|
|
October 6, 2005More Miers? I must, I must!Lorie Byrd gets the Calm, Diplomatic and Sensible Post of the Day Award for this piece on the continuing saga of Harriet Miers and the new charge that President Bush - in nominating her - has now not merely disappointed but “lied,” to his partyfolk. We roll our eyes when the Democrats cannot manage to use the word “lie” properly. It would behoove us on the right not to fall into such a sloppy habit. Peggy Noonan has a typically thoughtful piece from which both sides can pick-and-choose the quote they favor. It’s a good read. Ed Morrissey is taking an unenthusiastic wait-and-see but sounds pretty disgusted with the WH, right now. And Sean writes a very compelling piece about his own disappointment. John Hawkins is suggesting that waiting-and-seeing won’t work and it’s a pretty smart take: Here’s the problem with that sort of thinking: we’re not going to learn anything about the candidate at the “job interview”. Things she may have said or written as a lawyer? It doesn’t mean anything because she’s taking a position for a client. Her time in the White House? Bush is citing executive privilege and saying he won’t release any documents she wrote in the White House. What about future rulings on important cases like Roe v. Wade or Kelo v. New London? She won’t talk about those cases on the grounds that she may have to rule on them as a Supreme Court justice. So unless there’s the equivalent of an Anita Hill hiding in the wings or Miers completely cracks under the pressure, we won’t learn much about Miers at the hearings. In other words, it’ll be a Rorschach test. There will be a lot of long speeches from Senators, some hostile questions, Miers will dodge them all, and then people will look at the inkblots and see what they want to see. As I said, a smart take on things (see also Hawkin’s 6 point rebuttal to Miers’ supporters “talking points” I wasn’t aware I was using talking points - I thought I was simply expressing my own views, but never mind…) But still…the nomination has been made. The president - as we said time and time again when we were defending Roberts - is entitled to his nominee. Or, is he not? Shall the conservatives force him to withdraw this nomination as “unsuitable,” thus humiliating him before the world…what makes you think he will then give you Luttig or Rogers Brown? I think Ed Morrissey’s resigned take is - in the long run, and considering not only lofty judicial idealism but political considerations as well - the right one. Email wise, and I realize this is merely anecdotal, my mail is running more than 10-to-1 in favor of people cooling their jets until Miers has her week before the Judiciary Committee Gasbags. A few of my favorites: I feel Ms. Miers is an accomplished woman with the skills to engage and negotiate with the other judges on the court. I also feel that the law school she graduated from is irrelevant at this point. Even with all the ivy league degrees on the court they make some really awful decisions (Kelo is a case in point). It will be refreshing for a successful person, not from that ivy rarified atomosphere, to breathe some fresh air into the deliberations. I also have to think that President Bush knows the character and abilities and values of his nominee and respect his choice, although I would have preferred another. Anchoress…I will say I was disappointed in the selection of Miers and have expressed it, but I have also linked and listened to others who disagree with me. I considered their views, and it has softened me enough to realize that it’s time to move ahead. Anchoress…re Coulter - The arrogance. The condescension. The upturned nose and arched eyebrow and withering, simpering sneer. Who does she think she is? A limousine liberal? Some Give-Harriet-A-Chance links: Dr. Sanity, a new Beldar, Varifrank, Major Mike, Newton, The Remedy Jonathan Adler Musing Minds. Those suggesting withdrawal of the nominee by a humiliated and president, or simply jeering from the sidelines: MoDo. http://theanchoressonline.com/2005/10/06/more-miers-i-must-i-must/trackback/ 10 Responses to “More Miers? I must, I must!” |
October 6th, 2005 at 10:21 am
A slam against your intellect, your faith and your sons is beneath contempt. Screw em!
October 6th, 2005 at 10:34 am
Yikes! That last email was rather nasty! Another over-educated elitist, no doubt.
I consider myself under-educated, too. But I read everything I can get my hands on. So perhaps I am self-educated? Therefore, I have to agree with an earlier emailer - the Law ain’t rocket science! More Common Sense (which seems to be decidedly UN-common) and less pontificating and extrapolating, would serve this Republic well.
