The Fly Refisks Anachronism
Anachronism has fisked my Harriet Miers post. Behold, I present to you, the re-fisking.
Okay, fine, Earl Warren wasn't a fine conservative justice. You have absolutely no basis for writing my point off; it's absolutely valid and supportable by history: great Supreme Court justices, even moderate ones who are still spoken highly of by strong conservatives, have come to the bench without any judicial experience whatsoever. Let's say your beefs with Warren were valid; your criteria would still have prevented Rehnquist from coming to the bench, and I don't think anyone in the conservative movement would have cared for that.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it's completely inconclusive. Your "out on a limb" is pure speculation, mine is based on recent history. Mine's based on evidence, yours is based on gut reaction. I'll stick with mine.
If you'll excuse my saying so, and try not to take this personally, but you're a twenty-one year old microbiology major without a degree. With all due respect to "what you want", the fact that I want someone fair and impartial, regardless of qualifications, cancels out your desire to have an outstanding constitutional lawyer. Now you show your ignorance of history, in that the Constitution of the United States was specifically written to be simple enough for anyone of sound mind and moderate education to interpret. The whole point is that rich fat cats with access to better education and personnel aren't supposed to have a corner on understanding the Constitution. As far as I'm concerned, "constitutional attorneys" are nothing more than people whose professional qualification is a knowledge of how to bastardize and circumvent the Constitution, and I don't think that's the right qualification to put on the bench in the first place.
With all due respect, Anachronism, you're not a prominent conservative. If you were, and had a strong conservative record (like Harriet Miers does), I would have no problem whatsoever supporting your nomination to the Supreme Court. I think that the two of us are both qualified to be Supreme Court justices. Call it imbecilic if you'd like, but I don't see how you can jump to an accusation of "outcome-based approach" based on that statement. You and I both believe correctly in the original intent of the Founders, and we both correctly desire for the Constitution to be as dead as that elk I shot two years ago. Given those standards, a person's background shouldn't matter.
I reject your claim that President Bush* has "screwed conservatives quite a few times", and I think you're once again oversimplifying the political situation in this country. Whether you want to piss and moan about a minor issue like steel tariffs, or the prescription drug bill, or most of your other beefs about President Bush, he is a conservative.
Let's take this further. Let's look at several cases that have, in one way or another, been prominent or important in our generation.
In December of 2000, the court heard the case of Bush v. Gore, and seven of nine justices determined that the recounts in Florida had to cease, and the Supreme Court followed the Constitution, even several of the liberal justices. Clear cut, simple decision, and the election went to George Bush because he had legally and legitimately won the majority of electoral votes, even though he'd lost the election with respect to the popular vote. Logic stated that Al Gore should have won the election because more people voted for him; law stated that George Bush won the election, and the Supreme Court decided on the basis of the Constitution, in an essentially bi-partisan decision.
In 1973, the Supreme Court waved its magic wand and conjured both a right to privacy and a right to "choice" in the case of Roe v. Wade. Informed conservatives, many of whom have no formal training in constitutional law, recognize the ruling to be a massive joke, with no Constitutional basis. The decision had nothing to do with a strong grasp of the Constitution; it was as much a fabrication as The Da Vinci Code or a Hostess Twinkie. And who was one of only two dissenting justices? William Rehnquist, whose qualifications upon nomination to his post were not dissimilar to Ms. Miers' qualifications. Many conservatives want Roe v. Wade to be struck down, though few are intelligent enough to want it struck down on the basis of its total lack of Constitutional standing. I want abortion to be illegal (save for extreme circumstances), but I want it to be illegal the right way: through legislative means, and not by legislation from the bench.
The same is true of the recent attempts to get any and every possible court, state or federal, with jurisdiction over Florida to "save" Teri Schiavo. I didn't really care if Teri Schiavo lived or died (though I thought at the time that it was time for Mrs. Schiavo's parents to let her die, and I feel that the autopsy results lend validity to my position); I did, however, think that any and all attempts to federalize a state issue in a blatant attempt to "save" Teri Schiavo, by means of variable legality, were absolutely deplorable. In the same way that I don't want liberal federal judges to invent a fictional institution called "gay marriage", I also don't want conservative federal judges to intervene where they don't belong to "save" people or "do the right thing".
