George Will spells it out:
Senators beginning what ought to be a protracted and exacting scrutiny of Harriet Miers should be guided by three rules. First, it is not important that she be confirmed. Second, it might be very important that she not be. Third, the presumption — perhaps rebuttable but certainly in need of rebutting — should be that her nomination is not a defensible exercise of presidential discretion to which senatorial deference is due.
It is not important that she be confirmed because there is no evidence that she is among the leading lights of American jurisprudence, or that she possesses talents commensurate with the Supreme Court’s tasks. The president’s “argument” for her amounts to: Trust me. There is no reason to, for several reasons.
He has neither the inclination nor the ability to make sophisticated judgments about competing approaches to construing the Constitution. Few presidents acquire such abilities in the course of their pre-presidential careers, and this president particularly is not disposed to such reflections.
Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that Miers’s nomination resulted from the president’s careful consultation with people capable of such judgments. If 100 such people had been asked to list 100 individuals who have given evidence of the reflectiveness and excellence requisite in a justice, Miers’s name probably would not have appeared in any of the 10,000 places on those lists.
In addition, the president has forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution. The forfeiture occurred March 27, 2002, when, in a private act betokening an uneasy conscience, he signed the McCain-Feingold law expanding government regulation of the timing, quantity and content of political speech. The day before the 2000 Iowa caucuses he was asked — to ensure a considered response from him, he had been told in advance that he would be asked — whether McCain-Feingold’s core purposes are unconstitutional. He unhesitatingly said, “I agree.” Asked if he thought presidents have a duty, pursuant to their oath to defend the Constitution, to make an independent judgment about the constitutionality of bills and to veto those he thinks unconstitutional, he briskly said, “I do.”
Pretty much. Meanwhile, the administration is planting stories to calm the jittery nerves of the social con base:
One evening in the 1980s, several years after Harriet Miers dedicated her life to Jesus Christ, she attended a lecture at her Dallas evangelical church with Nathan Hecht, a colleague at her law firm and her on-again, off-again boyfriend. The speaker was Paul Brand, a surgeon and the author of “Fearfully and Wonderfully Made,” a best-selling exploration of God and the human body.
When the lecture was over, Miers said words Hecht had never heard from her before. “I’m convinced that life begins at conception,” Hecht recalled her saying. According to Hecht, now a Texas Supreme Court justice, Miers has believed ever since that abortion is “taking a life.”
“I know she is pro-life,” said Hecht, one of the most conservative judges in Texas. “She thinks that after conception, it’s not a balancing act — or if it is, it’s a balancing of two equal lives.”
This nomination just stinks. I really don’t care about Roe, and I just can not fathom how this is the most qualified person to face some of the questions the court will be facing in the immediate future. Questions about intellectual property, issues regarding executive power during wartimes, right to die, etc., and so many things Miers just hasn’t been thinking about in the manner you would expect from a person nominated to become a Supreme Court Justice.
Have I read this from him (or someone) before?
Seriously, I’m not being snarky. Either Will has written this once before or I am starting the day off with some hi-test deja vu…
That aside, Will is right. He is especially right on his second point that “she should not be” confirmed. This should be asked of both sides of the aisle, and when I have a chance I planned to write exactly that about my own side. Miers should not be confirmed even if Harry Reid and Kos think politically it’s a good move. Or, that we’ll end up with a worse option. She doesn’t deserve to be on the Supreme Court as far as I am able to tell, and that is reason enough for all Senators to say, “No thanks.”
Ok, so when Democratic Senators had reservations about Roberts and his abilities on the court, his inexperience, his age, his lack of a background, they were playing partisan politics.
But now that George Will and the rest of the right-wing cabal are against her, its ok that she not be confirmed?
Holy hypocrisy balloon man!
WHY is this any friggin different than Roberts, Bolton, Drownie, or any of the other crony freaks this little jackass has saddled America with?
That “intellectual property” question you mention is of particular concern to me ever since I read this.
This nomination just stinks. I really don’t care about Roe, and I just can not fathom how this is the most qualified person to face some of the questions the court will be facing in the immediate future. Questions about intellectual property, issues regarding executive power during wartimes, right to die, etc., and so many things Miers just hasn’t been thinking about in the manner you would expect from a person nominated to become a Supreme Court Justice.
Yeah. While the ideologue in me is happy that Bush didn’t select, say, Roy Moore, the “good government” person in me is pissed as hell that he nominated someone with no obvious qualifications.
Like I said the day he nominated her, this just shows out of touch the Bush administration has become. The nomination is a disaster. It pleases no one. Maybe she will pass through, but it will be a bitter pill for the conservatives. Just when Bush is being attacked for cronyism he selects his personal lawyer, with no constitutional law experience, to serve on the Supreme Court? Another crony? How out of touch is that?
I initially opposed Bush on many ideological grounds but quite frankly my distaste for the little man have grown well beyond ideology. He has no interest in good government. He has no interest in putting the best people in government positions. He cares not about this country. This is all about Bush. He is about takking care of his small circle of friends and associates, and he’ll use anybody to further his goals: conservatives, fundamentalists and loyal Republicans.
Its time conservatives face it, you’ve been had. Bush used conservatives to get elected but he hasn’t done a damn thing for you unless you believe in wildly exploding deficits, expanision of entitlement programs, cronyism at ever level of government, and a grossly mismanged war. The ONE hope all conservatives had is that he would make an impact on the Supreme Court, that he would appoint a demonstrably known conservative heavyweight to the bench. But even there he has disappointed you. The Kool-aid you have been drinking these last five years has been laced with hemlock and you didn’t even know it.
Since Ms. Miers’s name apparently appeared on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s list, one of two things is true: either George Will considers Mr. Reid incapable of such judgments or the statement above is patently untrue. And, oddly, under our system we do ask 100 individuals to give advise on the appointment of justices of the Supreme Court: the members of the United States Senate.
I don’t know whether Ms. Miers is qualified or unqualified for the post to which she has been nominated. But, as I pointed out in a post yesterday, neither previous judicial experience nor constitutional scholarship have been considered prerequisites for the job heretofore, perhaps those qualifications should be written into law now.
Let use this nomination for a constructive dialogue over what the role, responsibilities, and requirements for the Supreme Court should be rather than cloaking ideologically-based posturing as enlightened outrage.
I can’t tell who hates Miers more right now, leftwingers or rightwingers. It makes little sense to accuse both groups of “ideologically-based posturing.”
On reflection, rightwingers win. Whatever the reason(s) I haven’t seen such internecine bloodshed on the right since Bush pere sold out the religious right. Looking ahead to looming indictments in all three branches of Republican government it seems to me that Bush picked a fine time to set off an intraparty civil war. You’ll forgive me if I go make popcorn.
Excellent comment. But I take issue with this.
“neither previous judicial experience nor constitutional scholarship have been considered prerequisites for the job heretofore, perhaps those qualifications should be written into law now.”
There is absolutely no need for legislation here in my opinion. As we watch the process of this nomination we will see the system working as it should, and as it has in the past.
I have no idea what prompted Bush to make this choice just as many of his other choices cause me to wonder. But I think the senate is quite capable of correcting him. Politics will get in the way as it always does, but in the end he will be corrected.
So you think George Will’s position is “ideologically-based posturing”? That is just nonsense if you actually read Will’s column, he makes very cogent non-ideological arguments as to why Meirs should not be given a free pass into an extremely powerful lifetime position that very well may have a very direct impact on all of our lives.
