Miers? Isn’t that the German word for “Souter”…?
Search
Archive Calendar
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
Archives
Categories
- A Government That Can Force You to Buy Health Insurance Can Make You Do Anything (3)
- a protein wisdom philosophy primer (3)
- academics (25)
- armadillo (8)
- Friday Fiction 100 Word Challenge (51)
- from the protein wisdom conceptual series (136)
- identity politics (33)
- If Republicans Win the Senate in 2014 (1)
- in which celebraties comment on current events (67)
- language / intentionalism (88)
- legal (6)
- My brief conversations with inanimate objects (130)
- NSA / FISA (46)
- One Term to Serve, the 2012 Revival (6)
- Overheard in a Fallujah bunker (27)
- Poems from 196x, Revised by the Ghost of Richard Brauti (27)
- protein wisdom's DNC coverage (30)
- protein wisdom's RNC coverage (29)
- protein wisdom: the movie Lists (20)
- Provocateurism (16)
- real-time empirical observations (51)
- red pills found behind the sofa cushions (42)
- Scenes from my driveway (61)
- Talking back to 80s music (41)
- The Martha Stewart Chronicles (58)
- The protein wisdom interviews (10)
- The protein wisdom original poems (142)
- Uncategorized (20,046)
- Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance, abridged (34)
Recent Comments
- In The Mailbox: 02.28.23 (Afternoon Edition) : The Other McCain on Hey, longtime pw readers…
- In The Mailbox: 12.23.22 : The Other McCain on Patrick J. Carroll truly IS a sad, embittered psychopath
- Danger on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
- Danger on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
- In The Mailbox: 07.18.22 : The Other McCain on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
One last thought on Miers (well, for now), which I’ll bury here to see who actually reads these things: I’m a little ticked at the spin going on that conservatives who are upset with the choice are upset because they wanted to the President to stick a thumb in the eye of Democrats.
That’s nonsense, though as an incidental consideration I wouldn’t mind it. But the fact of the matter is, I don’t care what Democrats think. I want a Justice who will do the job like it’s supposed to be done. I don’t want lots of talk of penumbras and “a living Constitution.” I want the law interpreted, not finessed to advance a particular political or social agenda (which is why I blasted Scalia on the Raich decision; and Kennedy on Kelo).
A lot of us who supported Bush did so for two reasons: the WOT and the appointment of legal conservatives to the courts. Roberts, it seems to me, was a fantastic pick. This one I’m not so sure about. And I do know that there were plenty of candidates more qualified, and that the nomination of Mier was a loyalty pick.
But it’s the President’s choice. I might not like it, but it’s his to make.
To be honest, I was hoping for someone known to be a bit more like Thomas in terms of judicial philosophy.
That really is half-hearted. You need to dial up the outrage, man. Like, to eleven. Over at the Corner it’s like Hurricane Katrina all over again. No food! No water! INFANTS ARE BEING SLICED OPEN AND THEIR ENTRAILS CONSUMED BY COLLEGE GIRLS GONE WILD!
You know, stuff like that.
I’m begining to wonder if lame-duck Bush is sticking a thumb in the eye of consevatives. They have been getting a bit unruly lately.
….and conservatives, too.
I agree Jeff. In addition I don’t care what the so called social conservative Republicans think either. I just want the very best the country has to offer. The political climate and personal sacrifices seem to disqualify getting those type of people out of the Presidencial and Congressional branches in most cases. I hoped that the Judiciary would be immune from such things.
Some people are saying to wait for the confirmation hearings. From Ginsberg to Roberts I’ve yet to see anything earthshaking come from the nominees being questioned. Kennedy and Schumer will grandstand, Feinstein will look worried and lost and we will know exactly what we know about Mier right now, nothing.
I actually expect Miers to be a conservative. However, I also expect her to prove that conservative != originalist.
She does seem like another Souter – a wrinkled spinster loner, and an unqualified one to boot.
She fails the gravitas test that every Justice should pass, so she needs to be rejected.
My sources say she was Bush’s second choice, because Michael Brown didn’t want to go to any more hearings.
OK, a comment on your last thought, just to show you I read these things.
If what you want out of a justice is paragraph No. 2, then I think you’ll probably find yourself a year from now criticizing Roberts more often than Miers. Imagine this conference:
Kennedy: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.”
Roberts: “Tell me more…”
Miers: “Tony, you are so full of shit.”
This is how conservative Texas Republican women talk to people who think they know the meaning of life.
Was “Souter” Dutch for “Brennan”? Because “Brennan” is Gaelic for “Putz.”
One would think the new buzz-cut would solidify your conservative bona fides once and for all, as long as a Mr. Clean earring isn’t involved. . .
Of course I read these things, where else would I get my opinions?
Well, I’m just trying to make THE LIST of worthy conservative blogs.
I thought the Katrina and language stuff would give me a leg up this time, but alas, I was thwarted again.
She may be exceedingly qualified, but nobody (except BushCo, hopefully) knows it.
I have to agree with you about not caring what the dems think, but getting qualified conservative jurists. That being said, it seems to me like the media and many blogs are reacting too quickly and making up their minds on the flimsiest of information, the way the MSM did with respect to Katrina.
