Democrats & Liberals Archives

Sycophantastic!

So you want to know how to get ahead? Well the only way to get a-head is to be born with one. For those who did not make it, you could use flattery, be a yes man or a yes woman, be a kiss-up. This is how the world’s expert in flattery, the star of fawning, the woman who has made an art out of boss worship, Harriet Miers, managed to go from being an ordinary lawyer to a nominee for the top court in the land, the U.S. Supreme Court.

Sycophantastic!

Getting ahead is not that hard to do. Anybody is capable of accomplishing this. You just need to apply yourself. First, you find someone who is prominent but not too brilliant, and then you attach yourself to him. Here are the 4 basic stages to follow as you "build rapport" with your chosen one, your mentor, your hero:

  1. YES - When he asks you to do anything, always say "YES." Never say, "YES, BUT...."

  2. YES, SIR - There are many "YES"-people in the world, but not all of them make it. Saying "YES" alone is not enough. You boost "rapport" when you add a "SIR." This shows respect and everybody likes a little respect.

  3. YES, SIR....BRILLIANT IDEA - You get a little closer to your hero, when you add a little compliment, such as "This is a BRILLIANT IDEA." There are many other ways of saying this. They are all good as long as you make clear you love your hero's idea.

  4. YES, SIR....BRILLIANT IDEA....FROM A BRILLIANT MAN - You show respect, compliment the idea and compliment the man. What more could anyone want? When you reach this stage you are "in."
You have mastered the art of fawning. Sycophantastic!

Harriet Miers, in 1989, met Bush and in 1994 she was appointed to the transition team of Governor George W. Bush. While working for Bush as personal attorney, she wrote him a belated birthday card:

"You are the best governor ever - deserving of great respect!"

So in 1995, Bush appointed Miers to head the Texas Lottery Commission.

Sycophantastic!!

In 1998, Bush was running for governor again. He was worried about his missing 3 months of service in the National Guard. So he had his trusted Miers "investigate" this matter and the budding scandal didn't bud. So when 2000 arrived, Bush took Miers with him to the White House.

Sycophantastic!!!

Miers was White House counsel before being nominated to the Supreme Court. In July, Miers said:

"My admiration for the president's leadership and Mrs. Bush's leadership has been reaffirmed on virtually a daily basis."

She has said many other such wonderful words and referred often to Bush's "brilliance." So Bush nominated her to the U.S. Supreme Court.

SYCOPHANTASTIC!!!!

Posted by Paul Siegel at October 21, 2005 6:36 PM
Comments
Comment #87139

Paul, you do little credit to your own intelligence by assuming the stupidity of others. Miers is liable for saying something nice on a birthday card? More content on her credentials (or lack theorof), please.

And please provide a credible source for your allegations on Miers having covered up informatino from the President’s National Guard record.

Posted by: Gandhi at October 21, 2005 6:45 PM
Comment #87161

Paul,
Brilliant, sir. Simply brilliant writing! My admiration for your virtual skills is re-affirmed on a daily basis. Such brilliance! Deserving of such respect!

If I may suggest- for those of you who’ve never experienced the feeling of being soiled by brown-nosing, type out a few of Mier’s statements; it gives a sense of how that feels.

Posted by: Phx8 at October 21, 2005 6:54 PM
Comment #87190

It says as much about Bush as it does about her that Bush does not find this kind of empty and juvenile praise somewhat disgusting. It would fill me with contempt to see something like that.

Posted by: Roach at October 21, 2005 8:58 PM
Comment #87194

Guys

Conservatives are not enthusiastic about her either. Many of us hope she will withdraw. So you can make fun of her all you want. She is getting worse from the right.

But we are under no illusions about the process. Roberts was brilliant and nearly a perfect choice and still 22 Dems found reason to vote against him.

You guys should be happy with Miers. As far as ideology, she is the best you are gonna do. If this candidate falls through, the next one will be more brilliantly conservative. And we have the votes to confirm him/her.

Posted by: Jack at October 21, 2005 9:06 PM
Comment #87206

While I’m sure that none of us here have ever sucked up to a boss, ridiculing the cheesy things people say to each other in birthday cards and personal notes is a low blow.

If you really want to see examples of base groveling flattery, look at that moron William Shakespeare’s dedications of his work to his patrons, in which he apologizes for showing his “unpolished rhymes” to such grand, heavenly, illustrious lords.

My point isn’t to compare Miers to William Shakespeare (god no!) but to say that flattery isn’t grounds for ridiculing anyone’s intellect or ability to do a job.