Are the Senators supposed to say yes to her because they TRUST the president? Didn’t we all trust him when he said Iraq had WMD? Didn’t we trust him when he said Mission Accomplished? Didn’t we trust him when he said he was for fiscal restraint? Didn’t we trust him when he said he was a uniter not a divider? Didn’t we trust him when he said he did not belive in nation building? Didn’t we trust him when he formed Homeland Security to prepare for our next terrorist attack? Didn’t we trust him when he nominated political hacks like Brownie to high positions? Trust THIS president? You gotta be kidding? And without trusting the President’s judgement on Miers what else are we going to go on? No decisions… no record… no writings… no evidence whatsover of how she views the constitution…
I wasn’t a huge supporter of Roberts’ nomination. On paper he looked like a good choice and didn’t seem to be such a ideological firebrand. My only hesitancy was a vague feeling of discomfort brought on by the fact that Bush nominated him. Of course Bush is president so he does have the right to choose who he wants. So basically I could find no overarching reason to oppose him and so he got a pass from me.
In comparison to Roberts is Miers. I don’t want her on the Court.
Personally I don’t hate her – I just consider her not at all qualified for the Supreme Court. While I don’t think being a judge for X number of years a prerequsite, I do think more experience than a few years as a political appointee, head of the TX Bar, and a VIP at a local law firm is necessary.
If I didn’t think Gonzales had the qualifications to be a Justice I definitely don’t think Miers does. It seems to be that her qualifications for the Court are only marginally better than Brown’s qualifictions for FEMA. Of course, considering that Brown’s qualifcations for FEMA were less than nil, that says something about Miers.
slide is exactly right. the president has repeatedly asked the american public to trust him, and he has betrayed that trust. from the center to the left, that well is completely dry. now some conservatives are not willing to extend the benefit of the doubt.
what happens to his support if rove/libby are indicted?
But, but… George Bush didn’t divide America, the pinko-commie liberals did!
I never trusted him (not even after 9/11), and I never will.
Well, he has united many people in opposition to this nomination.
Rome Again says:
I concur. That smirk and nervous laugh that he always does just doesn’t sit right with me. I mean, if Bush were a car salesman, his demeanor would send me running for the hills.
Must be a Floridian thing…
As well as Microsoft, she’s also worked for Disney. That’ll really make the Slashdot crowd’s heads explode.
Are you in Florida too? Down here in the SW tip, we’re just getting over our Red Tide outbreak after Katrina, how about you?
Ohhh, you mean the ones who like the smirk and nervous laugh are in Floriduh? Ha Ha! I knew what you meant, I can’t wait until the LTE’s start rolling in here stating the Bush may not have been God after all. Of course, I’m just dreaming, I can’t vouch that our Floriduh Republicans will actually say such things or sign their name to such statements.
Yes, I noticed that too, but have not seen the reaction yet. I would assume after reading about her work with Disney that she’s more corporate crony and less religious constitutionalist.
I have visions of her consulting with Bush on cases, calling him on the phone to ask how she should decide, seein’ as how he’s the most brilliant human being she’s ever known.
You’re probably right, problem is, the strict constructionists would rather she pick up the phone and call Scalia instead.
Did anybody see in the press conference where he was asked if he had ever discussed the abortion issue with Miers? Wow, if the man was hooked up to a polygraph machine the needles would have gone off the chart as he hemmed and hawed and final weakly said, “not that I can recall”. He looked like a school kid in the principle’s office being disciplined.
anybody read Maureen Dowd’s column this morning? Man oh man she can flay bush alive at times.
But slide, weren’t we just saying two days ago that the GOP has no intention of delivering on Roe v. Wade? Are you suggesting that Bush sat down with HM and said:
“Now Harriet, please realize that if the right to abortion is overturned, the GOP is done for, and we can’t have that!”??
Its a good thing Texas doesn’t euthenize babies, then. Or pull their feeding tubes because the mother can’t pay her bill. Because, well, that would be like Holland! Those communistic socialist bastards in Holland!
OOps, wrong thread, my greatest apologies.
And the BS response to that will be something like:
Rome… nah… but I find it a little hard to belive that Bush doesn’t know her position on abortions. He can’t have it both ways can he? I mean he is trying to send all the signals to the right wingnuts that she is “one of them” that she won’t change over the next 20years… change what? if he doesnt know where she stands?
Rome Again Says:
Yeah, except I’m on the opposite coast of you, in the heathenous and heavily Democratic SE tip. We’re pretty much all squared away here as another harrowing hurricane season draws to a close.
The next disaster I have to look forward to is Katherine Harris’s run for the Senate.
He can’t have it both ways can he?
Bwahhahhhaaa. Sorry, sudden outburst there. The man’s been “governing” this Republic since 2001. He’s had it “both ways” since the start. Why should he think that happy state would end now? Mission Accomplished!
If Meirs sqeaks in, she will be Worst-POTUS-Ever’s best friend on the court. If she doesn’t get onto the SCOTUS, she will have gotten the opposition to waste ammo and given Worst-POTUS-Ever time to observe Roberts. It’s supposed to be win-win for Worst-POTUS-Ever. Karly is a smart guy.
But, Reid is also smart to play along and not give anthing away or allow himself to be used as a distraction or goad, and you know Reid would never nominate a Meirs. So, lets stop picking on the powerless, please.
It’s interesting how “strict constructionist” is simply a code word for “hates abortion”.
It seems that everything on both sides is in complete chaos. While some of us think that Miers is a corporate crony being placed on the bench to assure no serious legal ramifications (which I tend to agree with), Molly Ivins is indicating this nomination is the end of the final countdown to the religious holocaust. Total confusion on both the right and the left. I guess George Bush (with his crony choices for top governmental positions) has truly become an enigma.
Is he truly religious? Or isn’t he?
Is he truly a corporate opportunist? Or isn’t he?
How exactly do those two mesh? If he can be said to be both, which ideal is he more committed to?
Something tells me that he’s more committed to green paper here in this lifetime than whatever promises he feels he’s qualified for in the next.
Actually Steve S. it’s more than that. Look up the term DOMINIONISM. Abortion is only one small part of it.
Hush, you’ll wake up Tammy. Actually Hurricane season is only 2/3rds over and we’re already into the T’s. I personally think we may be heading towards Greek Alphabet names soon. Hurricane “Beta” has a strange ring to it, don’tcha think?
Katherine Harris I think is going to be an interesting show. I don’t see her winning though.
By the way, you’re no in heathen land, I am. Oh to live on the liberal and diverse SE coast(except for the traffic, man) instead of right-wing rich men’s Millionaire’s Playground.
As long as we don’t get to Hurricane Omega – that has a fairly ominous ring to it.
I suppose you are right, though. You are a stranger in a strange land, whereas I am fairly representative of the population around me. However, in terms of the rest of the state of Florida, South Florida couldn’t be further from the norm.
Regrettably, this is exactly what you would expect when you vote for a president who doesn’t terribly believe that (a) governing is an important job to be done well, or (b) that intellectualism is an important tradition and should be respected if not always deferred to.
I had a friend who was sure that the president was going to go to war in Iraq, even when the rest of us weren’t so sure. “Yeah, he’ll do it,” he said, “for the same reason he passed the tax cuts—because all the smart people at Harvard said it was a bad idea, so he’ll show them he can do it anyway.”
I feel like this is merely episode 82 of a continuing saga.
