<p>" Well, I’d hope Driver is wearing something more than those shorts when she steps into that ring…"</p>
<p>Well, aren’t Republicans supposed to be known to play dirty? :D</p>
<p>Hey xig,
take off that Don King fright wig. We don’ need no stinkin’ fight promoter in the Parent’s Forum. We do just fine by ourselves. :)</p>
<p>TheDad is right about the conservative blogs and pundits going nuts this morning. I’m reserving judgement, but I thought these legal blogs had some interesting perspectives, if anyone is interested.
</p>
<p><a href=“http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2005/10/the_miers_nomin.html[/url]”>http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2005/10/the_miers_nomin.html</a>
Also,
Professor Eugene Volokh:
<a href=“The Volokh Conspiracy - -”>The Volokh Conspiracy - -;
<p>“Mediocre people need representation too.” </p>
<pre><code>– Sen. Roman Hruska (R-Neb.), upon the nomination of Harold Carswell to be Supreme Court justice [nominated by Richard M. Nixon]
</code></pre>
<p>I gotta give it to you, Driver, you’re game and you’re fast on your feet. I don’t know about going into the ring but I think maybe a spandex costume and a mask befitting your status as a defender of all Right-thinking, Right-leaning people everywhere. (Advice to novice costume wearers: check costume in mirror to see how it looks from rear before adopting it as permanent.)</p>
<p>Yes, well, xiggi forgot about the red/white/blue sequined sportsbra and the mirrored Ray-Bans, but other than that it was pretty accurate.</p>
<p>I’ll throw my law-student-feminist-conservative thoughts in here (yes, one can believe in the political, social, and economic equality of women but also want a decentralized government!):</p>
<p>I am starting to understand, on a gut level, why Bush is nominating these people. Recent confirmations have been about political ideology, not judicial temperment, intellect, and wisdom. That generates tremendous incentives to get candidates without a paper trail. The Dems really let me down (hard to do) during the Robert’s confirmation hearings - they did not drill away at his lack of time on the bench (almost a requirement for SJC nominess in modern times), and did not state that his lack of experience on the bench, coupled with a less than ideal temperment, makes him distinctly unqualified. But guess what? The Dems are too preoccupied with Roe to see that a Harvard man might not be qualified to sit on the Court. So is it a surprise that Bush nominated someone else with similar non-qualifications? If the senators are going to roll over and play dead on credentials in favour of attacking on politics, is anyone surprised?</p>
<p>There was a straight-up Federalist, conservative argument against confirming Roberts. No one made it. No one pointed out that a man who alternately respects (recent) precedent and the original intent of the Constitution would make decisions based on whichever method gives him the result he wants - ultimately rendering his decisions more arbitrary than his peers. At least you can count on Scalia to uphold flag-burning as a constitutionally-protected means of speech, as much as he hates flag-burning - this guy, heck, it’s going to be whatever fits his agenda. And boy, does he have an agenda.</p>
<p>But no, let’s roll over and play dead during the hearings. We don’t need to know how he will decide future cases, but we need to know his methodology. No one talked methodology. No one talked qualifications. There are 550 Harvard Law graduates every year - what makes this guy special? HLS does not impart experience that a mere 18 months on the bench did not impart. Can he lead the Court? Can he build consensus so we can get away from 5-4 splits on every issue? That’s qualifications! Law school was 30 years ago for this guy. No such luck… They tried to talk Roe, Casey, and Bollinger, and were (quite correctly) stonewalled. </p>
<p>Is it any surprise that Bush then picked a woman (hey, at least he did that - although I think that Janice Rogers Brown would have been a better choice - GOP would be happy with the hard-line conservative stance and the Dems would have looked like morons to oppose a black lady) with a similar lack of a track record? That will continue to happen until the senators start arguing qualifications, temperment, and wisdom - and stop arguing Roe. </p>
<p>Rant over.</p>
<p>Aries,
I’m about to crash, so I don’t have time to address your whole post in detail. But I recall reading that it was actually Reagan who made prior judicial experience the coin of the realm in the selection of SC nominees–specifically so that his people could go over their decisions and make sure they weren’t being snookered into another Warren (yes, it worked great, didn’t it?) Anyway, it’s a relatively new phenomenon, as Volokh notes in the piece I linked above. Interesting. And yes, Roe has distorted our political process like nothing since Dred Scott.</p>
<p>IMO, when you are talking about the Chief Justice, who is the leader of the highest court in the land, there are a few qualifications: judicial experience and the ability to create a consensus.</p>