I don’t want Miers in either, but some of this kind of criticism being directed at her is so personal and unfair that it’s counteproductive in derailing her nomination. If anything, it will provoke a backlash of sympathy.

Posted by: sanger at October 21, 2005 11:08 PM
Comment #87208

Harriet Mies is a woman from Texas. Texas is the state the proclaims “Where men are men and women are women”. It does not surprise me she has no backbone. Being a woman from Bush’s State would be a trauma all in itself.

Posted by: Aldous at October 21, 2005 11:15 PM
Comment #87211

A synchophant isn’t automatically disqualified for the SCOTUS, just as an ass isn’t automatically disqualified to be an ambassador to the UN; but as a character trait, neither matches well with the job description.

Still, if Bush desires someone in particular serve in an appointed office, most of the time people will, at most, roll their eyes, and go along.

If Miers carried the kind of track record to justify her nomination, a little boot licking could be overlooked. Most people who follow this kind of thing, regardless of where they fall in the political spectrum, would agree: Miers is not much of a candidate for the SCOTUS.

She’ll have her chance to impress during the hearings. Unfortunately, a lot of detractors will clobber her with arcane questions surrounding fine points of constitutional law, and really, she won’t stand a chance. It will be embarrassing.

Then again, if she has the ability to negotiate that minefield with only a month or two to prepare, then maybe she really does have one of the finest legal minds in the country, and deserves the profound trust which comes with serving on the Court.

I’ll believe it when I see it.

Posted by: phx8 at October 21, 2005 11:23 PM
Comment #87212

Let’s think about this in light of cooperation, not competition. It’s rather anti-communitarian to be putting down a fellow human being like this. One who has feelings I’m sure, judging from her Hallmark cards to Bush.

We start to get a sense of why Bush might have nominated her:

1. Democrats have zero on Miers, so little of substence in fact that Hallmark greeting cards is all they can come up with to bash her with.

2. Bush nominated a women. A tactical blow to the left because they demanded that a women be nominated in place of the women she would be replacing. But did they think that there were no such things as conservative women?

3. The kind of personal attack that Paul exhibits here puts to rest the self-serving self-referential idea that the left is more respectful, peaceful, sharing or caring than Republicans. It’s actually quite spiteful and mean.

4. I’m not sure how such personal attacks bring us together, or move us toward unity and cooperation rather than bitterness and vitriol.

Posted by: esimonson at October 21, 2005 11:24 PM
Comment #87213

Whoa, I forgot…

Doesn’t this kind of baseless personal attack just create a cycle of personal attacks, serving to perpetuate the rancorous petty bickering and fights that are supposed to be harmful to our democracy?

Paul, break the cycle, man. Break the cycle.

Posted by: esimonson at October 21, 2005 11:27 PM
Comment #87215

Okay Eric, what are her qualifications to interpret constitutional law?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 21, 2005 11:34 PM
Comment #87278

Eric,

Those on the Right are taking shots at Mier’s too - minus the humor, though.

Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at October 22, 2005 5:50 AM
Comment #87285

The Bush administration has placed politically active supporters in most federal agencies, from the secretary level down to high-mid-management. Most of those who’ve come to light either appear to have no qualifications for their positions beyond helping to put Republicans in high office, or have aims antithetical to those of the agency they head. The incompetence—and possible criminal negligence—of FEMA’s Brown is one example. The refusal of the current head of the FDA to approve a morning-after drug to prevent pregnancy, counter to all the recommendations of those in his own agency, is another. Bush’s efforts to re-make society through government action has caused great harm to the country.

Beyond the long-term social harm, economic, and ecological harm of the Bush policies, and the actions of his minions in and out of government, is the actual and potential political harm. In the name of social change, Bush has increased the power of the government to affect our lives. In the past eight years, he’s consistently pushed to allow school districts—which are generally beneficial reflections of governmental power—to force children to be confronted with the Christian view of God. His faith-based initiatives have channeled millions—and possibly billions—to religious organizations. While these organizations may use those funds to help their communities, the policy has brought church and state so closely together that independent activity by either has become harder. Can you imagine the heads of churches standing up for civil rights, as they did during the ‘60’s, when the government pays 25% of their budget? Could you see a state government demand an accounting of a church’s use of public funds, when to do so might risk being labeled anti-Christian? Finally, the Bush administration wants to increase the power of military intelligence officers to investigate cases in the US, and of the military to act in national disasters. While we need the military in times of national disaster or threat, we don’t need them patrolling the streets as easily as the Bush administration desires.