Hey :)! The lemon sucking hooters chick. WEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Well, I agree with that. We need to find a way to get more of YOUR coast to vote, and get less of mine to at the same time.
While reading FR the other day (very rarely do I go there, but it was Miers day and I had to check out the reaction) I saw a post from a freeper that I just loved, stating that all businessmen/women who employ illegals should be hanged/shot/arrested… you get the drift. While working here in Millionaire’s Playround, I’ve noticed that many of those businessmen/women who employ such illegals are Republicans and some of George Bush’s biggest supporters. First time I totally agreed with a freeper’s post on employment practices.
Bush came here about a year and a half ago (completely shut down the city for 4 hours), my employer at the time had a ticket to a $15,000 a plate exclusive dinner with Bush. He also only employs illegals as his construction crew (not a white man in the bunch, those he employs have a tendancy to submit fake SS cards that change names every six months, and the office manager is fully aware of it).
Amen, John. Amen.
Senator: Ms. Miers , do you believe that the United States is a Christian nation, founded on Christian principles? That the Constitution is based on Christian principles?
Miers: Yes, senator, I do.
Senator: I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman. I have no further questions of Ms. Miers.
Dave Schuler says:
Good point from Dave. Lets do a comparison to make sure we are not being partisan and sexist. What qualifications did most of the other Supreme Court justices have? Were they infinitely more qualified than Miers? O’Connor was never a judge either I believe, she served a term in her state senate. Rehnquist was never a judge, he was appointed Attorney General like John Ashcroft was. (Would you all have preferred John Aschroft?) I would say that most of them were Federal Appeals court judges, like Roberts was.
Now how does one become a Federal Appeal Court Judge? They are usually well-respected lawyers, active in the bar association, and from respected law firms, who graduated near the top of the law school class and then probably through some political connections were appointed by the President to a Federal court postion, like Roberts was two years ago. Hmmmm. Sounds familiar doesn’t it?
So if Bush had appointed her two years ago to some appeals court, NOW she would be qualified? I guess his mistake was that he thought she was such a good lawyer, he didn’t want to let her go and instead of doing that he kept her for himself. Tsk tsk. Anyway, to prove your point that Miers is not qualified, you would have to prove that others on the court now and others that were considered are THAT much more qualified. So far I haven’t heard any of it. Maybe you are all being partisan and sexist? Naahhh.
Likewise, many of us can’t fathom why so many off YOU voted for an intellectually crippled, bait-and-switch, marketeering and slogan driven, spoiled son of a previously mediocre GOP president. Guess all you GOPers thought Bush was your most qualified candidate too boot.
You know, there’s a saying in research: Garbage data in, garbage data out.
You guys voted for the putz, and you guys control everything. I know the Dem party is filled with a bunch of corrupt infants, but when can we expect to see an adult step in and bring back some alpha-male leadership to the spoiled cry-babies running the GOP?
I’m like Tim F, at this stage, I’m gonna just make some popcorn and get comfortable and watch this mess erupt.
Was Clinton every this bad. In all honestly all you die hard GOP freaks… Was Clinton ever this bad? Were the 90s such a horrible decade in terms of prosperity and how government was run when you had a GOP majority in Congress and a Dem president who had many character flaws but was at least a reasonably smart guy when it came to political and policy issues?
Garbage in, garbage out.
I’m sorry, were we talkng about Kerry?
Is Kerry the President? I didn’t think so.
And here I was expecting some quip about Clinton…
intellectually crippled – Kerry had worse grades than Bush. At least Bush was honest enough to admit it.
bait-and-switch – Kerry’s strong suit was not consistency
marketeering and slogan driven -Kerry repeated the same stuff over and over, mostly about how bad Bush was. Any Kerry ideas, not about Bush, you remember from the campaign?
spoiled son – Kerry comes from one of the oldest, richest and best connected families around. Bush was a senator’s son growing up. Hard to tell who was more spoiled.
And as for Clinton, nah, I’m a Clinton fan. That’s why I’m a democrat.
Uh, Andrei…Nostalgia is nice but Clinton wasn’t running again, remember? Gore was. Then Kerry was. Same question/argument back at ‘ya: Guess they were the most qualified Dem candidates??? The candidates on the Presidential ballots did not make those elections easy choices. It’s all very sad.
Now scs tries to compare Miers with Rehnquist but if we look at Rehnquist’s bio we see someone with a tad more horsepower:
Stanford University. Harvard University. Supreme Court law clerk. Assistant Attorney General. A little more qualified than someone that ran the Texas Lottery commission and covered up for Bush’s National Guard service and his DUI arrest. But if you think they are equal, far be it from me to dissuade you. Kool-aid is much stronger than facts.
scs ends his nonsense wth this gem:
I just love it when the right attacks the left for being sexist or racist when we don’t just stand up and cheer their “minority” candidates. Quite frankly I think it is sexist for Bush to nominate Miers. I don’t think a male with her credentials would ever have been selected.
Oh, and btw.. the attacks are not coming from the left by and large they are coming from the right. Senator Reid praised her as I recall. Its Pat Buchanan, Bill Kristol, George Will, RedState.org, National Review and most of the right wing blogosphere that is jumping up and down. Partisan and sexist you say? Perhaps you ask Michelle Malkin why she opposes the nomination.
Brownback and Lott considering opposing Miers. Even in committee. I’m going to have to get one of those old-fashioned popcorn poppers so that other people can use the microwave.
Well, yes. George Will’s position is always ideologically-based posturing. He’s a rhetorician; he can dress up his opinion in whatever facts are useful toward it. But at the end of the day, when you read enough of his columns, you understand that his reasons come after his decisions. Will wanted a certain kind of conservative. He didn’t get one. Therefore, Meiers’s lack of experience is worthy of comment. See also: Will’s position on the filibuster.
damn, more partisan attacks on Miers’ qualifications:
Don’t forget he was a senator’s grandson too. Also, don’t forget that father of his used to be the Director of the CIA, and a Texas Oilman. He’s got the bloodlines as well (unfortunately, he’s a distant cousin of mine, a fact I usually try to avoid). He’s not some child who came from Podunk via a one-term junior member of Congress who just happened to land in a good job.
Kerry’s parents? They were not the affluential people you think they were. Kerry’s mother had ties to the Forbes family, yes… but his parents
John Kerry on Wikipedia.
Notice that his father was a lowly attorney in the State Department; not a Senator, not a Director of the CIA, not President. Yes, his father was aligned with the political, but more as a worker bee than a figurehead.
George Bush, on the other hand, really did have the type of upbringing you suspect of Kerry. Its just that his family name was a little less known than Forbes was.
yeah, a qualified one.
off topic but as a New Yorker, this makes me proud:
Now let the Yankees win and I’ll can die a happy man.
Quick Cheney, get on the phone!
They’ll be reassured, but the so-called “base” (not the real base, the illusory one) doesn’t get that kind of service and they’ll still be unsure.
And to bolster my argument that Bush’s selection of Miers is more of a sexist position than opposing her, here is right wing Kate O’Beirne of National Review making that very same point:
Uh, maybe because Roberts is well-qualified and Bolton is a complete lunatic. I sort of buy the Miers-Drownie comparison, but why you would want to lump Roberts in with Drownie and Bolton?
Scs has turned into our resident comedian, and here are some of his greatest hits:
Bush, on the other hand is not known for ‘staying on message’ and delivering the same rhetoric over and over.