<p>Maybe I’ve just read too many “5 majority, 3 concurring, 4 concurring in part and dissenting in part, and a handful of dissenters joined by a person who did not participate in the opinion” cases to really find someone qualified who has no proven ability to bring consensus to the Court. Maybe I’ve just read too many opinions which reverse the previous, similar case (but distinguish instead of reversing outright… and the case is then reversed later… and the new case is limited in its holding…) to think that someone’s methodology in approaching these cases is unimportant. </p>
<p>“I respect precedent.” Great. I’ve seen the precedent, and there’s a lot to respect any way you want to rule. </p>
<p>I looked up Mier’s bio online… oddly, kind of like the fact that she wasn’t Ivy educated. I’m an elitist education snob, but really think the idea of someone who went to the local schools, got a good education, and made something of herself (despite the lack of prep school, Ivy, more Ivy route) is good - will help, overall, to bring the court into the real world. Sandra Day O’Connor is phenomenally educated, but could only get a job as a legal secretary after graduation from Stanford - because that’s all women could do then. I do wonder if that experience is the reason why she was such a nuanced, thoughtful justice later - having not always trod the path of utter privilege. Just MHO.</p>
<p>First no one commented on my inability to pick the candidate. Thank you for that kindness.</p>
<p>Second, I am getting such a kick out of the Defend Bush at all costs crowd. You have been had…he isn’t fiscally conservative, he is out to build a world wide empire and he doesn’t give a hoot about real conservative values. The country is in far worse shape than it was when he was appointed by the previos supreme court. </p>
<p>The Bush family is a fraud. Look at how they talk about family values and then look at the values the Bush family practices…</p>
<p>I overestimated him, by thinking that he would appoint a conservative, he just wants hacks in their positions so they won’t criticize his administration. Conservatives must be wondering what they have done.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Second, I am getting such a kick out of the Defend Bush at all costs crowd. You have been had”</p>
<p>No, Mr. B, WE are the ones getting kicks from the Attack Bush at all cost crowd. You are always so fast to crow about the country being in worse shape ever.</p>
<p>We have not been HAD, because we KNOW how much worse our country would have been with the two empty suits who were picked as the best of your litter of misfits by your party. Yes, it could have been a lot worse had we continued on the same path of abject laissez-faire and Ponce Pilatus policies. For all we know, the terrorists might be using the USA as a punchbag and threaten every one of our cities with the same impunity given them by the Clinton regime. Obviously, I do not know if we would have a terrorist threat every other week, but neither do YOU. In the meantime, I rather have the heretics blowing themselves up in the path of a tank in Iraq than in Los Angeles. </p>
<p>Enjoy your mostly hollow critics for the next few years. In the meantime, we will see how history will ultimately judge Bush for all his perceived ineptitude and shortcomings.</p>
<p>It’s hard to attack Roberts on the experience issue. He was a clerk and protegee for a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and a major player in arguing consitutional law cases before the Court.</p>
<p>On this new nominee, beats me. I’m kinda waiting for the Falwell/Limbaugh crowd to start asking why she’s never been married. That should be unseemly in a way on the red-meat right wingers of the Grand Ole Party can muster.</p>
<p>Xiggi said:</p>
<p>“…because we KNOW how much worse our country would have been with the two empty suits who were picked as the best of your litter of misfits by your party.”</p>
<p>Yea, I remember last time. Record low unemployment. Government budget surplus. Record high stock markets. Prosperity all around. Heck, we could even travel abroad with respect. </p>
<p>Yea, Xiggi, times were tough back then. But Dubya came along and fixed all that…</p>
<p>I am reminded of that painting of dogs playing poker, reminds of this administration</p>
<p>“She isn’t going to be his father’s stealth nominee, IMO.”</p>
<p>No need. Once she gets shot down, George senior will be the next appointment, or maybe mom . . . Jeb?</p>
<p>This nomination stinks of more cronyism. You’d think Bush would have learned his lesson by now. But, it’s all about blind, unquestioning loyality with the Bushes.</p>
<p>Ariesathena:
Decentralized government??? What about the Bush administration (the most conservative administration we’ve ever had) would support the theory that conservatives are “for” decentralized government? Please tell us. You do realize of course that the very privileges you enjoy in 2005 (feminism, law student, and no doubt others) were brought about by hard-fighting liberal progressives?</p>
<p>
Dobson seems unconcerned.</p>
<p><a href=“Journalist & Public Relations jobs, search the latest vacancies | Cision Jobs”>Journalist & Public Relations jobs, search the latest vacancies | Cision Jobs;
<p>"Yea, I remember last time. Record low unemployment. Government budget surplus. Record high stock markets. Prosperity all around. Heck, we could even travel abroad with respect. </p>
<p>Yea, Xiggi, times were tough back then. But Dubya came along and fixed all that…"</p>
