• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

There's a crackdown over Miers, not a "crackup."

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Cal

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
3,598
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern SD
AMERICAN CONSERVATISM

Holding Court
There's a crackdown over Miers, not a "crackup."

BY RUSH LIMBAUGH
Monday, October 17, 2005 12:01 a.m.

I love being a conservative. We conservatives are proud of our philosophy. Unlike our liberal friends, who are constantly looking for new words to conceal their true beliefs and are in a perpetual state of reinvention, we conservatives are unapologetic about our ideals. We are confident in our principles and energetic about openly advancing them. We believe in individual liberty, limited government, capitalism, the rule of law, faith, a color-blind society and national security. We support school choice, enterprise zones, tax cuts, welfare reform, faith-based initiatives, political speech, homeowner rights and the war on terrorism. And at our core we embrace and celebrate the most magnificent governing document ever ratified by any nation--the U.S. Constitution. Along with the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes our God-given natural right to be free, it is the foundation on which our government is built and has enabled us to flourish as a people.




We conservatives are never stronger than when we are advancing our principles. And that's the nature of our current debate over the nomination of Harriet Miers. Will she respect the Constitution? Will she be an originalist who will accept the limited role of the judiciary to interpret and uphold it, and leave the elected branches--we, the people--to set public policy? Given the extraordinary power the Supreme Court has seized from the representative parts of our government, this is no small matter. Roe v. Wade is a primary example of judicial activism. Regardless of one's position on abortion, seven unelected and unaccountable justices simply did not have the constitutional authority to impose their pro-abortion views on the nation. The Constitution empowers the people, through their elected representatives in Congress or the state legislatures, to make this decision.
Abortion is only one of countless areas in which a mere nine lawyers in robes have imposed their personal policy preferences on the rest of us. The court has conferred due process rights on terrorists detained at Guantanamo Bay and benefits on illegal immigrants. It has ruled that animated cyberspace child pornography is protected speech, but certain broadcast ads aired before elections are illegal; it has held that the Ten Commandments can't be displayed in a public building, but they can be displayed outside a public building; and the court has invented rationales to skirt the Constitution, such as using foreign law to strike down juvenile death penalty statutes in over a dozen states.

For decades conservatives have considered judicial abuse a direct threat to our Constitution and our form of government. The framers didn't create a judicial oligarchy. They created a representative republic. Our opposition to judicial activism runs deep. We've witnessed too many occasions where Republican presidents have nominated the wrong candidates to the court, and we want more assurances this time--some proof. The left, on the other hand, sees the courts as the only way to advance their big-government agenda. They can't win national elections if they're open about their agenda. So, they seek to impose their policies by judicial fiat. It's time to call them on it. And that's what many of us had hoped and expected when the president made his nomination.

Some liberal commentators mistakenly view the passionate debate among conservatives over the Miers nomination as a "crackup" on the right. They are giddy about "splits" in the conservative base of the GOP. They are predicting doom for the rest of the president's term and gloom for Republican electoral chances in 2006. As usual, liberals don't understand conservatives and never will.

The Miers nomination shows the strength of the conservative movement. This is no "crackup." It's a crackdown. We conservatives are unified in our objectives. And we are organized to advance them. The purpose of the Miers debate is to ensure that we are doing the very best we can to move the nation in the right direction. And when all is said and done, we will be even stronger and more focused on our agenda and defeating those who obstruct it, just in time for 2006 and 2008. Lest anyone forget, for several years before the 1980 election, we had knockdown battles within the GOP. The result: Ronald Reagan won two massive landslides.





The real crackup has already occurred--on the left! The Democratic Party has been hijacked by 1960s retreads like Howard Dean; billionaire eccentrics like George Soros; and leftwing computer geeks like Moveon.org. It nominated John Kerry, a notorious Vietnam-era antiwar activist, as its presidential standard-bearer. Its major spokesmen are old extremists like Ted Kennedy and new propagandists like Michael Moore. Its great presidential hope is one of the most divisive figures in U.S. politics, Hillary Clinton. And its favorite son is an impeached, disbarred, held-in-contempt ex-president, Bill Clinton.
The Democratic Party today is split over the war and a host of cultural issues, such as same-sex marriage and partial birth abortion. It wants to raise taxes, but dares not say so. It can't decide what message to convey to the American people or how to convey it. And even its once- reliable allies in the big media aren't as influential in promoting the party and its agenda as they were in the past. The new media--talk radio, the Internet and cable TV--not only have a growing following, but have helped expose the bias and falsehoods of the big-media, e.g., Dan Rather, CBS News and the forged National Guard documents. Hence, circulation and audience is down, and dropping.

The American left is stuck trying to repeat the history of its presumed glory years. They hope people will see Iraq as Vietnam, the entirety of the Bush administration as Watergate and Hurricane Katrina as the Great Depression. Beyond looking to the past for their salvation, the problem is that they continue to deceive even themselves. None of their comparisons are true. Meanwhile, we conservatives will continue to focus on making history.
Mr. Limbaugh is a radio-show host. This is the latest in our occasional series.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110007417
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
Oh, Georgie, said Harriet,

"You are the best governor ever - deserving of great respect," Harriet E. Miers wrote to George W. Bush days after his 51st birthday in July 1997. She also found him "cool," said he and his wife, Laura, were "the greatest!" and told him: "Keep up the great work. Texas is blessed."