Keep on Blogging, Ma’am!
October 6th, 2005 at 10:50 am
The last correspondent you mention does you great honor.
He/She cannot refute your arguments or logic. The only response is an hominem- a personal attsck- traditionally, the last refuge of the ill informed.
October 6th, 2005 at 11:37 am
Anchoress, maybe you should give me that jerk’s e-mail address, because this one deserves a big spanking!
How dare he insult your intelligence and your sons?
This one may have no clue that you have been featured in NRO - last Election 2004 aftermath, remember?
Yep, that guy attacked you because he/she proved to be its true self, by speaking out of the abundance of his heart.
He/she never respected you from the beginning!
And I dare that guy come here and refute you or me! I dare ya! I double-dare ya!
October 6th, 2005 at 11:46 am
Heh- not to worry, Newton. To be honest I laughed my head off when I read it. A year ago it might have bothered me…now? Pffft! I laugh!
October 6th, 2005 at 1:55 pm
Must be he was just funnin’ ya, eh? Tongue in cheek? I know the type.
#
It’s because you’re spot on… AGAIN. It’ll happen as it’s meant to happen and all this froth is maybe good, shaking up the *base* and getting rid of the ones that just never belonged to begin w/. Fall cleaning :).
#
Newton, your hot blod is showing. Both of you, keep up the great work!!
October 6th, 2005 at 1:56 pm
Hot blood, Newton. That hot blood.
October 6th, 2005 at 2:14 pm
I feel Ms. Miers is an accomplished woman with the skills to engage and negotiate with the other judges on the court. I also feel that the law school she graduated from is irrelevant at this point.
.
You know, I really do not understand why all these so-called, self-described “conservatives,” would entrust all the highest offices of this government to a bunch of admissions officers at liberal Ivy League and other elitist schools.
.
What school did George Washington graduate from again? or Ben Franklin? or Abraham Lincoln? Anyone? Anyone? Beuhler?
October 6th, 2005 at 4:50 pm
Anchoress…you’ve already admitted that you’re undereducated so why don’t you stop talking about Miers and the law which you don’t have the training to understand and stick to what you do best, writing about your religion and your sons.
Rude SOB.
October 6th, 2005 at 11:07 pm
Anchoress, can I play devil’s advocate here? As you know, I agree that conservatives need to cool their jets and give Miers a chance, but I’m trying to see both sides here (and I’m tired of always agreeing with you, because 99% of the time, I do:-)
First of all, when I consider Coulter’s remark about Ivy League conservatives, it seems to me she was not trying to be “elitist,” but making a valid point. I’ve always lived in liberal enclaves. When I was a liberal myself, I didn’t have to defend or explain my beliefs. I’d say “Reagan is an awful man! He’s going to blow up the world!” and everyone would just nod. It was when I became conservative and stopped believing in Conventional Liberal Wisdom that I actually had to think things through and defend myself. It is harder to be a conservative in D.C. or Chicago or Berkeley (or at any of the Ivy League schools) than it is in Dallas or Salt Lake City or Charleston - and the fact that you’re constantly challenged and berated toughens you up. I think that was the point Ann was trying to make. She’s made fun of the idiocies of Ivy League professors in the past - I certainly don’t think she believes they’re some sort of superior beings.
Secondly, I’m trying to be charitable toward your emailer. I don’t see where he (or she) insults your children or your religion. He simply says that’s what you write best about and that you’re not trained in the law. (I do take issue with the notion that only those formally trained in the law can express opinions about SC nominees, which reminds me of the dumb idea that you shouldn’t be pro-War on Terror unless you served in the military.)
Politically, I am much closer to you than I am to Mark Shea. I prefer Mark’s writings on the Church and on social issues and frequently disagree with his views on the WoT and Bush. I don’t think that saying that I like some things he writes more than other things is an insult to him, and I don’t think this emailer was trying to insult you or your family.
Believe me, by the standards of some of the email Coulter and Malkin receive, this emailer was Sir Galahad in comparison:-)