Posted by: Groundloop at October 22, 2005 9:48 AM
Comment #87290

Aldous,

I thought Texas was the state that proclaimed “Where men are men and cows are nervous.”


Eric,
If I understand you correctly, you’re claiming that it’s wrong for the left to attack like this. And why is that? Is it because the left is now infringing on the right’s territory and co-opting your tactics? Your double standard is showing.

Posted by: ElliottBay at October 22, 2005 10:37 AM
Comment #87291

“Okay Eric, what are her qualifications to interpret constitutional law?”

What positions must one have held and for how long to be qualified to interpret constitutional law? A few examples please to solidify/validate this point.

Posted by: steve smith at October 22, 2005 10:43 AM
Comment #87294

This is so funny that I’m about to wet myself over it.
The left was ALL FOR Meir UNTIL Bush announced that she is an Evangelical Christian and her church is very conservitive.
Then they turn on like a bunch of wolves faster than a waitress can pickup a hundred dollar tip.

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 22, 2005 11:06 AM
Comment #87299

I suspect this has been Bush’s plan from the start. Expect this to roll on to the point where the Dems will look politically bad if they reject the second choice. Then watch Bush roll out an uber-conservative.

Posted by: Paul at October 22, 2005 11:53 AM
Comment #87325

Steve Smith-
It’s not a point. It’s a question, and It’d be interesting to hear your answer.

Ron Brown-
I tuned into Fox News this morning while flipping through the channels, and I came upon a roundtable with Charles Krauthammer among others. They were not being very kind. Fox News is run by the man who ran Bush 41’s campaigns. When Fox starts deviating from the White House line, you’ve got some serious disagreement on your hands.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 22, 2005 6:57 PM
Comment #87326

Stephen Daugherty
Not surprising, the right aint to crazy about her either. Never has been.
However, the left came out in supprort for her. Now that Bush has said she is an Evangelical Chrisitan the left has turn on her like a pack of wolves.

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 22, 2005 7:03 PM
Comment #87330

Paul
I suspect this has been Bush’s plan from the start. Expect this to roll on to the point where the Dems will look politically bad if they reject the second choice. Then watch Bush roll out an uber-conservative.

If it is then Bush is a lot smarter than youall give him credit for.
Personally I would love to see a true conservitive on the court for a change.

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 22, 2005 7:37 PM
Comment #87340

Ron Brown — you are wrong. The “left” as you call it was not in favor of Miers. The “left” is weary of anything this President does. So does the “middle.” There was confusion as to why the Dems seemed to be in favor of nominating her.

The fact is, she was considered a joke the moment she was nominated. She has done nothing to change that, including just recently not being able to fill out a questionnaire properly; full of answers that were not really answers, run-on sentences, and some questions not answered at all. This woman is simply not qualified, and the “left” knows it as well as the right does. So does any thinking person on any end of the political spectrum.

To think that the President of the United States has such little respect for the Supreme Court to nominate this woman is shameful. The fact that she writes this blatant brown-nosing, immature cards to the President is downright embarassing for her and should be for him.

This nomination will be withdrawn in a few days. Watch.

And the fact that she is an Evangelical Christian, well, I admit that I don’t want her there. I don’t want the Supreme Court in the land to upend the Constitution, nor do I want them to make laws that will undermine the foundation this country was based on. If Bush and his right-wing want to spit on the Founding Fathers, I surely would like to see Americans do all they can to stop it.

Posted by: Chris at October 22, 2005 11:16 PM
Comment #87366

Hello? Is this still America? Since when do citizens on the internet or the Senate have to DIS-qualify a SC candidate? If memory serves, it’s the candidate’s obligation to prove qualification. I’m willing to wait for the hearings, but neither Miers’ reported history nor her laughable answers to the pre hearing questionaire lead me to believe she’s remotely qualified. I have yet to see any endorsement, public or anonymous, from any democrat.

Posted by: Thom Houts at October 23, 2005 3:01 AM
Comment #87448

Stephen Daugherty,

I mis-interpreted your statement, sorry. Before I rendered an opinion I will have to research the backgrounds of the existing SCJ’s.

In view of the opinions debated in this forum relative to the Bolton, Brown and Roberts appointments just to mention a few, I would not want to make an uninformed comment.

Posted by: steve smith at October 23, 2005 9:06 AM
Comment #87487

Steve Smith
Roberts left a significant paper trail, and what people saw from him, even if they didn’t like his views, was that he knew what he was talking about. He showed he was qualified to hold the office, even if he wasn’t the preferred Dem candidate.