By contrast, Bush’s family isn’t really all that rich or well connected, whereas Kerry is married to the heiress of the Heinz ketchup fortune.
He’ll be here all week, folks. Don’t forget to tip your waitress.
BTW, does anyone need any more evidence that Bush/Rove don’t want Roe overturned?
Why would they want it overturned? How would they be able to continue using it as a wedge issue? I think they prefer the image of the valiant and downtrodden martyrs that are bravely fighting against the morally corrupt masses for the rights of the unborn.
DougJ, I feel that Roberts was a forced acceptance, with little to no hard evidence of his independence or his constitutionality. Roberts tends to be misogynistic and his double speak will not do the Supreme Court a bit of good.
Again, there is a selection of people that were more qualified than Roberts, but he was just another handy crony.
Well, thats how I feel, anyway. He’s still a billion times better than most of the cronies that could have been appointed, so I guess I shouldn’t complain to loudly.
Perhaps Roberts is a bit of a crony, but I honestly believe he was quite possibly the *best* possible choice could have made. The others who were more qualified — Luttig, McConnell — are, I think, too far out of the mainstream. Maybe Wilkerson would have been better.
Don’t forget, though, the number one thing Bush/Rove want do to here is sneak people through who won’t overturn Roe v. Wade. Everything else is secondary. I think he’s ensured that now. So I wouldn’t be surprised if the next one if Luttig or McConnell, though I suspect it will be someone more like Wilkerson — a real conservative but one who foams at the mouth.
So who will they have whacked? Souter or Ginsberg? Or will Souter and Ginsberg be found in a sex-smuggling ring involving mules and midgets?
Agreed. But the GOP has been the one touting how great they are for the country the past decade, how they would change Washington and the landscape of politics in general, and all they gave us was Bush, the spoiled son of a mediocre previous president who himself was also the ineffective VP of the GOP Renaissance man Reagan. If the GOP was going to go down the blood line, why didn’t they grab Ron Reagan or someone from that family? (And I still find Ron Reagan’s scathing attack on Bush to be one of the best written political commentaries in some time.) Why the incompetent and inept Bush family? The Manchurian candidate himself.
And FWIW, I don’t believe either Gore or Kerry would have been nearly as bad as Bush. I’m failrly positive they wouldn’t have risen to my level of quality, but I simply cannot see how either would have been as bad as Bush has been. imho. In that respect, I thought the vote was easy in 2000 and 2004. Bush is a moron, and was hardly ever presidential material in my book. Bush is kind of candidate you vote for in high school because all the cool kids like the way he parties. Lately, the GOP has been acting like a lot clique-ish high schoolers, and they’ve been voting that way too boot, and are now shocked… SHOCKED.. at how bad that decision has been turing out to be all in the name of party. Bush may be a nice guy, but watching him speak or discuss anything about government, policy, or politics in public without being coached makes me cringe to the point of not being able to stand it.
How is it possible that the GOP, once the circle of academic intellectual snobs and elitsts, have allowed themselves to sing the praise of what is arguably the class clown?
For the price of a pied piper who would get rid of all the rats? It’s a shame the one tooting the horn wasn’t as skilled as they would have hoped; but then again, having two people as President who both have the same last name and share the same genes (and not to mention that the father already disappointed the GOP), one has to wonder if that was a serious pick.
If I were going to participate in the election of a nepotist president, I’d at least have expected his predecessing family member to have been a monumental success!
Heh, that’s what he says NOW.
Beware! This could be another Rovian masterstroke: getting a mild female nominee dumped in a bi-partisan manner, thus clearing the way for Dear Emporer Leader Chimpy McHitlerburton to send up a more fearsome candidate.
Roland Freisler being inconveniently dead, watch for some lawn jockey like Janet Rogers Brown.
Be very afraid.
Could you please explain what the hell you are talking about?
I see that you have signed off with your usual “Drunkenly…”, which could explain some of the incoherence. But unless you’re blowing a .5 on a breathalyzer, that last post is especially stymying – even coming from a drunk.
[ hic! ]
Yeah, some masterstroke, Rush Limbaugh calls it a mistake, along with many of the other commentarists who keep Bush’s conservative christian “base” in line. I think if BushCo wanted to play this as a ruse, they could have let those who help with the discipline of their party in on the gag, personally. As you can see, I’m unconvinced that this was anything of the sort.
Did they hang Rush out to dry? Seems like an awfully big chance to take when he’s such a huge part of their brainwashing technique.
The Disenfranchised Voter
As they should filibuster. We are not a Christian country, we are a secular country, as I’m sure you know ppGaz. Our other friends here may not so I’ll explain it for them.
First of all, there is absolutely no mention of “God”, whatsoever in the US Constitution. Now, there was the mention of a “creator” in the Declaration of Independence, but the Declaration is not the law of the land. Furthermore, the fact that the founders purposely left out the mention of a creator in the Constitution, after mentioning on in the Declaration is telling. Now to the first amendment.
The first amendment reads…
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Notice the FIRST WORDS on this amendment. It states : “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” That means there shouldn’t be ANY law that respects ANY establishment of religion. Many argue that this means only that there should be no state religion, unfortunately for them, they are mistaken.
If that is what the founding fathers meant then they would have wrote “no law respecting THE establishment of A religion.” It does not say that however, and thus clearly the word “establishment” is synonomous with the word “institution”. Therefore the amendment means: “Congress shall make no law respecting an institution of religion” That means, not one single law that derives from a religious institution. Thus, we are a secular country.
There is also concrete evidence that the US was not even founded on Christian principles. It is called the Treaty of Tripoli. The treaty states: “As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
This treaty was written under Washington’s presidency, and approved by the Senate under John Adams.
We are a secular country. It is just a damn shame that people have been violating our Constitution for so long.
Sorry, I was wrong on that. I thought I had just read differently.
As for Rehnquist, great, he was an Ivy Leaguer. So you only want Ivy Leaguers on the court now? Don’t they get to run ENOUGH stuff in this country already? What’s next? Should we make religious memorials to all graduates of Ivy League schools? (If so, Bush deserves one too.) Meirs paid her way through a Texas college and law school, graduating near the top of her class, in a much more discriminatory time. I think that is just as admirable. Rehnquist practiced law and then was APPOINTED by the Pres. to Attorney General. That doesn’t say anything more about his abilities except that he happened to be appointed to AG first and Bush didn’t happen to appoint Meirs to that position before nomination. In Texas, Meirs was the first woman elected to run the bar association. First woman to head a large law firm. Those to me are very valuable accomplishments.
Anyway, if you all spent as much time laying down an argument as you do trashing people, you all might get somewhere. The MAIN point of my argument is that there is no “Ivy League” or “Judge” standard to be a Justice. You don’t need to be either of those two things to be a good thinker. The best standard is to have a firm legal background and a well-respected reputation in your field as someone who is intelligent, accomplished, fair, and decent. And that is what Meirs has.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Yes, in Constitutional law. She has no experience in Constitutional law. Other non-judges on the court, have. That is the difference.
Really? I hear she’s really below a basic level of understanding on “Constitutional Law” and that’s what she’ll spend her time interpreting on the SCOTUS.
What she spent her career in was “Corporate Law”, so since that’s “what Miers has”, maybe THAT is where she belongs?
Thank you for echoing my sentiment TDV. I had no idea that you had added that in, only makes what I said that much stronger. Your timing is impeccable!
How do you know she’s fair and descent, or do you assume that anyone given the opportunity to be a SCOTUS must be these things?
