.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Monday, October 03, 2005

Harriett Miers - Just Another Lawyer

Why are we getting just another lawyer?

What an intellectual midget compared to the host of other candidates in the pool.

Who is using the administration brain cell these days, cuase it sure ain't W.

There are those that say this is a shrewd move - she is a woman, lots of experience in law, no judicial record to bash, first lady head of the Texas ABA, others on and several other justices had no judicial experience either when nominated...

All good pionts, but the reason this is such a poor nomination is that this lady has nothing to make up for the fact that she has no judicial experience which I think opens her up to the kind of witchfinder general grilling she will receive from the likes of Schummer, et. al.

Now, if she was a Moynihan, or a Bork, etc., people who were scholars of the law, then the confirmation hearings could shed light on the leanings of each candidate and provide the kind of debate I think this nation needs on cases like Affirmative Action, Privacy, States Rights, etc., - in this case Bork to the right of Atilla The Hun and Moynihan to the center. What is Miers going to show us?

All the planets have aligned for the right to put two people on the bench who could bring some retraint to the silliness and irresponsibility that the court has doled out since the 70s. This historic opportunity to pound one on the left's face has passed us. I don't think this lady is of the same judicial timbre as others who have been put in for nomination.

Just another lawyer just does not cut it, W.

John Edwards was just another lawyer, too.

There is a couple of articles I did that might make you feel a bit better about Miers.
Miers to Replace O'Connor
Who is Miers?

I did want Janice Rogers Brown though.
Miers was instrumental to the appointing of P. Owen (lost the link) and is a Biblical and Constitutional literalist...
Besides, as much as I would like to go to war with the left...do you really want the RINO's in the Senate to be your army? It may be more sly than we are giving W. credit for.
M. Sheldon
Miers has supported gay rights and donated to the Gore campaign. Not quite a conservative poster child.

She's not even a particularly talented lawyer or jurist (like Roberts is). She's a Bush crony and syncophant so it shouldn't surprise anyone that she got the nomination.
I guess you took your hate pill today...You have a lot of anger, like most lefties. And how would you define a talented lawyer? Do you have insight into how she thinks and what her decisions and counsel have been for the President while in office or while he was gov of TX? And please define crony for us all. It's a nice Soros and Pelosi talking point, but it sounds like you're equating loyalty, even fealty and patronage with cronyism. I may not think Miers is the most qualified, and I don't, but the President has the right to appoint anyone he likes. And while we are on the subject of cronyism, I always ask you on the left to go back to the last administration. Apply your defintion of patronage and cronyism to that eight years and let us all know if you feel the same way. Every President and elected official appoints friends and loyalists. I don't care that Clinton did it because that was his perogative. WJC and all his buddies were in power and that is just the way of things in politics, my lefty friend. The problem is you fellas on the left can't take it today since your fellas are not in power. Try and have a nice day and thanks for the comments!
My fellas and gals have NEVER been in power. Disenfranchisement sucks.

Greens and Libertarians, Unite!

Once again, all roads lead back to Clinton for you, I wonder how long this can possible go on. Heh. I'm happy to give you my definition of a crony though. It is someone appointed due to personal connections while lacking qualifications necessary for the job.

And don't assume that those are 'Soros Pelosi talking points' most of the information about her lack of qualifications comes from consevative pundits and people who know her.

But I don't hate her, not at all. Frankly I'm glad that if she truly is a born again conservative she will probably be a very inneffective jurist. However if she is not, and has managed to get a lifetime appointment where she is free to rule in a non partisan way, then she is much more clever than I gave her credit for and will surely provide an 'interesting' legal position.
As for you 'everyone does it' argument, it's one thing to appoint a 'crony' to be ambassador to Jamaica or as vice secretary of blah and blah, it's quite another to appoint them to the supreme court. Seriously, I'm sure you can see and appreciate the difference.
And Hillary being appointed Health Czar was both crony and convenience by marrige. Nice try! I agree, though, it stinks, and yes, all elected officials do it at all levels.
And Hillary being appointed Health Czar was both crony and convenience by marrige. Nice try! I agree, though, it stinks, and yes, all elected officials do it at all levels.
I'm guessing you are smart enough to see the difference between a brief appointment as 'Health Czar' and a lifetime appointment to the US Supreme Court.
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?