Miers is a crony, a person who is only close to becoming a justice because of her intimate proximity and loyalty to the president. Nothing else gives us any clue as to why she would be a nominee here.

She doesn’t have a long history as an interpreter of the law, either on the bench or at a counselor’s table. Her questionaire answers underwhelmed a judiciary committee looking for reasons to put her on the court. The only reason that anybody is seriously considering keeping her on is that she has a friend in Bush, and some people are so loyal to Bush that they will let him do any foolish thing he wants.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 23, 2005 2:58 PM
Comment #87504

Stephen Daugherty,

I appreciate the cronyism issue and generally disapprove of appointments based on friendship alone. If and when a person is as qualified as other members of the SC, I feel that they are entitled to be considered.

My comparison would be Miers vs any or all of the existing Justices at the time of their appointment. Not comparing her to the accomplishments or actions of a Justice since the time of their appointment.

Posted by: steve smith at October 23, 2005 4:48 PM
Comment #87509

Steve Smith-
If you have to search, that means you haven’t found. Many people have done the jobs she’s done, and few if any of them have ended up in the SCOTUS. The Justices are meant to be the experts. Why not seek out an expert, and leave people like Miers on the sidelines, where they belong? I’m sure that in all your party, there’s a woman jurist who could fit the bill.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 23, 2005 5:23 PM
Comment #87513

Her answers also worry me about her future “opinions.” Doesn’t sound like she can even write intelligently. Throughout our history, the wisdom of opinions that are both dissenting and supporting have been some of the best writing we have. She can’t even do that.

I want pretty smart people on the Supreme Court. I gather that is suddenly too much to ask?

Posted by: Chris at October 23, 2005 6:06 PM
Comment #87515

Chris:

You seem to be saying that Miers is not smart, when you say that you “want pretty smart people on the Supreme Court. I gather that is suddenly too much to ask?”

Miers is VERY smart. She has risen to a high level in her field and she has done so as a woman, which carries with it a tougher road. You are not appointed White House counsel, or made President of a State association without having smarts.

What she does NOT have is constitutional experience. While this is certainly a detriment, I’m not convinced that it is a definitive reason to disqualify her. It makes me wonder if she is ready for the SCOTUS, but it doesn’t make me automatically assume she is not ready.

People often rise to the challenge of their positions. Vince Lombardi did, and became a football coaching legend, despite never having been a head coach at any level previously. Earl Warren was a district attorney, California attorney general, and California governor before being named Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. He was well known for calling for the evacuation of all Japanese from the West Coast during WWII. He also is remembered as being one of the better Chief Justices in American history.

Now, I’m not supporting Miers yet. I’m simply not condemning her. I want to hear and see how she handles the process. I recognize that some don’t even want the Constitutional process to occur (why they don’t is beyond me), but I am willing to give her the chance to show me whether she is capable beyond her resume before I make my decision.

Posted by: jeobagodonuts at October 23, 2005 6:27 PM
Comment #87530

Chris
Your right the left doesn’t support Meirs. At least not any more. However right after she was nominated there were Democratic Senetors that came put in support of her.
Where is that support now that Bush has said she’s an Evangelical Christian?

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 23, 2005 8:54 PM
Comment #87541

Ron Brown-
I could give a crap less if she was zen buddhist. I just haven’t seen anything in her career that leads me to believe she’s worthy of the position.

Joe-
Go back and look at Earl Warren’s resume. Tell me what in her life she has done to measure up to that level of experience. Warren was a Governor, an Attorney General and a District Attorney. In short, a person with plenty of experience of the law and the way it is implemented.

Give us that rather than Miers, and we will probably agree on a great deal more.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 23, 2005 10:02 PM
Comment #87558

Stephen:

The point is that Warren did not have the qualifications that many in WB and in the media have been calling for. He hadn’t argued before the court, he had no experience as a judge, he wasn’t known as a constitutional scholar. Yet he proved to be very effective. Were he nominated today, in today’s polarized political climate, would he be approved? Not by the standards that have been thrown out.

My intent was simply to show that Earl Warren did not have what are being called the requisite requirements for being appointed to the Supreme Court. He did not hold national positions, but rather state positions as Attorney General and Governor. While I can see how being an AG might have bearing on the SCOTUS, I fail to see how being a Governor qualifies one for the Supreme Court. Being governor is a great thing, but I don’t see the relevancy to the Supreme Court.

