Wednesday, October 12, 2005

Elitist fury: Miers in the line of fire

It's coming to the point where the liberals may look on all she has endured and say, "you've earned a seat on the high court. Here, if it really makes Republicans that angry, take it."

It's getting beyond the point of pathetic. I'll admit to being a little disappointed at first at Miers nomination, but only because she didn’t fit into what I considered was the only thing we needed–a carbon copy of Scalia or Thomas. I'm definitely over it after, having gotten a more complete picture. One thing is perfectly clear--it's no longer ordinary pro-life advocates who are blubbering. Indeed, they should be very pleased with her appointment if they know anything about her.

Since the initial din of protest, the current noise seems to be mostly from Washington insiders upset she isn't stereotypical. No Ivy League school, no long record in politics, no party-line Republican history, nothing...nothing except a pristine record of skillful practice and conscientious, selfless service to God and country–how shocking someone would think that enough!

I think we've spent so much time fighting a politicized judiciary, we've forgotten what it could and perhaps should look like!

I half expected WORLD Magazine to reflect this kind of exasperation when I read their cover piece on Miss Miers. Marvin Olasky, in his usual level-headed way (as opposed to a Coulteresque tirade), examined her in great detail and as well as some of the reactions that have been going around. He did a lot of talking to those who know her best:
They see her as an evangelical who is meek—in the biblical sense of humble strength. For 25 years she has been a member of Valley View Christian Church in Dallas, a conservative evangelical church and not one of the city's fashionable ones. Never married, she has devoted herself to work, her extended family, and her church, serving on the missions committee for 10 years, teaching children in Sunday school, making coffee, and bringing donuts.

At the same time, she's practiced corporate law in a major Texas firm. Mr. Kinkeade calls her "a superstar here in Dallas before George Bush ever entered the picture." He believes that some critics are attacking her because "she's not from the East or West coasts—didn't go to an Ivy League law school. They don't like that."

I think it's time some people shut up and sit down. Stop ranting about Souter, OConnor and judicial trends, and just recognize that she is different from any previous nominee. If I black out all the naysayers and just look at her for who she is, I really like what I see.

One more thing: Rehnquist wasn't a judge before he was nominated to the supreme court. Why should that be a problem now?
<< Home 32 Comments:
Blogger Gloria said...

Okay I'll amit that I'm not very good at keeping up with politics but... She is pro-life isn't she? That is what I heard. I'm just wondering what they have against her.

7:36 PM, October 14, 2005  
Blogger Mark R said...

It's really not a matter of having something against her. It's just most conservatives figured we needed someone who would be controversial in order for them to be worth the battle.

Really, it boils down to those of them thinking she's going to be another David Souter--in other words, turn liberal when she reaches the bench...which is a reactionary argument that ignores her extremely different background compared to Souter.

1:35 PM, October 15, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"... teaching children in Sunday school, making coffee, and bringing donuts."

Heck, and I thought she wasn't qualified for the Supreme Court.

If it wasn't so serious I would find it so funny.

But it is serious and "bringing donuts" is EXACTLY WHAT CONCERNS ME about Miers.

I have been around quite a while and I have known actually quite a few "ladies and gentlemen" in politics. They were in the end made laughingstocks of. They were abused mocked, ridiculed and of course since they were "ladies and gentlemen" they treated those who opposed them with politeness, with courtesy, oh, and of course as colleagues.

Politics is no place for a lady. Politics is no place for a gentleman, and it is CERTAINLY NO PLACE for a SUNDAY SCHOOL TEACHER. It is a rough place where Sunday School morality doesn't cut it. In such a place we need A FIGHTER.

And as for the donuts, well the other Supreme Court Justices and their staff can get their own #$#!! DONUTS!

"... teaching children in Sunday school, making coffee, and bringing donuts."

A Sunday School Teacher who brings the donuts? She has no place even being involved in politics. Much less on one of the most important political positions in America.

We need a FIGHTER. NOT A SUNDAY SCHOOL TEACHER.

Miers is going to so disappoint us. How do I know? Well I have been disappointed by Ellen Craswell, and Harold Hochstatter among so many other "ladies and gentlemen".

I know you don't know either of those two names. Well suffice to say that both of those people are great Americans. They are great Christians and probably would be the best neighbors one could ever wish for.

