is.
The Fact Newt has NOTHING to base his support on. Not only that, I doubt Newt is that much of a social conservative.
The guy did a good job taking over the house but he's basically a bag of hot air that should blow away.
At the nomination news conference, Ms. Miers' first remarks were reassuring in this regard: "It is the responsibility of every generation to be true to the founders' vision of the proper role of the courts and our society." She promised to "strictly apply the laws and the Constitution."Contrary to the spin from the MSM, this is not rocket science. We don't need Albert-Einstein-brilliance here. We need fairness. And loyalty. To the constitution. Bush says Miers will give us that. I trust Bush. I think we will all be very happy in the years to come. Happy that Bush had the wisdom to make this pick, and the power to get Miers confirmed.
(Which he has. Both the wisdom and the power.)
"She was consistently rated as one of the top 50 women lawyers in the United States — not just one year, but consistently rated that way, as one of the top 100 lawyers."
I'm sorry, but I will need a little more sourcing than that (not saying that you can provide it) to believe this statement, particularly since it is internally inconsistent (is she one of the top 50 women or top 100 lawyers, either, both?).
As for the rest, there's really no point in arguing because neither of us can be certain about the outcome. I have a frame of reference of what I believe a Supreme Court Justice should be. She doesn't fit it. Either one day I'll have to adjust my frame or I'll be more convinced than ever about it. Time will tell.
Victories are generally better than defeats. It doesn't always hold true, but that is the way to go if you have a choice.Good point. Bush is playing to win. Not to grandstand.
Bush claims he is conservative. But he was more interested in getting re-elected than in doing what was right, so he passed Medicare Prescription Drugs, the largest expansion of socialism since LBJ.
Newt claims to be conservative, but he wants to be President, so he plays smacky mouth with Hillary on healthcare. Conservatives know, or should know, that government cannot fix anything. The reason health care is futzzed up is because government got involved. Anything that government does, including anything that "conservatives" would do apart from getting government completely out of the equation, will only make things worse.
Bottom line bert, it's not what any politician says that matters. It's what they do that matters. Maybe Bush and Newt share a common characteristic, maybe they are more interested in getting themselves elected to power than they are in doing the right thing. In terms of definition, does being conservative have anything at all to do with doing the "right" thing? At the risk of being wrong, I thought conservatives accused Democrats of being willing to do anything to get elected, including using the public treasury to buy their own re-elections.
.....It's what they do that matters.....
Which is why both W and Newt will be remembered as greats.
Losing over principle won't let you get anything done.
W is President, he is not SCOTUS.
.....It's what they do that matters.....
Which is why both W and Newt will be remembered as greats.
Losing over principle won't let you get anything done.
W is President, he is not SCOTUS.
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.