Miers’ resume as a lawyer is stellar. She has reached the higher levels of her profession. Her resume as a SCOTUS nominee is thin, though. Like Warren, she has not been a judge, has not argued before the SCOTUS, and is not a Constitutional scholar.

Why be afraid of allowing her the constitutionally dictated right to be questioned by the Senate Committee? If she proves to be as unworthy as you say, then she won’t be able to get the votes. If she proves to be worthy, she still might not get the votes (ala Roberts getting 22 nay votes despite his credentials).

But the idea of preventing her from even getting a vote is just silliness. Let the process work as the founding fathers wanted it to.

Posted by: jeobagodonuts at October 23, 2005 11:12 PM
Comment #87576

Tell me, Joe, what is it in Mier’s career that could distinguish her work as stellar? Otherwise this is just a circular argument:

Me: What work In Harriet Mier’s resume justifies her taking on this position

You: Harriet Miers resume as a lawyer is stellar, she has risen to the top of her profession!

Me: But what were these jobs?

You: *sound of crickets* *so far*

*so what gives?*

I acknowledge that not every SCOTUS justice is going to be a constitutional scholar our person who’s argued before the court.

But I insist that if you’re going to set Justice Warren as the standard, you should set his kind of resume, and positions as the kind of standard you want. I can understand somebody who’s had genuine leadership positions. But where has she been anymore than a flunky?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 24, 2005 12:15 AM
Comment #87602

Stephen:

What is it you don’t get? You set up silly argumentative comments that don’t address MY points, then you claim they are what I am claiming. Allow me to answer you directly, but I won’t need the use of conversations that never happened.

First and foremost, I’ve NOT argued that Miers has a thick resume for this job. What I HAVE argued is that we should allow the constitutional process to run its course. If it results in approval or denial, then so be it.

Secondly, you call Miers a “flunky”. How sad it is that you impugn someone whose credentials are so good in her field, apparently for political purpose. Let me summarize:

**She was elected president of a law firm of over 200 lawyers, the first woman to do so at a firm that size in Texas. Some flunky!! I imagine the rest of the 200 were simply doddering idiots?

**She was named co-managing partner when her firm merged with another, growing to over 400 lawyers. Again, the new 200 lawyers apparently must have been gibbering buffoons .

**She was the first woman to be president of the Dallas Bar Association, so apparently all other lawyers, both male and female, in Dallas were idiots.

**She was elected President of the State Bar of Texas in 1992, thereby proving the assumption that all lawyers in Texas are less worthy than a mere “flunky”.

**The National Law Journal named her one of the nation’s 100 most powerful attorneys and as one of the nation’s top 50 women lawyers, again relegating her to “flunky” status.

**She was appointed general counsel of the White House, certainly a job for a “flunky”.

Stephen, you may be tempted to change the tenor of the conversation at this time, so allow me to be blunt and restate my first point. I am NOT saying this resume qualifies her for the SCOTUS, but I AM firmly saying that she has a stellar legal resume. You have claimed that she is no more than a “flunky”. Do you maintain that image of her, and if so, in what way do you consider being considered one of the top 100 attorneys in the country to be rationale for being a flunky?

Lastly, why do you NOT want an up/down vote, as called for by the founding fathers, for Harriet Miers? Why are you unwilling to allow your elected officials to do their due diligence and reach a decision, as they are called to do? Why do you want to change the rules of the game, in mid stream? I’m willing to let it play out, for approval or denial, but you arent. Why?


Posted by: joebagodonuts at October 24, 2005 6:40 AM
Comment #87605

Let’s face it. Nobody; not even one of the most partisan bloggers on this site has ever seriously referred to Bush as brilliant. The confirmation process will run its course but that view has got to be considered either extreme, psychotic, or disgustingly sycophantic.
Flags should be raised.

Posted by: Ms Schwamp at October 24, 2005 8:00 AM
Comment #87613

Joe-
You want to stall the issue, quiet the furor so she can be quietly passed.

I called her a flunky, not an idiot. My implication is that she is there more through political skill than legal skill. Karl Rove is a flunky, but does that make him stupid? People have different kinds of intelligence. Some people are good at engineering, some are good at dancing, and some are good at charming others enough to get them into big positions.

Her resume does not indicate that she’s had to practice or deal with the law in any strong, hard contact fashion. Her credentials are good for a politician, not a judge. Your example was a governor and Attorney General of a strong executive state as well as a DA. He wasn’t merely some political hack who expertly climbed his way to the top.

