Yes, Hysteria
1. I would direct your question right back at you. How do you know Miers ISN'T a constitutionalist? Why are you so all-fired sure she is a disaster? Tell me your separate definitions of "conservative" and "constitutionalist." Most conservatives I know, REAL conservatives, ARE constitutionalists. To me, a conservative justice IS a constitutional justice. Guess I'm just "refusing to see" your logic. I'll go you one further. I think her evangelical Christianity is a PLUS, an item in her favor. Why don't you? Would you rather have someone with no religious foundation as your "constitutionalist" justice? Most of our Founders had Christian backgrounds and beliefs. Why don't you want the same in the Supreme Court justices? While being an evangelical Christian is certainly not the only consideration in choosing a nominee, I certainly do not think it is "irrelevant."
We are you so sure she will not change the balance of the Court for the better? Do you think she will be liberal...or, excuse me, "non-constitutionalist?" Why do you think that? Why do you call her an "empty skirt?" You don't know the woman, you know little about her, but you're certainly willing to disrespect and insult her.
2. Yes, "hysteria." And yes, I've read every word of your posts. That word doesn't only encompass your posts. I include all the hand-wringing, Eeyore sites who have lamented the downfall of conservatism and the end of America because of this nomination. Hysteria is the *perfect* word for it, because there has been a gross over-reaction to this on our part. Chuck Schumer said yesterday that we're doing the Democrats' work for them regarding Harriet Miers. Hey, way to go guys.
3. Yes, I did read what Ed Gillespie said. I don't agree with him. I don't think there is sexism or elitism involved in the Right's tantrum regarding Harriet Miers. If there is no "going back" from this rupture, then I would assert that it is the people moving away and making room for the Democrats to roar back in who will be responsible. You are acting as if Bush nominated a flaming liberal. He did not.
4. Well, I'm glad you at least acknowledge that the President has the right to pick who he thinks is best for the job. And of course you're entitled to your opinion and to let him know what you think. But the continued braying and pounding is doing no one any good. And no, I don't hope the Republicans vote down this nomination. Sorry. If she were half as awful as you are pretending to know, then yeah, I would. But you really have nothing to prove that she is going to be another Souter. I have nothing to prove that she is going to be another Scalia, either, but I'm not throwing a fit until I actually have something to go on. I'll be watching the hearings carefully and THEN will pass judgment on her. Pity my conservative brothers and sisters refuse to extend to her, and the President, the same courtesy.
5. The only answer I have to this is that we don't know. Bush knows her, and obviously has confidence in her. Rove, Cheney both have confidence in her and think she's a good pick. They know a lot more about her than we do. Again, I don't see any reason for the notion that she is a disastrous pick.
6. The Left's tactics I was referring to are the continous, unrelenting attacks on Miers and President Bush. The anti-Miers conservatives are not content to merely state their case, express their disappointment, and move on. They are intent on pounding away at them until...heck, I don't know what your end goal is. You have done a lot more than just say Miers is unqualified...something you really can't know for sure because elsewhere you admit to knowing little about her. How can you have it both ways? It is for the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate to determine whether or not she is qualified, that's what "Advise and Consent" means. In this very post, you list what you see are Bush's failures while in office. None of these things has anything to do with Miers, yet you feel compelled to list them in order to...what? Now you feel Bush is blowing the war (despite the good reports that leak around the MSM), has screwed up the economy (even though most economic indicators are quite good), screwed up our borders (okay, he needs to work on that), etc.? Heck, what are you worried about? You should be GLAD his presidency is "over" if he sucks that much.
As for Mr. Fein's contentions, now, he IS arrogant.
"The idea Miss Miers would be intellectually equipped to write for the ages is preposterous, like believing an amateur writer would surpass Shakespeare if awarded a Nobel Prize."
"Mediocre minds resist challenges to prevailing orthodoxies, which means Miss Miers would neither disturb nor confine the court's outlandish privacy, racial preference, church-state, death penalty, campaign finance, or enemy combatant decrees."
Sounds like he thinks she's pretty stupid. Wonder if he's ever even met her? My rebuttal to him is the same as my rebuttal to you: NEITHER of you know enough about her to be passing judgment on her. Certainly not to the degree that is being demonstrated by those who oppose her.