We’re being handed a nominee by a president who has a LOT of questions about his ethics, and you (most likely never knowing Ms. Miers) seem to be ASSUMING that she’s a fair and descent human being. I’d really like to know what you know about this nominee that so many others (including hardline conservative christians) don’t!
whoops, decent, not descent… Maybe it’s time for me to make my descent into sleep. Gotta be up at 3 am.
Well I know some were just politicians. Anyway, someone who knows more about this than I, can perhaps do a study on what percent were judges, what percent weren’t. In my amateur opinion, I don’t think Constitutional Law is really a totally different kind of law. Its really all just the law, the US law. What she doesn’t know she can study up on. Although it would be helpful to have a background on that, what’s more important is to have intelligence and common sense. If she graduated near the top of her law school, and ran a big law firm, I’m sure she can learn it pretty quickly.
I’m just quoting what I read about her from interviews from people who knew her throughout her career in the New York Times. You’re right, I don’t know her personally, only know what I read.
George Will is an elitist snob who can kiss off. I don’t want some head in the clouds academic on the Supreme Court. I want someone who lives in the real world with the rest of us. She is pro second amendment, which is one of the most important rights we have. As for assisted-suicide, I say is the patient wants it then the Doctor can give them the means to do it themselves. I don’t want a doctor to do it, ever. Let the patient do it themselves, even if it is handing them a syringe to put in an IV.
Yeah, after all, some people learn about Constitutional Law in church!
The ones who learn about it in church say the Constitution says we’re a Christian nation. The Constitution says nothing whatsoever about being a Christian nation.
Did’ja ever hear the saying “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks”?
Did she actually say that we are a Christian nation?
Fair and decent are such relative terms, they depend on the person who is making the statements. I try not to use those words, because they mean so little when I am conveying an opinion. What may be fair for one may not be fair for another.
Decency? Only God (if there is one) knows for sure.
No, that’s why the Christian right is upset. My point is that the Constitution is being interpreted in different ways these days, depending on whether one learns about it in academic study or religious instruction.
First of all, Stormy, the only thing worse than a liberal that hates George Will is a conservative who hates George Will.
George Will is the only pundit that matters, IHMO.
Second of all, did you guys see this
Word round the camp fire is 22 indictmets in the Plame probe later this week. I find that number hard to believe, but I think indictments are coming and here’s why…..
This nomination seems awfully rushed to me. Like they’re trying to get it out before something hits. James Dobson freaked out about on his show today and starting talking about stuff he can’t repeat that Karl Rove told him. Rove told him indictments are coming. It all makes sense. And it is the first explanation of why he picked Miers that makes sense to me.
She’s not a nun, she’s a lawyer.
Apparently. Every time his name comes up, you make that same inane comment.
Why, isn’t a doctor who gives someone a syringe filled with a deadly mixture just as complicit as a doctor who performs the procedure? Actually, it is my opinion that the doctor who performs the procedure shows more mercy because he cares enough to make sure the person (who is probably not trained in medical procedures) is doing the procedure correctly, thereby mitigating the possibility of some unforeseen accident.
Yet you state your advocacy position for the second amendment, which I find completely astounding since you have stated in the past that you are a Christian. Didn’t Christ say to turn the other cheek? Why call yourself a “Christ”ian if you’re not willing to do as Christ says? That’s some Christianity you got there Stormy. You want the right to defend yourself against someone, even though the founder of your religion tells you not to. Hmmmmm!
So you don’t want anyone to have the ability to kill themselves by doctor assisted suicide when they are suffering (an act of mercy); but you want the ability to take a life of someone else who you feel might do you harm (and act of self-defense, or possibly even revenge). It seems to me there’s a lot of amendments in your New Testament as well.
She’s a lawyer who doesn’t understand Constitutional Law, and Bush’s “base” expects her to be a religious fanatic who will interpret the Constitution according to the dictates of religious conservatives.
Are you aware of what that means? Look up the words Constitionalist, Constructionist, Reconstructionist, and Dominionism (most importantly that last one).
ppGaz, DougJ’s comment makes perfect sense if you read the acronym to mean ‘in his modest opinion.’
Ppgaz, you really should read George Will. He might be a little too far to the right for you, but his arguments are excellent. As I’ve said before, I like Krugman too.
Ppgaz, check out the Plame probe link I provided. It will cheer you up.
The Honorable scs said:
Yikes ! On the job training for Assoicate Justice of the Supreme Court. Just like Brownie! Hell, just like dubya !
I must admit I felt the faint stirrings of sexual arousal reading that.
I’m telling you slide, *something* is up. I don’t know about 22 indictments, but there has got to be a reason for this strange Miers appointment.
DougJ, I agree, the WH has been acting really strangely, definitly off their game. Distracted? I think so.
HOT off the presses:
and this is interesting
Rove got a target letter. That’s what he told Dobson that freaked him out.
I’m not saying with any certainty that people will be indicted. But people are getting target letters. Something freaked the White House out. This Miers nomination smelled funny from the get go.
Constitutional law is basically case law from the Supreme Court, which interprets the constitution. Constructionist, Reconstructionist, and Dominionism are all just different takes on how the constitution should be applied, no? Whether one adheres strictly or interpretively to it. A justice should have course have read the constitution. (Heck even I read the constituion, its not that long, people.) Anyway, a justice should of course have an understanding of much case law that went before the Supreme Court. (And how do you know Miers doesn’t? As someone involved in top political legal issues for years, I’m sure she kept up with it, she can read I’m sure, and can read the transcripts.)
Anyway, this mysticism about the law reminds me of a recent past event of mine. I had a beef with my mortgage company and went around looking for a lawyer to sue. After being impressed by their pomposity and great expense, I decided to take it to small claims court and be my own lawyer. Of course the lawyers I spoke to said, “Oh no, you can’t do that, the law is too hard, you need a lawyer” Well I looked up the laws in the law books, photocopied what I needed, and it was all I needed. I won. And best of all, it was free.
So my point from that is the law is not magic. It’s words written in books and documents. Regular law, constitutional law, its all words. Any intelligent person can learn it. Its how you interpret it and apply it that takes some talent.
She has been a corporate lawyer, she does not understand Constitutional Law, what part of that do you not understand? She is not qualified for the Supreme Court because she doesn’t understand Constitutional Law. You don’t just brush up on Constitutional Law in a weekend refresher course. It takes YEARS to learn that stuff.
Not exactly, these terms describe a belief in Biblical Old Testament fascism, and the part about the Constitution would be to enact biblical laws (stealing a horse gets your head chopped off, that sort of thing) because one (erringly) believes we’re exclusively a Christian nation. This has the affect of forcing hundreds of millions of Americans (some of whom don’t even believe in God, others who have believed they had freedom to choose their own belief in God) to have Christianity forced upon them (something I would rather die than have happen to me). I believe in God, but I will never be Christian.
The Strict Constructionist Christians of course are not thinking about how they will also be affected by the same laws/consequences… only that “those heathens” will have to be put under such restrictions. What many of these so-called Christians don’t realize is that Christians also have a tendancy to hate/sin/fornicate/swear/drink/gamble/worship idols/you name it; usually even more so than the ones who don’t claim to have been “saved by Christ”.
The really sad thing is that these “Christians” are not even wanting to live in a Christ-inspired society (which took the idea of “an eye for an eye” and turned it into pacifism, instead they want the “eye for an eye” philosphy to reign supreme again. They are not Christians at all, Christ didn’t say “an eye for an eye”, he said “turn the other cheek”; which is a completely opposite philosophy.