<p>Record low unemployment … How was the OUTLOOK at the end of 2000? Economic cycles are not very short. The problems of 2001 started in … guess when! </p>
<p>Government budget surplus. … and how large was the UNDERFUNDING of several critical department. By the way, how much did Clinton increased the budget of the Dept of Education during those glorious years of massive surplus? What would your guess be? 5% a year? 10% a year? How about ZERO! </p>
<p>Record high stock markets … and when did read the litany of complainst of people having lost their life savings? When did that illusory dot.com boom end? </p>
<p>Prosperity all around. … you must have lived in a different America. When the smoke and mirrors were lifted during 2001, the prosperity was as illusory as the former leader virtue. </p>
<p>Heck, we could even travel abroad with respect. … depends where you traveled, I suppose. You may disagree with our current foreign policy, but the Clinton years did NOTHING to earn a iota of respect for the US. We were respected under Reagan and Bush. Under Clinton, the world saw our weakness and lack of decision and took advantage of it. When did Al-Qaeda start becoming effective? When did the terrorist start to see that they could attack the US without fear of MUCH retaliation, except for a strong “look” by Mrs Notallthatbright. The only time the US lifted a finger was to diffuse the Zipper-affair. </p>
<p>The laissez-faire worked well for 6 years -as long as the policies from the former administrations worked and paid huge dividends. The effectiveness of the Clinton policies showed their full effect and impact starting in 2000. The question is, “What did he do with those wonderful revenues?” Please show me of effective our INVESTMENTS were? </p>
<p>A calendar is a powerful weapon to separate the truth from nostalgic souvenirs.</p>
<p>It’s wrong to have a Supreme Court justice who looks like she took makeup lessons from Tammy Faye Baker.</p>
<p>Xiggi,</p>
<p>You are a hoot! I suppose you’d like us all to believe the 6 bad years under Dubya was all Bill’s doing, and Bill’s prosperous years were due to Dubya’s father’s work? Please, I’m on the floor laughing.</p>
<p>Economies have cycles, yes, but not that long. Even the so called Dubya prosperity, as it exists right now, is so unevenly distributed that it’s scary.</p>
<p>Regarding our nation’s security, even with the complete control of all branches of our government, GWB could not quite supress the failings of his administration on national security issues. I think we may look back on 9-11 as one of the biggest security failures our country has ever had. And, it was on Dubya’s watch, not right after he took over, but sometime later.</p>
<p>You know, it’s a common strategy of weak leaders to “blame the other guy”, especially their predecessor. I see it in business, too. Soon, GWB will be blaming Carter, or Johnson.</p>
<p>“You are a hoot! I suppose you’d like us all to believe the 6 bad years under Dubya was all Bill’s doing, and Bill’s prosperous years were due to Dubya’s father’s work? Please, I’m on the floor laughing.”</p>
<p>Laugh all you want about me being a “hoot”. First off, your definition of bad and prosperous years is entirely a matter of interpretation. You obviously fail to address the solidity of the alleged prosperity under Bill Clinton. </p>
<p>How good is it to have massive tax revenues if there are based on fictive gains that will later be RECLAIMED? How well did your retirement portfolio fare when it was filled by dot.com pipedreams and other baseless businesses? When reality started to sink in, so did the real value of your assets. In other words, the return to reality was hard, but for Clinton fortunately quite timely. If the policies were sound, they should have lasted a bit longer than to 2000! </p>
<p>Again, it is rather hatd to identify the assets Clinton built or developed that was not a direct result of the policies set in motion by the Reagan administration. Under REagan, we may have BOUGHT peace at a great economic cost but it paid huge dividends for the following generations. Oh, I know that you will focus on the crippling impacts of the deficits, but the price for the absence of peace is even greater, as we are finding out in 2005. The timing of 9-11 was not an accident as it was a logical built-up on the response of the previous administration on the PRIOR WTC attack, not to mention the numerous other aggressions against our ships and embassies. And it seems that, at the time of the development of Al-Qaeda, we DID more resources to afford to build a better defense. Yet, we preferred to skimp on spending to make sure we would a nest-egg to dump into the famous lock-box. </p>
<p>As far as your comment that 9-11 happened under the watch of Dubya, I’ll simply refer to the various reports that establish the guilt of ALL parties. </p>
<p>Oh well, we all form our opinions based on our biases. You have yours, and I have mine. At least, I gave you the chuckle of the day! Now, I can go back to trying to understand Hume and Smith. :)</p>
<p>xiggi,
Thank you for a well reasoned counter. We will never agree, but I Do enjoy the discussion. I will learn far more from my arguments with you than from my lefty friends. </p>
<p>Peace.</p>
<p>BTW, who do Hume and Smith play for? (keep in mind that I am a Bostonian living on the south side of Chicago. Sox vs Sox tonight.)</p>