Kinda like I emailed Kathryn Lopez this morning. She was at the shindig for NR's 50th Anniversary yesterday, as were most of the Corner contributors, shaking hands and smiling with the President. I asked her if she thought maybe he might have felt a little twinge in his back.
We are you so sure she will not change the balance of the Court for the better? Do you think she will be liberal...or, excuse me, "non-constitutionalist?" Why do you think that? Why do you call her an "empty skirt?" You don't know the woman, you know little about her, but you're certainly willing to disrespect and insult her.
2. Yes, "hysteria." And yes, I've read every word of your posts. That word doesn't only encompass your posts. I include all the hand-wringing, Eeyore sites who have lamented the downfall of conservatism and the end of America because of this nomination. Hysteria is the *perfect* word for it, because there has been a gross over-reaction to this on our part. Chuck Schumer said yesterday that we're doing the Democrats' work for them regarding Harriet Miers. Hey, way to go guys.
3. Yes, I did read what Ed Gillespie said. I don't agree with him. I don't think there is sexism or elitism involved in the Right's tantrum regarding Harriet Miers. If there is no "going back" from this rupture, then I would assert that it is the people moving away and making room for the Democrats to roar back in who will be responsible. You are acting as if Bush nominated a flaming liberal. He did not.
4. Well, I'm glad you at least acknowledge that the President has the right to pick who he thinks is best for the job. And of course you're entitled to your opinion and to let him know what you think. But the continued braying and pounding is doing no one any good. And no, I don't hope the Republicans vote down this nomination. Sorry. If she were half as awful as you are pretending to know, then yeah, I would. But you really have nothing to prove that she is going to be another Souter. I have nothing to prove that she is going to be another Scalia, either, but I'm not throwing a fit until I actually have something to go on. I'll be watching the hearings carefully and THEN will pass judgment on her. Pity my conservative brothers and sisters refuse to extend to her, and the President, the same courtesy.
5. The only answer I have to this is that we don't know. Bush knows her, and obviously has confidence in her. Rove, Cheney both have confidence in her and think she's a good pick. They know a lot more about her than we do. Again, I don't see any reason for the notion that she is a disastrous pick.
6. The Left's tactics I was referring to are the continous, unrelenting attacks on Miers and President Bush. The anti-Miers conservatives are not content to merely state their case, express their disappointment, and move on. They are intent on pounding away at them until...heck, I don't know what your end goal is. You have done a lot more than just say Miers is unqualified...something you really can't know for sure because elsewhere you admit to knowing little about her. How can you have it both ways? It is for the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate to determine whether or not she is qualified, that's what "Advise and Consent" means. In this very post, you list what you see are Bush's failures while in office. None of these things has anything to do with Miers, yet you feel compelled to list them in order to...what? Now you feel Bush is blowing the war (despite the good reports that leak around the MSM), has screwed up the economy (even though most economic indicators are quite good), screwed up our borders (okay, he needs to work on that), etc.? Heck, what are you worried about? You should be GLAD his presidency is "over" if he sucks that much.
As for Mr. Fein's contentions, now, he IS arrogant.
"The idea Miss Miers would be intellectually equipped to write for the ages is preposterous, like believing an amateur writer would surpass Shakespeare if awarded a Nobel Prize."
"Mediocre minds resist challenges to prevailing orthodoxies, which means Miss Miers would neither disturb nor confine the court's outlandish privacy, racial preference, church-state, death penalty, campaign finance, or enemy combatant decrees."
Sounds like he thinks she's pretty stupid. Wonder if he's ever even met her? My rebuttal to him is the same as my rebuttal to you: NEITHER of you know enough about her to be passing judgment on her. Certainly not to the degree that is being demonstrated by those who oppose her.
Kinda like I emailed Kathryn Lopez this morning. She was at the shindig for NR's 50th Anniversary yesterday, as were most of the Corner contributors, shaking hands and smiling with the President. I asked her if she thought maybe he might have felt a little twinge in his back.
posted by Jennifer at 3:36 AM
<<< Home