This has turned into a bit of an incoherent rant, though I feel I've sufficiently swatted away your "flaying of my bullets". The point is that I don't care what a nominee's judicial record is; judicial records have proven, recently, to be an inconclusive factor in a justice's Supreme Court voting record. I also don't care what a person's leanings are; if they're objective, fair, and impartial, their own leanings shouldn't be a factor. I think that Harriet Miers will be a competent, qualified, conservative nominee; I also think that a difficult time from Democrats would help to push her further to the right, just as it did in the case of Justice Thomas. The scathing, mouth-foaming criticism from one side of the conservative movement could push Ms. Miers to the left once she's confirmed (and she will be confirmed), and in the meantime, it makes all of us look like absolute morons in front of our political rivals.
Nice try, but you're going to have to do better than that.
* I call President Bush by his title, I call President Clinton by his title, I call Senator Kerry by his title. I think that immature nicknames like "W." for President Bush, or "Rummy" for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld are nothing more than a complete lack of rhetorical decorum. It's one thing to use names like "Lurch" (Kerry) or "Skeletor" (Strom Thurmond) in jest; when one is engaged in serious rhetoric, these pseudonyms are in poor taste.
Names like "Shrillary" or "The Hildebeast" when referencing Senator Clinton are, of course, the one notable exception.
1. Earl Warren was a fine conservative justice? Um...Fly, for a historian you can be impressively ignorant of history at times. As for your larger point, it's a straw man. I and others are not opposing her because she's never been a judge, we're opposing her because she has no experience in constitutional law.
Okay, fine, Earl Warren wasn't a fine conservative justice. You have absolutely no basis for writing my point off; it's absolutely valid and supportable by history: great Supreme Court justices, even moderate ones who are still spoken highly of by strong conservatives, have come to the bench without any judicial experience whatsoever. Let's say your beefs with Warren were valid; your criteria would still have prevented Rehnquist from coming to the bench, and I don't think anyone in the conservative movement would have cared for that.
2. Yes, some people with conservative records have turned on us, but that hardly means we shouldn't look for conservative records. I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that people with strong conservative records are less likely to be liberal Justices than people without strong conservative records.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it's completely inconclusive. Your "out on a limb" is pure speculation, mine is based on recent history. Mine's based on evidence, yours is based on gut reaction. I'll stick with mine.
3. Sure, Miers is a good lawyer, but I want an outstanding constitutional lawyer. She isn't. Which leads me to the next point.
If you'll excuse my saying so, and try not to take this personally, but you're a twenty-one year old microbiology major without a degree. With all due respect to "what you want", the fact that I want someone fair and impartial, regardless of qualifications, cancels out your desire to have an outstanding constitutional lawyer. Now you show your ignorance of history, in that the Constitution of the United States was specifically written to be simple enough for anyone of sound mind and moderate education to interpret. The whole point is that rich fat cats with access to better education and personnel aren't supposed to have a corner on understanding the Constitution. As far as I'm concerned, "constitutional attorneys" are nothing more than people whose professional qualification is a knowledge of how to bastardize and circumvent the Constitution, and I don't think that's the right qualification to put on the bench in the first place.
4. Fly writes that, "I'd be satisfied to have a prominent conservative with no legal qualifications sitting on the court." So I should put my name in next opening? Seriously, this argument has reached the level of imbecility. This is exactly the sort of outcome-based approach to the constitution that we conservatives have long (and rightly) condemned in liberals.
With all due respect, Anachronism, you're not a prominent conservative. If you were, and had a strong conservative record (like Harriet Miers does), I would have no problem whatsoever supporting your nomination to the Supreme Court. I think that the two of us are both qualified to be Supreme Court justices. Call it imbecilic if you'd like, but I don't see how you can jump to an accusation of "outcome-based approach" based on that statement. You and I both believe correctly in the original intent of the Founders, and we both correctly desire for the Constitution to be as dead as that elk I shot two years ago. Given those standards, a person's background shouldn't matter.
