This is Tiring!
Ann Coulter's latest column as one would expect is about the Harriet Miers' nomination. As reader's of the this minor blog know, I am willing to wait and hear Harriet Miers answer a few questions first before I pass judgement.
No, I do not hate those who (nor should any proper conservative) hate those from elite universities. Why is this "Ivey League resume bullet point" now so important?
Well the coalitions need to wait and see how Ms. Miers responds to the questions put to her by the Senate. I heard a piece from an interview with Justice Scalia today and he is not at all troubled by the fact Ms. Miers has no previous judicial experience. However, this is not what Ann is arguying here.
Well Ann, the constitution does state it's the President's job to nominate justices. Quite obviously he is going to pick someone he thinks will represent the interests of his constituents. However, he does not have to conduct a straw poll prior to nominating someone. This is why we elect officials, because to have to consult the voters every time a question comes would be unworkable.
No it isn't, Ann. My initial reaction is probably how many people are taking this, including Ann Coulter. I initially made a comment like this is Dave Souter in a skirt. I don't think so. Souter was appointed on the recomendation of advisers. President Bush was instrumental in getting those advisers fired from his father's administration, he knows the consequences of a bad nomination. This is why he nominated someone he personally knew!
Uhhh, wrong. The Superme Court is a part of government. I looked it up its in the Constitution. Now, I know you are a lawyer and as such it shines well on you if only the select, the over-educated etc can possibly have any idea of what the Constitution is about. This is the exact reason the court tends to overreach its power, because they are so overeducated how could any normal person know about the law or the constitution?
The courts have three jobs. The first is to resolve contractual disputes. This can be a tough area of law and certainly understand why lawyers need to be involved here. The second is resolving conflicts over statutory law (i.e. someone breaks a law and is in the court system to determine innocence or guilt and to be punished), again a very involved field that certainly does require law training. The third is constitutional law. The constitution as far as documents go is somewhat simple, especially in comparison to the former two categories!
A person with a 12th grade reading ability is educated enough to figure out the Constitution. It really is not rocket science. In fact I would argue the fact that many people treat the Constituion like it is some tome that only the most higly overeducated can understand is exactly why our justices now consult "shadows and penumbras" and the Privy Councile of Jamaica in their rulings.
As a lawyer with years and years of experience, Ms. Miers has had to read and understand law and contracts to be able advocate for her clients. What is the difference between knowing the law in front of the bench vs being on the bench?
CALM DOWN!
I know conservatives have been trained to hate people who went to elite universities, and generally that's a good rule of thumb. But not when it comes to the Supreme Court.
Source: Ann Coulter - THIS IS WHAT 'ADVICE AND CONSENT' MEANSNo, I do not hate those who (nor should any proper conservative) hate those from elite universities. Why is this "Ivey League resume bullet point" now so important?
First, Bush has no right to say "Trust me." He was elected to represent the American people, not to be dictator for eight years. Among the coalitions that elected Bush are people who have been laboring in the trenches for a quarter-century to change the legal order in America. While Bush was still boozing it up in the early '80s, Ed Meese,
Antonin Scalia, Robert Bork and all the founders of the Federalist Society began creating a farm team of massive legal talent on the right.
Source: Ann Coulter - THIS IS WHAT 'ADVICE AND CONSENT' MEANSAntonin Scalia, Robert Bork and all the founders of the Federalist Society began creating a farm team of massive legal talent on the right.
Well the coalitions need to wait and see how Ms. Miers responds to the questions put to her by the Senate. I heard a piece from an interview with Justice Scalia today and he is not at all troubled by the fact Ms. Miers has no previous judicial experience. However, this is not what Ann is arguying here.
Well Ann, the constitution does state it's the President's job to nominate justices. Quite obviously he is going to pick someone he thinks will represent the interests of his constituents. However, he does not have to conduct a straw poll prior to nominating someone. This is why we elect officials, because to have to consult the voters every time a question comes would be unworkable.
To casually spurn the people who have been taking slings and arrows all these years and instead reward the former commissioner of the Texas Lottery with a Supreme Court appointment is like pinning a medal of honor on some flunky paper-pusher with a desk job at the Pentagon -- or on John Kerry -- while ignoring your infantrymen doing the fighting and dying.
Source: Ann Coulter - THIS IS WHAT 'ADVICE AND CONSENT' MEANSNo it isn't, Ann. My initial reaction is probably how many people are taking this, including Ann Coulter. I initially made a comment like this is Dave Souter in a skirt. I don't think so. Souter was appointed on the recomendation of advisers. President Bush was instrumental in getting those advisers fired from his father's administration, he knows the consequences of a bad nomination. This is why he nominated someone he personally knew!
Second, even if you take seriously William F. Buckley's line about preferring to be governed by the first 200 names in the Boston telephone book than by the Harvard faculty, the Supreme Court is not supposed to govern us. Being a Supreme Court justice ought to be a mind-numbingly tedious job suitable only for super-nerds trained in legal reasoning like John Roberts. Being on the Supreme Court isn't like winning a "Best Employee of the Month" award. It's a real job.
Source: Ann Coulter - THIS IS WHAT 'ADVICE AND CONSENT' MEANSUhhh, wrong. The Superme Court is a part of government. I looked it up its in the Constitution. Now, I know you are a lawyer and as such it shines well on you if only the select, the over-educated etc can possibly have any idea of what the Constitution is about. This is the exact reason the court tends to overreach its power, because they are so overeducated how could any normal person know about the law or the constitution?
The courts have three jobs. The first is to resolve contractual disputes. This can be a tough area of law and certainly understand why lawyers need to be involved here. The second is resolving conflicts over statutory law (i.e. someone breaks a law and is in the court system to determine innocence or guilt and to be punished), again a very involved field that certainly does require law training. The third is constitutional law. The constitution as far as documents go is somewhat simple, especially in comparison to the former two categories!
A person with a 12th grade reading ability is educated enough to figure out the Constitution. It really is not rocket science. In fact I would argue the fact that many people treat the Constituion like it is some tome that only the most higly overeducated can understand is exactly why our justices now consult "shadows and penumbras" and the Privy Councile of Jamaica in their rulings.
As a lawyer with years and years of experience, Ms. Miers has had to read and understand law and contracts to be able advocate for her clients. What is the difference between knowing the law in front of the bench vs being on the bench?
CALM DOWN!
posted by Marcus Aurelius at 7:40 PM
<< Home