Both ran for Governor of Washington State and lost. Lost BIG TIME. They were too polite. They weren't fighters

And yes, although I don't know this for a fact, I would be surprised if they didn't bring donuts to their churches as well.

4:39 PM, October 15, 2005  
Blogger Gloria said...

Oh! That makes more sense. Just a thought wouldn't it be better to give her a chance before saying that she might just be another Souter. Not everyone in politics are are I think of the word right now to describe it. But I think just give her a chance and see how she does. Is their anyone else out there that you can say for certain will not do the same thing as Souter.

4:40 PM, October 15, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"... teaching children in Sunday school, making coffee, and bringing donuts."

I am not joking here. I do take quite seriously the above quote as a reason why WE DON'T WANT MIERS.

Miers is probably a great lady. She would probably be a great neighbor and most likely I would want my children to be in her Sunday School Class.

BUT…

We aren't talking about that here. We are talking about her being one of 9 of a group that is among the most powerful people on Earth - FOR LIFE!

I know, probably more than you do the pressures of being a conservative in a liberal environment. Politicians probably more than most others WANT TO BE LIKED.

You have no idea what it is to go into a place day after day and being perceived by everyone around you as ENEMY NUMBER ONE. To go into a place and be despised every single day by most everyone among you. It takes a strong person to fight the all too human tendency to behave in a way to try to get people to like you.

Miers doesn't have the stomach for it. She will want to have donuts with Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the only way she will be able to do that is to back off on doing anything that would offend her.

Being liked may seem like Kindergartner stuff, but it really does have a significant and under appreciated effect on how conservatives behave once they get into office.

And add to that the fact that as ladies and gentlemen many conservatives want to treat liberals peers in office as colleagues and afford them some respect, it really does take a bulldog to counteract all that stuff.

A Bulldog. Not a Sunday School Teacher!

4:43 PM, October 15, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The problem with "just giving her a chance" is that Supreme Court Justices are appointed FOR LIFE.

If we find out that Bush made a "mistake" that can't be corrected. She is there for life. And with the weight of what is at stake we just can't "just give her at chance." It is just too high of a risk for us to take.

There are other qualified women out there who we know and we wouldn't have to "just give her a chance" because they have a proven track record.

4:50 PM, October 15, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, wait.

If Miers is supposed to be like this Super Christian Lady Sunday School Teacher why did she donate money to AL GORE?

Something is beginning to smell here beyond the burnt coffee and stale moldy donuts.

Don't forget 7 out of 9 of our current Justices have been appointed by REPUBLICANS.

Yet they keep on rulling to the Far Left.

There is a saying …Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice SHAME ON ME.

We have been fooled by Republican Presidents before on their Supreme Court Justice choices. MORE THAN ONCE.

Or is this kind of thinking too "elitist" for you?

4:52 PM, October 15, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not that the pro-life issue isn't important for it is very important.

But there are other very important issues other than pro-life issues that she will face.

How will she rule on those issues?

And, even if she is pro-life, would she use the fact that Roe-Wade is precident as an accuse for saying that it shouldn't be overruled?

5:01 PM, October 15, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry, I meant to say, excuse.

I could see her claiming to be pro-life but still saying that she will not overturn roe-vs. wade because it is precident.


And I have other issues that I am concerned about as well. Such as local government being able to take your land because they can sell it to someone who would produce something on that land that will give the city more tax revenue than you would.

But Miers is a blank slate on everything.

It didn't have to be that way. There were many women out there with a track record. People who we could count on.

Not a wildcard like Miers who might turn out to be worst than David Souter. We just can't afford to take that chance.

And the person she replaced, Sandra Day O'Connell, she was appointed by of all people, Reagan, yet she voted with the Leftist members of the Court all too often.

5:08 PM, October 15, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I think it's time some people shut up and sit down"

What could be more elitist than saying that.

Look to you people I might just live in "fly over" country but I will not shut up nor will I sit down when so much is at stake!

It's about time that the Bush people start listening to "fly over" country. We were the ones who elected him.

And we will be the ones who will bring him and his Republican elite down if need be!

5:15 PM, October 15, 2005  
Blogger Mark R said...

Anonymous...

First--you could put it all in one comment next time...or put a sock in it.

Second--do you think it's a surprise to me that a former Democrat gave to a Democratic candidate? Why should that disturb me?