Well, I guess you disagree with the gist of my last post then. Constitutional law is case law. It ain’t wizardry. I’m sure she already knows about it already. Now she probably can’t recite it all from beginning to end like Roberts can (show-off!), but as a political lawyer for the last 10 years, she was involved in constitutional issues. You don’t have to practice law in the Supreme Court to know about it. There is such a thing as “reading”. You can learn a lot about a lot of things that way too, you know- you should try it sometime! Anyway, in my opinion, I disagree it takes years to learn that stuff. You don’t have to be a geek about it and memorize every single case that ever went before the Supreme Court. What is most important is to learn the constitution. And I’m sure she knows that already.
And as for the Christian thing, George Bush wouldn’t have appointed her is she were that radical. Like he said, he wants someone to interpret the Constitution strictly, not be a weirdo about it.
Big difference between arguing a successful isolated case and not understanding over 200 years of Constitutional litigation with far ranging decisions that have far reaching conclusions in all walks of the lives of ALL Americans.
I’m glad you won your case, that doesn’t make you qualified to be a lawyer, nor would the idea that “law is not magic” make a corporate lawyer with 22 years of experience any closer to the goal of SCOTUS either.
Would you hire a seven year old to do your taxes? It’s about the same thing.
Why are you trying to make any excuse to excuse incompetence anyway? It must be that since Bush nominated her, you’ve got to be blind to the fact that she may not be qualified or else your head would explode.
Good luck with that, the dissonance you’re about to be dealing with is going to send you over the edge, so grab a hold of something and hang on, this ride is about to get wild.
Because I suspect a lot of sexism in the reaction.
You know, I really think I could be a lawyer. It’s really not that hard. You just have to look up a lot of stuff. Really, for many lawyers, its just another way for people to hoodwink you with how “hard” it is and make money off of you.
By the way, I don’t have much respect for doctors either. I have won a couple of arguments with my doctor too, cause he was too pompous and lazy to look something up, so I had to photocopy it from a medical journal and show it to him. Sorry, just not a great respecter of status.
The reason Bush promised the conservatives “someone in the vein of Scalia or Thomas” was because that is exactly what the religious conservatives want. They want biblical law enacted. They want to turn the US into heaven on earth (but their version of heaven seems more like hell to me).
While I agree that Bush probably isn’t interested in that sort of thing himself (he’s more of a corporate directed person), he’s been promising conservatives that he would give them another Scalia or Thomas. That is why quite a few “conservatives” are so mad. That is why some right-wingers are slamming Ann Coulter right now (because she slammed the President for not giving them what they want, an outright spoken judge along those lines). You are totally unaware of the vastly different parts of the engine that is driving your party. You better get out, pop the hood and look underneath, I think.
Furthermore, I might add, if she’s not that religious oriented nominee, than she doesn’t even have THAT going for her, then basically, the only thing she has going for her (and this makes perfect sense) is that she’s a CORPORATE Lawyer friendly to CORPORATE interests (read that as fascism, a tightly controlled corporate state).
That and the fact that when the Plame indictments come down (22?? WOW!) if she’s on the SCOTUS when they are litigated and sent up for Supreme interdiction, she’ll keep her most revered “most brilliant man I’ve ever met” former boss out of trouble.
Dude, just because I like Bush doesn’t mean I am a Republican. As I said before, I am mostly a democrat, probably a conservative democrat.
Anyway, as I posted before, I heard Bush in the campaign strongly appeal to Democrats to vote for him and I took that to mean he wouldn’t appoint real radical right wingers to the court, which I guess he didn’t. Conservatives were wishful thinking and not really listening.
She’s been a political lawyer for the last 10 years. (Not that that would improve her image for you). Before that she was elected to a term in some local council (forget what exactly) And besides, what do you think most big time lawyers are who are appointed judges? These lawyers don’t mess around with petty criminals, they are mostly corporate lawyers. So how is that different?
Well, then why not stop there, why not grow your own food, build your own house, make your own clothing… hell, why not even start your own religion, you’re due for it, since you think you don’t need to know anything to be good at anything.
The pompousness you speak of seems to be leaking in your post. But, education is just so overrated, huh?
I’m amazed that you think being a lawyer would be so easy. Okay, here’s a challenge, try to pass the bar in your state with no education.
I’m not going to repeat myself, you know where I stand, that you want to go around in circles arguing the same point over and over tells me all that I need to know.
You trust implicitly in someone who has no knowledge of the information they need, and you’ve told me she doesn’t need that education. Lunatic point of view, if you ask me, but it’s your point of view and you’re wholly entitled to it. Carry on.
If you like Bush, you don’t know the meaning of the word DEMOCRAT. You only THINK you do. Please don’t insult my intelligence, you say you like Bush, that means you like a man who puts money into the hands of rich people at the expense of the poor and you call yourself a DEMOCRAT? Please get real.
Everything can be learned my friend. If I studied hard for a long time, I bet I could pass the bar. Lincoln did it, he never went to law school. All those things you mentioned, I could do. So could you. We choose not to because we don’t have the time or inclination to do it all, not because we couldn’t.
Education is great, but I just notice many people of status who tend to think they are above the facts. Like my doctor thought he knew better than a medical journal, my lawyer thought he knew better than the printed law I read to him. At some point you have to separate the education from the status and not confuse the two.
probably a conservative democrat.
You can’t even define your political affiliation without the word “probably”? Hmmmmm, that’s very suspect.
Okay I posted this before so I will post it for you:
Me: pro taxing rich, pro choice, pro national healthcare, pro gun control, pro affirmative action, gosh forget the others now.
But also: pro Bush’s war on terror, pro defense, pro victims rights, pro death penalty
On balance, a democrat no? Kind of a Zell Miller dem. I call myself a law and order dem.
Anyway, does it matter?
Funny, you’re not the first person I’ve seen say that today. It makes me feel all tingly inside, is that what you’re talking about? I wouldn’t exactly call it sexual arousal, but it is a nice feeling all the same! ;)
Hey, next time you need your appendix taken out or something, give me a call, I’ll do some reading up and give it a go. Don’t need some “pompous” doctor that devoted a good part of his adult life to studying medicine now do we? I’ll just do a little reading and you’ll be as good as cured.
scs you get my nod for making some of the dumbest comments in one thread in quite a while.
Yes? My husband just fell on the floor laughing at that statement. You are assuming I’m male, I’m not.
Just stating the facts, my friend, of what happened to me. Just like you all, it made me feel all tingly inside when my doctor apologized to me on what could have been theoretically a life threatening issue. I don’t make these things up. If you want to call the truth dumb, be my guest.
I’m talking about all reactions, not just yours.
Lincoln lived long before the technology age, I’m sure you would think that lack of education would sustain him in our industrialist society?
By the way, Zell Miller is no Democrat, and if you think Bush cares about “victim’s rights”, you’re so out of touch I’m not even going to justify your banter with any answers anymore. Have fun trying to convince someone else you’re a Democrat, you’re not, and you know it.
And by the way, women can be just as or more sexist than men. I had a women boss once that was a very sexist b****. The guys were all geniuses, the women were all struggling. How did she decide this, based on what? Her “perceptions”. Once the results were made public, she had to apologize as well. Anyway, gotta go. Thanks for the convo.
