Posted on 10/27/2005 12:40:24 AM PDT by Do not dub me shapka broham
Throughout the public evisceration of Harriet Miers, even her critics have tended to concede one of President Bush's main claims: Miers couldn't have been a complete loser to rise to the top of the bar and of her law firm.
Wrong.
Mediocrity—that's a better word for it...
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.msn.com ...
I think for me to answer that completely for you would spoil it for you. Suffice to say that if you saw the movie, I think you should read the editorial and would appreciate the editorial references very much. I found the editorial hilarious, but then, I'm fairly irreverent (or irrelevant, or something like that ;-) ;-)
But beyond the humor, I think the author makes some very salient points about the realities of practicing law in Dallas and outsiders perceptions and possibly misperceptions concerning the positions that Miers has held in Dallas. It gives an insiders' unique perspective, and a perspective that I have not seen in any other editorials about Miers (pro or con).
I'll take it under advisement.
:-)
I'm shocked she accepted Bush's offer. Or was it the other way around?
[visualops: did you by any chance flash on the ending as you were reading the editorial? ;-)]
;0)
He's probably my favorite dramatist from the 20th century, and one who was only approached-in my estimation-by Beckett and O'Neill.
You read his plays, scratch your head, and wonder, how in the world could someone ever stage this in real life?
ROFLMAO! You called that!
Thank God for small favors.
:))
I'm not culturally literate but I do recognize Ionesco's name and looked him up on the web. Wow. I'll put the word out among my more culturally literate friends and let them do the hard work to find the local venue for me (I'm so lazy ;-) ;-)
Those pieces of paper mean only you met basis expectations. After that it is buyer beware, what you think you see is not always true.
BASIC ...dumbass (I earned that title from none other than der sink)
BASIC ...dumbass (I earned that title from none other than der sink)
He should know.
;-)
[Kathryn Jean Lopez]
I'm shocked The Drudge Report hasn't highlighted Miers's quoting Barbra Streisand favorably in her '93 speech.
Posted at 01:57 PM
http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_10_23_corner-archive.asp#080792
Yes, that Barbara Streisand.
Sheeeee-it, Dane ain't goin' NOWHERE. That boy's been here since 1998. He'll be back for more even if Miers IS withdrawn. And I think Bush--and those two, particularly MNJohnnie--will eagerly push her even if it comes out she's been selling meth off the South Portico. "See, meth, that's pure capitalism, that's real world experience, right there, that's what we need on the Court!"
Bush needs to get some of his own party loyalty--to all the GOP watercarriers in Congress who will lose their jobs if this woman is appointed and turns out to be as dumb and wishy-washy as she seems to have written and spoken in the past--and withdraw this lousy nominee.
The rats are fleeing the (sinking) ship.
"I'm willing to wager that Leo Leonard's old job at the Fed. Soc. is in a more precarious position than he would like us to believe. The rats are fleeing the (sinking) ship."
Now that is a bet I WON'T take. Leo Leo's reign as king of the FedSoc jungle will soon be lion dead, I have a feline-g.
[Kathryn Jean Lopez]
I'm shocked The Drudge Report hasn't highlighted Miers's quoting Barbra Streisand favorably in her '93 speech.
Posted at 01:57 PM
http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_10_23_corner-archive.asp#080792
Yes, that Barbara Streisand.
A little further down:
JUDICIAL USURPATION AND LEGISLATIVE ABDICATION [Ramesh Ponnuru]
[AS APPLICABLE TO GUN CONTROL, FOR EXAMPLE -- SteveH]
Rich: I think you're giving Miers too much credit here, and the Post too little. There are a lot of ways to connect the themes of judicial usurpation and legislative abdication. You could adopt the argument that legislatures are to blame for not reining in the courts (an argument which I think is generally sound). You could go on to note that legislatures have not sought to reclaim their powers because they are perfectly happy to see the courts get the blame for tough decisions.
That's not the argument Miers makes. The argument she makes is that the courts can't be blamed when they are forced to step in to resolve problems that elected officials have failed to resolve (e.g., the problems of school funding and low-income housing siting). That is a very standard argument, usually associated with liberals. Eliot Spitzer, for example, often argues that it is necessary to pursue anti-gun policies through the courts because legislatures have failed to act. But it's hard to see how the courts are to distinguish between a) a legislative "failure to act," b) a legislative decision that there is no problem demanding solution, or c) a legislative decision that solving any problem would create new and greater problems. Any act of judicial usurpation can be described as a reluctant response to the legislature's failure to enact what the judges wanted them to enact.
Miers may have modified or reversed her views since then, but the speech strikes me as an example of the kind of mindset that one does not want in a Supreme Court justice.
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.