""Hopefully Jenna and Barbara recognize that their parents are 'cool' - as do the rest of us." 8)

She added, "All I hear is how great you and Laura are doing," and ended, "Texas is blessed."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/11/politics/politicsspecial1/11archive.html?ex=1286683200&en=4e99893ba3e924ee&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

And Ann Coulter (some on this board say the smartest woman around) says:

"The only sexism involved in the Miers nomination is the administration's claim that once they decided they wanted a woman, Miers was the best they could do. Let me just say, if the top male lawyer in the country is John Roberts and the top female lawyer is Harriet Miers, we may as well stop allowing girls to go to law school.

Ah, but perhaps you were unaware of Miers' many other accomplishments. Apparently she was THE FIRST WOMAN in Dallas to have a swimming pool in her back yard! And she was THE FIRST WOMAN with a safety deposit box at the Dallas National Bank! And she was THE FIRST WOMAN to wear pants at her law firm! It's simply amazing! And did you know she did all this while being a woman?

I don't know when Republicans became the party that condescends to women, but I am not at all happy about this development. This isn't the year 1880. And by the way, even in 1880, Miers would not have been the “most qualified” of all women lawyers in the U.S., of which there were 75.

By 1950, there were more than 6,000 women lawyers, three female partners at major law firms and three female federal judges. She may be a nut who belonged to a subversive organization, but Ruth Bader Ginsburg graduated first in her class from Columbia Law School -- and that was before Harriet Miers was applying to law school.

Women have been graduating at the top of their classes at the best law schools for 50 years. Today, women make up about 45 percent of the students at the nation's top law schools (and more than 50 percent at all law schools).

Which brings us to the other enraging argument being made by the Bush administration and its few remaining defenders -- the claim of “elitism.” I also don't know when the Republican Party stopped being the party of merit and excellence and became the party of quotas and lying about test scores, but I don't like that development either.

The average LSAT score at SMU Law School is 155. The average LSAT at Harvard is 170. That's a difference of approximately 1 1/2 standard deviations, a differential IQ experts routinely refer to as “big-ass” or “humongous.” Whatever else you think of them, the average Harvard Law School student is very smart. I gather I have just committed a hate crime by saying so.

Contrary to the Bush administration's disingenuous arguments, it's not simply that Miers did not attend a top law school that makes her unqualified for the Supreme Court. (But that's a good start!) It's that she did not go on to rack up any major accomplishments since then, either.

Despite the astonishing fact that Miers was THE FIRST WOMAN to head the Texas Bar Association -- a dumping ground for losers, by the way -- Miers has not had the sort of legal career that shouts out “Supreme Court material”! That is, unless you think any female who manages to pass the bar exam has achieved a feat of unparalleled brilliance for her gender.

There are more important things in life than being Supreme Court material, but -- oddly enough -- not when we're talking about an appointment to the Supreme Court. According to the Associated Press, Sen. Arlen Specter defended Miers on the grounds that “Miers' professional qualifications are excellent, but she lacks experience in constitutional law” -- and Specter ought to know. This is like recommending a plumber by saying, “He's a very professional guy, but he lacks experience in plumbing.”

The other straw-man argument constantly being hawked by the Bush administration is that Miers' critics object that she's never been a judge. To quote another Bush -- Read my lips: No one has said that. So please stop comparing Miers to Justice Byron White (first in his class at Yale Law School) or Justice William Rehnquist (first in his class at Stanford Law School).

It's also not what The New York Times claims, which is that conservatives oppose Miers because they don't know how she will vote. We didn't know how Roberts would vote! As I recall, I was the only conservative complaining about that.

The problem with Miers is something entirely different -- and entirely within the meaning of “advice and consent”: Miers is no more qualified to sit on the Supreme Court than I am to be a sumo wrestler. The hearings aren't going to change that; they will just make it more obvious."

:D :D

The rest of it is at this link: http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=112823
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
As far as her education goes and what schools she attended- I'm glad Ms. Miers was chosen...The last thing we need on the Supreme Court is 9 people chosen because they attended Harvard or Stanford- and have Harvard or Stanfords beliefs in how to interpret the Constitution...The diversity could be good....
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
10,861
Reaction score
4
Ann Coulter is finally agreeing with Disagreeable and the rest of us!!

Harriett Meirs is a smart woman...no one says she's not...but she's not qualified for the Supreme Court.

Most of us know how to sew up a prolapse, pull a calf, etc...but that doesn't qualify us to operate on people.....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Interesting thing is that the founders of our nation made no educational or experience requirements for the job-contrary to what most think, you need no experience as a judge- do not even have to be a lawyer to be appointed to the Supreme Court.

Maybe they thought life experience and common sense should prevail over ability to read or misread legal jargon. That was back in the days when their was no precedent (except in Common Law) and everything had to be interpreted as to the intent of the Constitution....
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
I think the real issue is would Harriet Miers have been on anyone's list for the Supreme Court if she was not a close, personal friend of George W. Bush? I doubt it. Some pundits are saying he thinks he will need a good friend on the Supreme Court somewhere down the line when he's no longer President and the truth about the Iraqi war comes out.
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
Cal said:
Dis is agreeing with Ann Coulter!? Hell hath frozen over. :lol: :lol: :lol:

In this case, she's right. :) I feel insulted that the President would nominate such a mediocre mind for the highest court in the land. For him to say she's the most qualified candidate he could find.... Maybe that's true if he looked no further than 30 feet from the Oval Office! We know that George doesn't like to work very hard. I really hope the Senate will have the guts not to go along with this farce.
 

Latest posts

Top