Duck and cover, you aimed it at me, now you can’t follow through. What I spoke of was nothing sexist, I have great admiration for women in all walks of life. I’m seriously hoping that we find a great woman for president soon (Hillary is probably NOT it). I cannot think of any female candidate at the moment who I would support, but then again, I can barely think of any male candidate either. I can tell you one thing, whoever cleans up the mess of BushCo probably shouldn’t have the responsibility of being “first woman president” at the same time. I think juggling both of those might prove to be quite difficult. That is not sexist, that is realism.
Okay one more – you all get desperate in your arguments sometimes. “By the way, Zell Miller is no Democrat, and if you think Bush cares about “victim’s rights” ” Ummm, Zell Miller has been a member of the Dem party longer than you’ve may have been alive. Never said Bush cares about victims rights, I said I like Bush’s war on terror, I care independently about strong laws against criminals and for victims. I am not a CULT member, its just a political party. I take from them what I want. Due to my love of taxing and spending, I’d still say I was a dem, or liberal Republican, whatever you want. Who cares. I don’t.
No ducking here. I said “THE” not “your”. It ain’t all about you.
Possibly, but it sounds like you assume she was sexist, maybe she just didn’t have confidence in the lot of help she was faced with (could be).
It seems so strange that every discussion we have here though, you have this strange and perfectly relevant anecdote of how things didn’t go as they normally would for other people and yet your situation turned out okay without the normal application for a solution (sounds like a “Christian right” tendancy to play victim to me, but I’m not a psychiatrist so what the heck do I know?)and then you surmise that “education is not necessary” “doctors don’t need knowledge to know how to treat the body” “lawyers don’t need to know law to apply law”… therefore it only makes sense that this “b****” of which you speak (sounds as if you didn’t get to know her very well) must obviously be sexist (couldn’t possibly be one of a a myriad of a 1,000 other different motivations). And then you have the unmitigated gaul to talk about someone else’s pompousness?
Pot, meet Kettle.
Yeah? And? That doesn’t mean he shares the principles of the party, he doesn’t.
No ducking here. I said “THE” not “your”. It ain’t all about you.
Well, since you don’t believe in education, I guess it won’t help me to argue that THE is singular. Of course you meant me, but you have to cover your tracks now. THESE or THOSE is plural. But, education is so overrated.
Guess what? I know it’s not all about me, I don’t want it to be all about me. I’m a humble servant, I don’t want to be a big woman on a mountain top. You seem to think you have some idea of who I am, and you are grasping to define me when you don’t know anything about me. We’re not talking about me remember? We’re talking about YOU, the one with the anecdotes that so perfectly fit the direction of the conversation, the “possibly” Democrat.
It figures. Of course, you don’t seem to worry about how it creates victims or you wouldn’t like it. So which victims do you care about, all Humans or all Western Civilized, or just Americans only?
To say one “likes the war on terror” is an ominous thing… did you cheer when the twin towers were destroyed because you’d get your fanciful war?
scs a little friendly advice? Go to bed, Rome is having you for lunch.
Rome, you’re pretty good. For a female. [smile]
A love for spending I can understand (So does George Bush for that matter); but no one loves taxing, unless you’re the recipient of said funds. Taxing is a necessary evil to take care of a society, and for a society to flourish, it needs certain things. What that list of certain needs is we could sit here and argue all night, but let me make clear that no one actually enjoys giving their hard earned money to Uncle Sam to pay for the welfare of the state. We all hope that those funds wouldn’t be necessary, but if they are, we shouldn’t be greedy and hold back, allowing those that go without to starve. It’s a human thing, taking care of one another, but you don’t just wake up and say “I can’t wait to give my money to the state”.
You have a very strange way with words, almost as if you are trying to use Democratic strategy to argue for Democratic principles without actually understanding them. Conservative Republicans (who aren’t really Conservative at all) think we love taxing, they don’t understand why we would accept taxes as a necessary evil. Your argument makes about as much sense.
Thanks slide, you’re pretty good yourself [wink]
“This ain’t no party, this ain’t no disco, this ain’t no fooling around…”
This is real life sister, with consquences of pain and suffering and loss… its about winners and losers and those who end up living and those who end up dead. But, who cares, right?
Yes you are, you said yourself that you like George Bush. That’s status!
I’m not a respecter of status either, but its not about status, its about knowledge.
The problem that I have with Bush is that he doesn’t have the knowledge to run this country (hence the reason why John Cole has a category called “Republican Stupidity”).
Does that mean Democrats are much better? No, but that’s not the point I’m arguing. It’s KNOWLEDGE that helps someone accomplish a task, and you’re arguing that knowledge is unnecessary.
Which brings us back to my original point… Miers has no knowledge of Constitutional Law (by the way, arguing software issues for Microsoft isn’t in any way regarded as Constitutional, it’s faulty product, which I don’t seem to find listed in the Constitution anywhere. Lots of companies put out faulty product, your television screen is full of ads for faulty products. They can’t all be the best, and some of them really stink… but since they’re not breaking “Constitutional Law”, they are not held accountable.
scs as to your argument that “anyone” could just read up on Constitutional law and be up to speed in no time, this from RedState.org explains why you are so very wrong:
I’m back. Gawd, Rome. I’m starting to think it IS all about me. I have to digest all those posts you just made about me and compose a response. I know you all can’t wait (kidding)
Slide, maybe. I don’t know. Perhaps you do need some practice in it. How do I know? But I do appreciate a factual response this time other than insults. Keep it up man.
Funny, it was the conservative Christians that got the party supposedly elected. They heard a completely different message.
Furthermore (I’m not sure if you’re talking about the 2000 or 2004 elections) but I didn’t hear anything in his words that made me trust him (of course, I was also soured on the name BUSH from his father’s reign and I was NOT going to vote him, no way, no how…) but maybe you did.
Personally, it sounds to me as if you are gullible.
Why exactly were you sold on Bush? What all did he say that you liked?
I know there are supposed to be a small percentage of self-identified Democrats who are happy with Bush, he goes against every Democratic principle I’ve ever known/he goes against many Conservative Republican principles too! Bush is corporate influence, cronyism, spending money on lots and LOTS of unnecessaries, getting us into wars that are unnecessary and secretive isolation that tells us NOTHING about what is going on in “the people’s government”. Those aren’t Democratic or Republican principles, they’re criminal!
So, go ahead and tell me how much you like the criminal. I am not surprised, anyone who can say “I love taxing and spending” and “I love Bush’s war on terror” doesn’t surprise me a bit when they say they admire this president’s policies.
Okay Rome, a little tired to address all your points. But I think you and others take my points too literally. Or you don’t get the fine “nuance” of my points. I never said I don’t believe in education. Love the education (although what I really learned in college, not so sure). I just feel that some people get caught up in the status of a degree or title and forget about the actual knowledge behind the education. For instance, just because someone is a doctor, they are now like gods in all things medical? Well no, not if they don’t keep up with their field.
So I guess you could say I believe strongly in education -but not so much the title – as there is not always a one to one relationship between the two. A guy with a degree from Yale may not be as educated as a woman from a small Texas college. (And since you all don’t like Bush, I’m sure you’ll agree with that.) It’s what’s in your head, not the degree in the piece of paper. Ok, nite.
Okay Rome, “I love taxing and spending” was putting something I meant in a humourous way. No need to get all worked up about it. To put it more seriously, I believe in strong social services and paying the taxes to get them. And I believe taxes should be progressive with the rich paying more, kind of like the European model. Okay?