Screw an up and down vote. I want to know who I’m dealing with: a great legal mind, or a great social climber.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 24, 2005 8:45 AM
Comment #87643

Let’s stay away from opinion for a minute. What has Miers done? Well, as JBOD has pointed out, she has a decent resume. She was a managing partner in her law firm. Not bad, often a political posting related to billing dollars and connections, but not bad. President of the bar association, again, mostly connections but need some capability. As far as being voted “powerful,” so what? As far as being WH consul, isn’t that the def’n of flunky in an administration of flunkys? In the end, she’s probably smart. Certainly smart enough to answer the questions given to her by congress in an “inadequate,” “insufficient” and “insulting” manner.
But, why nominate someone so clearly without direct experience or a the respect of the legal community?
IMHO: He needs every vote he can to keep him out of jail after his trial goes to the SCOTUS on appeal. He can’t count on being pardoned by #44 as Nixon was by Ford.

Posted by: Dave at October 24, 2005 12:44 PM
Comment #87667

Aldous,

I thought Texas was the state that proclaimed “Where men are men and cows are nervous.”


Eric,
If I understand you correctly, you’re claiming that it’s wrong for the left to attack like this. And why is that? Is it because the left is now infringing on the right’s territory and co-opting your tactics? Your double standard is showing.

Posted by: ElliottBay at October 22, 2005 10:37 AM

—————————-

ElliottBay,

As a Texan, I take serious umbrage at that “cows are nervous” stuff…. It’s not the cows man, it’s the sheep.

Seriously though,
It seems like Ms. Miers is a nice, dedicated and loyal person who worked very hard in her career and achieved some significant success. That said, she doesn’t seem to be qualified for the court just on the whim of George Bush. She should be questioned regarding her views, but done so with courtesy and respect. The original post was funny though….

Posted by: Dennis at October 24, 2005 2:33 PM
Comment #87686

Dennis,

Sorry. I’ll sheepishly admit to ewe that I was trying to pull the wool over your eyes. The cow remark was udderly uncalled for. My baaa—aaaad.

Posted by: Elliottbay at October 24, 2005 3:57 PM
Comment #87688

What Chris said. Both posts, except for whether the nomination will be withdrawn in a few days.
I get the feeling that they’re going to let her go through the confirmation process and then she’ll either sufficiently impress everyone or sufficiently display her almost total lack of qualifications — then be rejected — by both sides.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 24, 2005 3:59 PM
Comment #87689

Dennis,

Sorry. I’ll sheepishly admit to ewe that I was trying to pull the wool over your eyes. The cow remark was udderly uncalled for. My baaa—aaaad.

:-)

Posted by: ElliottBay at October 24, 2005 3:59 PM
Comment #87693

I’ll admitt that right from the start I was a little skeptical of Meirs. I’m still not convenced that she’s the best we can get.
I agree with what Stephen said to me earlier. It doesn’t matter what her religous views are. She may or may not let them influence her decisions. But she has her right to them.
As far as her qualifacations go, I don’t think she the best qualifed for the job. But then I don’t really believe that any of the current justices were the best quaified when they were nominated regardless of who the President was at the time.
Most, if not all, appointed positions are filled to return favors and not because the person appointed to them is qualified for them. And I don’t believe that the Supreme Court is any different.

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 24, 2005 4:23 PM
Comment #87740

Dennis,

Sorry. I’ll sheepishly admit to ewe that I was trying to pull the wool over your eyes. The cow remark was udderly uncalled for. My baaa—aaaad.

:-)

Posted by ElliottBay at October 24, 2005 03:59 PM


——————————-

Elliott,

That was priceless. LOL

Posted by: Dennis at October 24, 2005 7:02 PM
Comment #87741

Here’s an example of a man born with no brain. After listening to Neal Boortz’s comments on his radio show I suggest that if his mother, wife, sister, or daughter are the victim of flood, hurricane or fire that they should go (as he suggests) into prostitution rather than live off the taxpayers.

Neal Boortz suggested that a victim of Hurricane Katrina currently housed in an Atlanta hotel consider prostitution. “If that’s the only way she can take care of herself,” Boortz posited, “it sure beats the hell out of sucking off the taxpayers.” The woman was featured in an October 23 Atlanta Journal-Constitution article; Boortz repeated her first name on the air.