Third--the fact that you can't seem to discuss her for who she is, instead turning to other people to make your point(s), (be it Ellen Craswell, Souter, O'Connor, Bulldogs, Sunday School Teacher, Coffee maker or donut bringer), tells me you aren't committed to examining her at all. Perhaps you would consider reading the rest of the WORLD piece?

Fourth--let me commend you on the improvement in language from the HWTR comments. It shows a certain insight on kind of the audience I have here.

Fifth--it's a good thing Bush didn't nominate you, even though he could legally do so, and is not morally or ethically constrained to nominate any particular person. He can nominate whoever he wants.

Sixth--who's we? I mean really...you want to talk elitism!

Seventh--do you think that Bush is only in office so he can name someone to the high court who has a carbon-copy of your views implanted into them?

Eighth--"I know, probably more than you do the pressures of being a conservative in a liberal environment....You have no idea what it is to go into a place day after day and being perceived by everyone around you as ENEMY NUMBER ONE. To go into a place and be despised every single day by most everyone among you."

That's sounds pretty dreadful. However, you don't have the corner on the market of sob stories--you make me wonder if you live under the Taliban. Since I am a senior journalism student at a green college, I kind of know what you mean. But still...even if you or I held a sign that says "I hate you all and you are going to hell," I don't think we would be considered enemy number one. It would be a flattering thing indeed to be able to claim that much power.

Ok...the 9th 10th 11th and many more points are probably not worth my time. I don't think I should have bothered responding but whatever.

Have a good day (if that is possible)

8:21 PM, October 15, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is the elitists who want her because she won't make waves. Elitists hate waves.

It's the grassroots who have seen this nomination for what it is. It's an INSULT!

SO, let's get this straight. If you don't like Miers, that makes you a sexist even though you might recognize that there are other more qualitified women than her out there.

Some names that come to mind are Edith Brown Clement, Edith Jones, Karen Williams, and saving the best for last Janice Rogers Brown.

And since we are being oh so PC here by only considing women, consider this If Janice Rogers Brown were appointed to the Supreme Court, she would become the first African-American woman Justice. Something we could shove into the faces of liberals for years.

But, nooooo. Bush has to go appoint a "meek Sunday School teacher who makes coffee and brings donuts to church" (the proponents' description of her not mine).

It makes me wonder who the real sexists are here now.

And also since I was rooting for Janice Rogers Brown I guess that makes BUSH A RACIST for not appointing her! The Bush adminstration started the game by calling opposition to Miers sexist, so I believe it is only fair to just in the spirit of playing along in the same game call him a white RACIST!

8:51 PM, October 15, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"That's sounds pretty dreadful. However, you don't have the corner on the market of sob stories--you make me wonder if you live under the Taliban. Since I am a senior journalism student at a green college, I kind of know what you mean. "

Here's hoping (and I am being serious here) that you are much stronger than me.

But if you are going to get anywhere you won't be.

So have fun at all the diversity training classes you will be attending. And I hope no one has targeted you for destruction as I has seen so many people been targeted. Even recently my liberal sister. Yea, she was liberal but even that didn't protect her. She defended her boss. I told her not to, but she didn't listen.

And regarding the Taliban yeah, they were a bunch of pussycats compared to those who I have been forced to work around.

8:59 PM, October 15, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

At least with the Taiban they only kill you once.

These people I am around kill you a 1000 times over, day by day.

9:09 PM, October 15, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This nomination shows that Bush has absolutely no respect for the base that brought him to office.

As I have said, I don't want a Sunday School Teacher for Supreme Court Justice. But let's get real here. SHE DONATED TO ALGORE.

She is not some Sunday School Teacher but some slick political operative who will swing whichever way she thinks benefits her the most.

Which on the Supreme Court means she will swing to the left.

We have too many slick opportunists masquerading as conservatives in Washington DC already. Political operatives who wait until they find the most opportune situation to stab us in the backs. We don't need one on the Supreme Court.

So, regardless of whether she is this meek little coffee making, donut bringing, Sunday School teacher as the Bush adminstration is trying to protray her as, or as her donation to Algore indicates a slick political opportunist she is the wrong person for the Supreme Court.

As Ann Coulter says Harriet Miers isn't even qualified to play a Supreme Court justice on "The West Wing."

9:22 PM, October 15, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Seventh--do you think that Bush is only in office so he can name someone to the high court who has a carbon-copy of your views implanted into them?"