5. So the fact that W. knows Miers well means that she's qualified and conservative in her judicial philosophy? I hate to break it to you buddy, but W. ain't God. In fact, as I've pointed out, W. has screwed conservatives quite a few times. The fact that he's better than a Gore or Kerry doesn't mean that we ought to trust him on everything.
I reject your claim that President Bush* has "screwed conservatives quite a few times", and I think you're once again oversimplifying the political situation in this country. Whether you want to piss and moan about a minor issue like steel tariffs, or the prescription drug bill, or most of your other beefs about President Bush, he is a conservative.
Let's take this further. Let's look at several cases that have, in one way or another, been prominent or important in our generation.
In December of 2000, the court heard the case of Bush v. Gore, and seven of nine justices determined that the recounts in Florida had to cease, and the Supreme Court followed the Constitution, even several of the liberal justices. Clear cut, simple decision, and the election went to George Bush because he had legally and legitimately won the majority of electoral votes, even though he'd lost the election with respect to the popular vote. Logic stated that Al Gore should have won the election because more people voted for him; law stated that George Bush won the election, and the Supreme Court decided on the basis of the Constitution, in an essentially bi-partisan decision.
In 1973, the Supreme Court waved its magic wand and conjured both a right to privacy and a right to "choice" in the case of Roe v. Wade. Informed conservatives, many of whom have no formal training in constitutional law, recognize the ruling to be a massive joke, with no Constitutional basis. The decision had nothing to do with a strong grasp of the Constitution; it was as much a fabrication as The Da Vinci Code or a Hostess Twinkie. And who was one of only two dissenting justices? William Rehnquist, whose qualifications upon nomination to his post were not dissimilar to Ms. Miers' qualifications. Many conservatives want Roe v. Wade to be struck down, though few are intelligent enough to want it struck down on the basis of its total lack of Constitutional standing. I want abortion to be illegal (save for extreme circumstances), but I want it to be illegal the right way: through legislative means, and not by legislation from the bench.
The same is true of the recent attempts to get any and every possible court, state or federal, with jurisdiction over Florida to "save" Teri Schiavo. I didn't really care if Teri Schiavo lived or died (though I thought at the time that it was time for Mrs. Schiavo's parents to let her die, and I feel that the autopsy results lend validity to my position); I did, however, think that any and all attempts to federalize a state issue in a blatant attempt to "save" Teri Schiavo, by means of variable legality, were absolutely deplorable. In the same way that I don't want liberal federal judges to invent a fictional institution called "gay marriage", I also don't want conservative federal judges to intervene where they don't belong to "save" people or "do the right thing".
This has turned into a bit of an incoherent rant, though I feel I've sufficiently swatted away your "flaying of my bullets". The point is that I don't care what a nominee's judicial record is; judicial records have proven, recently, to be an inconclusive factor in a justice's Supreme Court voting record. I also don't care what a person's leanings are; if they're objective, fair, and impartial, their own leanings shouldn't be a factor. I think that Harriet Miers will be a competent, qualified, conservative nominee; I also think that a difficult time from Democrats would help to push her further to the right, just as it did in the case of Justice Thomas. The scathing, mouth-foaming criticism from one side of the conservative movement could push Ms. Miers to the left once she's confirmed (and she will be confirmed), and in the meantime, it makes all of us look like absolute morons in front of our political rivals.
Nice try, but you're going to have to do better than that.
* I call President Bush by his title, I call President Clinton by his title, I call Senator Kerry by his title. I think that immature nicknames like "W." for President Bush, or "Rummy" for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld are nothing more than a complete lack of rhetorical decorum. It's one thing to use names like "Lurch" (Kerry) or "Skeletor" (Strom Thurmond) in jest; when one is engaged in serious rhetoric, these pseudonyms are in poor taste.
Names like "Shrillary" or "The Hildebeast" when referencing Senator Clinton are, of course, the one notable exception.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home