From the October 24 edition of Cox Radio Syndication’s The Neal Boortz Show:


BOORTZ: Somebody just put a story in front of me. Let me tell you, aside from the looters, one of the things I was talking about earlier this morning was a huge article in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, which is a left-wing rag, about Hurricane Katrina evacuees in a hotel in Atlanta. Her name — the female is Rolanda. She has a 1-year-old baby and her boyfriend, who apparently likes to lounge around on the bed without a shirt on. Well, at least that was the picture in the newspaper. And the whole story was about how worried Rolanda is that she’ll be kicked out of her taxpayer-paid hotel room. She might get kicked out. I mean, it says right here, “Rolanda is worried about being evicted from the hotel. She says, ‘We have a place to stay. We have food. The only worry is how long it will last.’” That’s all she’s worried about, the only worry. And it goes through the whole article here talking about how fed up Rolanda is with FEMA [Federal Emergency Management Agency] and how she spends all this time on a computer looking for more free housing. Not one mention in the entire story anywhere about the “W” word, W-O-R-K, work, job. I dare say she could walk out of that hotel and walk 100 yards in either direction on Fulton Industrial Boulevard [the street on which the hotel is located] here in Atlanta and have a job. What’s that? Well, no, no, no —

ROYAL MARSHALL (Atlanta radio host and former engineer of Boortz’s show): Watch out, Neal. Those people who know Fulton Industrial Boulevard think you might be suggesting something a little risqué.
BOORTZ: Well, that’s true. Well, you know what? [laughing] Now that you mention it —
MARSHALL: That’s not the way.
BOORTZ: If that’s the only way she can take care of herself, it sure beats the hell out of sucking off the taxpayers.
MARSHALL: Watch out, man. It’s the same thing, technically.
Posted by: Pat at October 24, 2005 7:04 PM
Comment #87764

Ron Brown-
I believe the supreme court is different in that it decides what the law is. Put in somebody who doesn’t have the sharpest understanding of the law, and you’ll end up with ecisions made not with sound legal logic, but from the feelings and preconcieved notions of the law that a judge has- in short, the worst kind of judicial activism, and an erosion of legal standards.

To knowingly let the Supreme Court become a parking lot for a presidential crony is simply asking for things to take a wrong turn in our country. We should have better standards than that.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 24, 2005 8:44 PM
Comment #87766

Pat
Now can I assume that you taped the show so you could give us a word for word transcript?

Why cann’t she go out and find a job? I’m NOT EVEN suggesting that she take up prostitution. But if she’s worried about getting kicked out of her room, I’m sure she could find a job on Fulton Industrial Boulevard. And she should tell that lazy boyfriend of hers to get off his ass and find a job.
I don’t know about you but I’m tired of people that are lazy to work sponging off my tax money.

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 24, 2005 8:53 PM
Comment #87768

Stephen Daugherty
I agree with you, the Supreme Court should not be a parking lot for cronyism. But I’m afraid it became that a long time ago. And as a result we’ve had the kind of court that your talking about for a lot more years than I care to remember.
Like I said, I don’t think we’ve had the best qualified justices nominated for a lomg time. And cronyism is the reason.

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 24, 2005 9:03 PM
Comment #87776
Like I said, I don’t think we’ve had the best qualified justices nominated for a lomg time. And cronyism is the reason.

Some of the most brilliant minds in Constitutional law have served on the Court at one point or another.

Sure, they haven’t all been winners.

Posted by: mattLaw at October 24, 2005 10:04 PM
Comment #87825

Republicans should stop being obstructionist. I demand an immediate up or down vote on Miers!

Posted by: American Pundit at October 25, 2005 8:15 AM
Comment #87843

Stephen:

You are a smart guy. You have obvious intelligence and you think through issues. So for the life of me, I can’t figure out why you wrote the following statement:

Joe- You want to stall the issue, quiet the furor so she can be quietly passed.

Since we know you are intelligent, I can only assume that you didn’t read what I wrote. I’ll repeat it for you:

“What she does NOT have is constitutional experience. While this is certainly a detriment, I’m not convinced that it is a definitive reason to disqualify her. It makes me wonder if she is ready for the SCOTUS, but it doesn’t make me automatically assume she is not ready…. Now, I’m not supporting Miers yet. I’m simply not condemning her. I want to hear and see how she handles the process.”

What part of those comments that I made previously leads you to believe I want the process stalled so she can be quietly passed. I’ve stated unequivocally that I’m not sure I want her passed. What I want is for the Senate Committee to do its job, check her out thoroughly, vote on her appointment and reach a conclusion.

You seem to find it intellectually easier to make an argument for me, rather than address what I said. That doesn’t make you any less intelligent, but it sure makes you intellectually lazy.