Actually I thought he was only in office to lose Iraq in precisely the same fashion we lost Vietnam (putting political considerations over military ones).

When it comes to war, Bush is becoming even more PC than Clinton. When Clinton bombed Belegrade he specificially targeted cilivan targets including enemy news radio and tv towers and even managed to hit the Chinese embassey there. Sure, it was only to deflect from his rape charges but the point is when he went to war, he didn't give a damn about Geneva or even a few Chinese ambassadors.

But the Bush adminstration freaks out when there are unconfirmed reports that a US solider maybe, accidentially got some dust on a Gitmo's prisoners Koran. We will find those soldiers responsible and they will pay!

From an almost perfect invasion of Iraq, Bush has squandered this "mission accomplished" and have made the rules of engagement so restrictive that soldiers are getting killed for fear of violating them.

His father was called a wimp. Well at least people didn't die because of it. Bush started out in Iraq very strong, but now has become a wimp in fighting this war. And soldiers are dying as a result.

9:48 PM, October 15, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a top Liberal ACLU lawyer was confirmed by the Senate by a 96 to 3 vote.

Where were the Republican Senators back then?

Can you see why I can't trust either Bush or Republican Senators to act in our interests now!

9:58 PM, October 15, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bush is allowing our men and women to die so he can be politically correct.

10:04 PM, October 15, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Specter said Miers "might have potential to be an outstanding Supreme Court justice if given a chance" -- although he also told The New York Times that she would need a "crash course in constitutional law" if she's confirmed.

This is like recommending a plumber by saying, "He's a very professional guy, but he lacks experience in plumbing." - Ann Coutler.

Yeah, the Supreme Court is an internship.

But I like what Buchanan said the best.

"This is a faith-based initiative," he said. "The president of the United States is saying, 'Trust me.' And when you have the decisive vote on the United States Supreme Court, that is not enough."

10:35 PM, October 15, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Third--the fact that you can't seem to discuss her for who she is..."

Well perhaps that is because WE DON'T KNOW WHO SHE IS. Bush precisely nominated her because no one knew anything about her. She is the quintessential stealth candidate.

So lacking knowledge about her specifically, one turns to history.

One turns to the fact that although 7 out of the 9 sitting Justices were appointed by Republican President's the Court has continued to move further and further to the left.

I also turn to my experience of people like who "those who know her best (her cats?)" describe her as being. Which is, well at least this is the Adminstration's spin, a meek, Sunday School teacher who makes coffee and brings donuts". I think of the effect that I have found people of like temperament and mindset has had politically, and when I think of my own personal observations of such people it raises grave concerns.

But then, I must also look at if there is any information that might contradict this "meek Sunday School, Coffee Making, Donut Brinking" persona that the Bush adminstration for some reason wants to give her.

And there is something that contradicts such a persona. A donation to Al Gore.

People only donate to a candidate for two reasons. Either she believes in what Al Gore believes in, or she thought she could receive some political benefit from the donation.

And in that case, either way, it doesn't bode that well for conservatives.

So common sense and experience proves that Miers is a very bad choice for a seat on the Supreme Court.

Especially for the seat on the highest bench that will be the deciding voice on the critical issues of today.

11:03 PM, October 15, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Coffee Making, Donut Bringing, Sunday School teacher persona, I mean."

By the way she has proven by her change from Democrat to Republican that she will change her views over time. Either that or that she will change her affliation to suit her best interests at the time.

And if she has changed before, it makes it likely that she will change again. And history says that she will become more Leftist in her views.

How do you justify her donation to Al Gore then?

She didn't know what Al Gore was all about? So, she is stupid then? I don't think she is qualified for the Supreme Court, but she isn't that stupid.

She knew what Al Gore was all about but for some political reasons it benefited her to donate money to the Left. Oh, then the is a political opportunist then.

She once believed in what Al Gore believed in, but before meeting up with Bush suddenly had a revelation that all she had previously believe was wrong? Or then her views have been known to shift over the years? Might they shift again?

Miers is so obviously a bad choice. I am insulted that Bush thought that he could get this through without conservatives noticing. Perhaps he didn't care. And that offends me too.