Sorry about the two “okay rome” beginnings. Anyway, too late to discuss my love of George Bush with you now. I’m sure in the near future it will come up again. You all take care.
I’ve read many dozens of his tedious pieces, and listened to many hours of his tedious lectures on This Week back when David Brinkley was the host.
Since we are blathering our “humble” opinions, I will restate mine: Will is a bore, a right wing whore, and the only thing worse than his political blathering is his baseball blathering. I’m a diehard baseball fan, and Will is a guy I would not invite to the ball game. Can you imagine sitting next to that twit for 4 hours in a stadium seat?
Just hearing his voice gives me a headache.
No scs, it’s deeper than that. Bush uses key phrases when he talks to them, what you may consider to be poetic phrasing meant to sound like romanticism isn’t romanticism at all, it’s code words for the Conservative Christiansto hear exactly the message they are trying to listen for.
What you heard is what you wanted to hear, and there are far more Republicans linked in on the code words than there are Democrats who just think he sounded good. I’m sorry, but you’re wrong that they heard wrong.
Now, the truth may appear that he lied (if the GOP uses up their abortion trump card, they will be short that as a wedge issue for the next election, a strategy they’ve been using for years) which has earned them most of the elections in the last 20 years, why fix something that ain’t broken?
The only problem is that now it IS broken. Bush didn’t deliver when the bill came due (that happened just a day and a half ago) and it may be time to pull that trump card. Miers may very well be that christian who might be able to oveturn Roe (Molly Ivins is convinced she is). I’m not so sure they’ll recognize that it is broken and give up what’s worked for so many years previously… but it is possible that Miers will follow through on the Christian’s wishes.
Well, if you don’t express yourself in a way that means what you say, how can you expect anyone to take you seriously?
You said you love the war on terror, you said you love taxing and spending, you said you “I disagree it takes years to learn that stuff. You don’t have to be a geek about it and memorize every single case that ever went before the Supreme Court. What is most important is to learn the constitution. And I’m sure she knows that already.”
It is by knowing the cases that went before the Supreme Court previously that a justice of the Supreme Court practices their duty. Of course, the “religious right” doesn’t want them to argue “settled law” they want them to “interpret the constitution” which means becoming activist and applying a religious bent to everything in the Constitution. Of course, they brand the judges who do argue settled law as activist, but most of us who have been on to their twisted logic have known that all along.
Remember when the Terri Schiavo case came about and the judge in the Tampa area insisted that Terri be removed from life support? Dominionists said it was an activist decision, and it wasn’t, it was settled law. Hence the reason that Jeb Bush didn’t intervene after discussing the case with his advisors.
You say that because you’ve read the Constitution (“it’s not long people” you said), and since she’s supposed to be on the Supreme Court she should have “read the Constitution”?
Millions of people have read the Constitution, does that mean we should all qualify for the Supreme Court?
You ask so little of a Supreme Court Judge. I realize you say you don’t want to push the status thing, but when you’re talking about SCOTUS, it IS status, it is a branch of Federal Government. You expect so little of it… and sadly, perhaps that is also why you self-describe yourself as a Democrat who likes Bush.
Did I ever call you an idiot? Did I every call you any names? You called yourself a Democrat and I said you were no Democrat, yes! That is not an insult, that is trying to show you that I think you are misguided in your belief of what I Democrat is. You called yourself a “probably Democrat” and I pointed out that you should know if you were or not (unless you just recently made this decision, then I would be happy to point you to a lot of literature that will explain why you’re wrong).
I’m not here to insult you scs, I’m here to try to reason with you. I’m sorry that you feel I’m being cruel. I’m not, if I were, I’d have called you an idiot a long time ago. I didn’t… and I’m still not, I’m investing time into these posts trying to understand you, that’s all.
I was trying to reason with you why I thought you were wrong, using sound judgment, making (what I would at least consider) fairly clear points. I was not purposely insulting you scs. If you took it that way, perhaps you were looking for it. I am baffled at the way you call yourself a Democrat who is happy with Bush. He doesn’t represent any Democratic principles. He has squandered any trust from both the left and now the right too! He has approval numbers that are sinking fast, and were recently in the low 40’s. I’ts not just ME and a few others here on this board or others who think he is unpalatable, 60% of Americans think so too, and I’m completely baffled why you would think he is someone who you think both deserves his position, is doing a fine job and should continue to do so.
That wild ride I told you was coming? Brace yourself, because this administration is about to suffer TOTAL EMBARRASSMENT, and there will be many Americans (as well as others around the world) cheering when it happens.
The fact that you think he is doing a fine job and you’re not a member of the Republican party, I find to be deeply disturbing. What would you expect from the next president? What would you like to see as policies from other Democrats who may be elected in the future.
It’s funny, you describe the fact that you believe in taking care of society, that you believe in caring for victims, and yet everything George Bush is doing is totally anathema to those concepts, which I must say I believe in too! How is it we both believe in the same things yet support opposing sides? I’m lost as to your reasoning, but as I said before, it’s yours, you own it, more power to you I guess.
I look forward to having some more discussions here in the future, and maybe we can get to the bottom of what it is George Bush offers you.
Meanwhile, I want to leave you with this:
I’m interested in seeing what a Zell Miller type Democrat looks like on the Political Compass. What this chart will tell you is where you fall on a scale of positives and negaties involving fiscal decision making and social decision making. You say you are concerned about the same things I am, I want to know where you actually fall on the chart Please, indulge me.
I can’t stand his baseball blathering either. He was annoying all get out during that Ken Burns documentary.
Well, I’m listening to him “describe” it right not, on television (10:30 am EDT).
As near as I can tell, this is how it works:
Terrorists are BAD. They’re murderers, and murder is BAD.
We are GOOD.
Good is better than bad, which is why we’ll win. (applause).
It’s all well and good to make speeches that sound like commercials for laundry detergent (dirt is BAD, Tide is GOOD), but a “war on terror” requires a model, a plan, for success.
How is a “war on terror” fought? How is it won? How does this war express that model, and what are the scenarios that lead to “victory?” Provide examples from history which support your assertions — examples which show how a war is fought against a dispersed and essentially leaderless enemy spread out over a large area of the globe. An enemy without territory, without a state.
Why should I believe that Mr. Bush’s idea of a “war on terror” is any more real than were the Iraq WMDs, or the imagined connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda? Why should I believe that a government that could not plan and carry out a war on small country that didn’t put up much of a fight upon invasion …. is capable of carrying out this larger, global “war” on a much wider scale?
I believe the only answer left on the table is the same one provided for the Miers pick: you gotta’ have faith.
Of course, faith doesn’t come so easily for most these days, but at the time of broadcast, 35-40 percent were still on board.
We shall see how long their zeal continues to hold out, because short of a miracle, I don’t see the remaining 60 percent having a reaffirmation for Bush.
Me either. Bush’s problem here is that he is pathologically incapable of dropping the self-justification and back-patting horseshit. He sounds like he is making this speech in January 2003. That was then, this is now. He just doesn’t get it.
I’m thrilled to learn that my “Rovian masterstroke” idea was shared by (my drinking partner) Mark Steyn: http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php?id=6725&issue=2005-10-08
John S.–continued good wishes in your struggle to grow clever and *intentionally* humorous. Quite a ways to go, you’ve got. But the longest journey starts with the first step.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Yes, you caught me! I’m really a male bigot and my concern about her not having any Constitutional law experience is just my front! Damn you!