Answer this question: Why institute a process for confirming SCOTUS nominees and then discard that very process in the middle of the appointment? If you are not going to use the constitutionally based method of appointment, then why have a method of appointment at all? Or has all your bluster about constitutionality just been a cover?

Posted by: joebagodonuts at October 25, 2005 10:22 AM
Comment #87867

JBOD,

This is the process. She’s just so grossly unqualified she doesn’t even need to get to a vote. She should bow out now and save her hero’s face (what little of it there’s left)

Posted by: Dave at October 25, 2005 12:57 PM
Comment #87928

Dave:

Are you seriously suggesting that the media talking about a nominee, people discussing a nominee, Senators discussing a nominee etc IS THE PROCESS? Its PART of the process for sure, but not the whole process.

I’m not sure she’s qualified, but I’m not convinced she isn’t. Let the full process happen. If she is as unqualified as you say, then she will not be confirmed. Why the rush to judgement rather than allowing the FULL process to finish?

Posted by: joebagodonuts at October 25, 2005 4:33 PM
Comment #88110

Joe-
I was unfair to you personally. I apologize

I don’t see what good it does to withold judgement on her. Absent some proof of the kind of high caliber legal mind we want on the court, the evidence says that she’s not that extraordinary of a candidate.

The longer Bush drags this out the more two things become likely: The political damage becomes increased as Harriet Miers fails to satisfy the Judiciary committee or she gets confirmed merely by virtue of political arm-twisting, like all those votes held out for hours as the GOP leadership beats people over the head with what they want done.

Do we really want to go through an entire process when there are legal legitimate ways out of this mess? As intellectually lazy as my charge was, it’s equally lazy to hang your hat on process and deferred judgement.

After all, the whole point of senate confirmation is to allow legislators and their constituents the chance to weigh in on a candidate. Figure out what you believe about this candidate, and go tell your senator what he should vote. If you senator gets the notion that it’s not likely that he’ll gain many friends by confirming her, they can tell the president it might be good to let this one go, and save the time and taxpayer expense of drawing this all out.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 26, 2005 12:31 PM
Comment #88158

Ron,

Why cann’t she go out and find a job? I’m NOT EVEN suggesting that she take up prostitution. But if she’s worried about getting kicked out of her room, I’m sure she could find a job on Fulton Industrial Boulevard. And she should tell that lazy boyfriend of hers to get off his ass and find a job. I don’t know about you but I’m tired of people that are lazy to work sponging off my tax money.

Do you think a minimum wage job will support an apartment I think you should read a book by Barbara Ehrenreich called “Nickel and Dimed” On (Not) getting by in America.

She also wrote a very good book called “Bait and Switch”, how our white collar workers can’t find a job either because all our jobs have been outsourced.

I guess you believe in the two party system, the rich and those that support the rich. You may recall the American Revolutionary War from your grammer school history class. Where do you think we’re heading?

Posted by: Pat at October 26, 2005 4:16 PM
Comment #88190

Stephen:

Thank you.

I think what I’ve been trying to say all along is that it should not be a politically charged decision to withdraw her name. That’s what I fear.

I recognize her lack of resume, and I’m not sure on her myself. But I’m concerned at the precedent of a withdrawal in the face of those who are unhappy. If it leads down the road to thinking that if you voice your negative opinion loudly enough, you will get your way, then its the wrong thing to happen.

Right now, people on WB have proclaimed Tom DeLay guilty, Karl Rove guilty, Lewis Libby guilty, Dick Cheney involved and thereby guilty, George Bush guilty of lying etc etc etc. They’ve said in effect, screw the legal system, screw the concept of innocent until proven guilty, screw everything so we can get our way.

My concern is not so much about Miers specifically, but about the idea of proclaiming something as truth when it is still supposition. Are Rove and Libby guilty—I don’t know, but lets wait til Fitzgerald makes his case. Is DeLay guilty—-I don’t know but lets see what Ronnie Earle has as proof.

I know that these things are as much politically driven as they are legally driven. I’m concerned that the Miers issue is the same.

Posted by: jeobagodonuts at October 26, 2005 6:16 PM
Comment #101773

you understand goverment you don,t understand politics if the people can,t survive there is no goverment eat that money man that has every thing through the tax payers money ass hole goverment is the people and one day the people will put you in prissin for looting america ass hole signed alton chapman a viet nam vetewran power of state kiss my lall everyone in the whithouse has sold america for money in thier own pockets all americans know but noone does anthyng

Posted by: alton chapman at December 13, 2005 1:22 AM
Post a comment