11:13 PM, October 15, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous: After skimming through your comments, I come out with a profound sense of confusion. Just who is this Miers woman? Is she a naive, donut-dunking schoolmarm completely incapable of governing anyone more mature than a rabble of children? Or is she a grasping and deviously brilliant political opportunist who plans to show her true Liberal colours as soon as she secures office? She is either naive or devious: one cannot be both at once. Make up your mind.
In reference to your continual persecution by those who make pussy-cats of the Taliban; you minimalize the terror and sacrifice of those who were slaughtered mercilessly. Shame on you.
I won't go further: I am a Canadian and slightly ignorant of American politics. However, that very ignorance lends objectivity to what I've observed. Think carefully before you respond and thankyou in advance.
Ruth.

9:37 PM, October 16, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ruth thank you for your comments.

Regarding Myers, the problem is no one really knows what she is.

The Bush Adminstration wants to protray her as this meek Sunday School teacher who is committed to her church. Someone who brings the donuts and makes the coffee.

And, if this is the case, well that concerns me for reasons I went into in previous posts.

But then, after thinking about the fact that she is a lawyer (not a profession for the meek) and that she donated to Al Gore, I realized that she can't be what the Bush Adminstration is trying to protray her as. She seems like a political opportunist to me.

But my main point was either way she is a bad choice for the Supreme Court.

As to comparing my situation to the Taliban, you do have a point and I want to apologize. I was working off of what Mark said and engaging in hyperbole but you are correct about that being inappropriate.

That said, there are different forms of terror, and while not nearly as bad as living under the Taliban, the terror that these people cause is still real.

No doubt, if they didn't have the consitution to restrant them, they would become as bad as the Taliban. They are certainly like them in mentality.

8:56 AM, October 17, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"She is either naive or devious:"

Exactly.

Either way it doesn't bode well for the Conservatives.

Miers is a mystery, but I am strongly leaning towards devious.

9:21 AM, October 17, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

By the way, we wouldn't be having this problem if he had nominated Janice Rogers Brown.

She has a track record to prove who she is.

This seat on the Supreme Court will be the deciding voice on what the direction of the Court will be. That is why this situation is so unique and why it is more important than ever to get someone we are pretty sure is conservative and won't turn Lefty and legislate from the bench.

This isn't a time to give someone the benefit of the doubt, or give her a chance. Too much is at stake to do that.

9:34 AM, October 17, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don't you think they would chop off Rush Limbaugh's head for example if they had the opportunity and they knew they wouldn't be arrested for it?

I believe they would.

And that ISN'T engaging in hyperbole.

9:43 AM, October 17, 2005  
Anonymous interested eNDeR said...

Hey, Anonymous-
What on earth is the point of taking so much time, effort, and space on someone else's blog(discourteously, I might add) to try to prove a point which was clear in the first few sentences? You actually seem to have made the presence of your numerous and voluminous comments most unwelcome to many of us readers without-make no mistake-convincing us of your argument.
What else is there for me to say? Should I just up and ask you not to make any more comments? Well, I could try to be polite, but what is the sense in that? Shouldn't I be a "FIGHTER" if I want to make a point, i.e. be victorious in my endeavor?
I would like to read actual, meaningful dialogue instead of a seeming fanatic's heated and disrespectful diatribe.

12:09 PM, October 18, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I will not be respectful when I see conservatives working against their own interests by supporting a choice to the Supreme Court that will surely disappoint us.

I will not be respectful while I watch our so-called President waste perhaps the last chance to take this country back from the liberal tyrants.

There is too much at stake.

And conservatives have been respectful for too long.

7:30 PM, October 18, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

[Bill] O'Reilly told Newsday that he receives death threats and has to hire bodyguards.

Not the Tailban.

Yeah, but they want to be.

10:57 PM, October 18, 2005  
Anonymous Interested eNDeR said...

Does anyone else think that perhaps the character trait of Respect is part of what makes us conservatives?

Food for thought.

I desire wisdom and understanding.

5:35 AM, October 28, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You will never receive the respect that you so crave from the liberals. To them you are the enemy.

10:14 PM, October 28, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You want respect from the liberals?

Do you want respect from Al Quada as well?

I have no respect for either the liberals or al Quada.

By showing respect for liberals and in the context of what we were talking about "conservative" elected officials showing respect for their liberal "collegues" it only ensures that the liberals will be victorous.

Years from now you can tell your children that yes we lost our country but we were respectful to them as they were taking our country from us.

11:21 PM, October 28, 2005  

Post a Comment