Let’s see what comes out on her. Bush’s record of judicial appointments so far has been good. I suspect that they(Bush and his administration) haven’t lost their nerve or their minds vis a vis this appointment either.
Either way, I’m sure you’ll be on it before most, so I’ll stay tuned.
BECAUSE OF THE GROUPIES!
Well, there’s nothing like a list so we can all know who is popular. You got a date yet for homecoming?
I’ve got to think she’s a sacrificial lamb. I just can’t make sense of this any other way.
Actually, Hawkins’ lists are ingenious. They fellate the big bloggers, and slowly gather some of the smaller blogs into the fold.
I was just kidding about wanting to be on the list, by the way. I don’t care. John Hawkins is the most partisan person on the planet. His lists are begs for visits and trackbacks. I mean, does anybody really read anything he writes?
The Katrina stuff, yes. But the language stuff? Even if you were arguing for our side (and I know you were) that stuff is for the college-boys, if you know what I mean.
BECAUSE OF THE KNUCKLE-DRAGGING RETHUGLICAN TROGLODYTES!!!
I read his stuff EVERY time you link to him. You do the math.
Just for the record, Jeff, you’re short-shornedness does not make your cranium look small, although I’ve never known a man that didn’t like a little head now and then. . .
I agree with Tim P.
See, I’ve got another Opinion from one these things.
By the way, whose this Hawkins guy? I’ve never read of him before. :o)
Part of me agrees with Farmer Joe, except that she’s getting a fair amount of traction from the Democrats.
… a sacrificial lamb that evades the knife?
But,,, what do you do when you realize you’re stuck with her? (is Bush sitting in a dark room right now, cuddling a big vodka-rocks, saying nonononononononono)
Hmmmm.
“Bush’s record of judicial appointments so far has been good.”
Really? Is there a list?
But, Jeff, you’re not a conservative. You believe in things all non-sophists do, or would if some of us were not driven mad by the GAY PORN COCK OF LIES!. Don’t believe me? Check out Harriet Miers’ church.
I happen to get along well with my fundie brethren. But, well, the only thing you have in common with them is non-insanity. On most days.
Yeah, I dunno. It could be a miscalculation. It could be something else. Who knows?
TW: “Either”. Yeah. That.
So, if Occam applies here, then what indeed is the simplest explaination? Seems like no good reasons so far.
TW: music – I’m breaking out the Guild here, now.
I think that many of us were looking forward to Armageddon in the hearings. I live for the day that fat drooling drunken jerk Kennedy gets his while the cameras roll. And the more Schumer talks, the better for Republicans. So it really is like having the 7th game of the world series rained out. Take that out of the equation and what are we left with? Trust the President’s judgement and hope that he’s really pulled a great one out of his ass. Stranger things have happened. Still, I really want to see Teddy-boy get dissemboweled on cspan before his dementia goes too much farther.
And Chuck Schumer is a dickweed, he “added”.
I really wasn’t. I was expecting another Roberts. I was expecting someone of pretty much universally recognized accomplishment but without anything too litmus-reactive in his or her background. When I first heard about this, I had assumed that Bush had intelligence of an unavoidable fillibuster. That she hasn’t rasied too many hackles on the left makes me wonder.
Aw, geez, Jeff, you’ll always be The Only Real Conservative I know (I mean as much as a Jew can be a Real Conservative).
Actually “Miers” is from Middle High German meier, a status name for a steward, bailiff, or overseer, which later came to be used also to denote a tenant farmer, which is normally the sense in the many compound surnames formed with this term as a second element. Originally it denoted a village headman (ultimately from Latin mÄÂior ‘greater’, ‘superior’).
“Souter,” on the other hand, is from Scottish and English and is an occupational name for a cobbler or shoemaker, Middle English soutere, sutere (from Latin sutor, an agent derivative of suere ‘to sew’).
So that answers that question.
It’s a bit disconcerting that some Dems think this is a good choice. We don’t want to see another Souter. But I think that’s as likely to happen as it would have been for Bush to pull out of Iraq without capturing Saddam. Deepest among W’s convictions is to rectify, not repeat, dad’s mistakes.
I suspect Bush saw the Miers name on the list of Democrats’ “acceptables” and giggled joyously, figuring that he could slip through a like-minded “compassionate conservative” without a paper trail. And if she gets rejected for lack of qualifications, Bush names an eminently qualified, no-bones-about-it conservative, just daring Dems to block another one.
Could be, ss. He knows her better than we do, which is why I said in another post that it basically comes down to how much you trust Bush to be the conservative you hope he’ll be. The “compassionate conservative” moniker pretty much tipped you off that he was going to be a big spender—but in the process, he has primed the pump for a lot of privatization initiative; but he’s insisted all along he’ll name judges who will not litigate from the bench.
I hope he’s right. And the more this moves along, the more the Dems seem to be getting nervous. Rumor is that the Dems are mad at Reid for speaking so soon; and Miers work to have the ABA change its official stand on Roe is going to cause them more and more concern the closer we get to the confirmation.
Could be they’ll end up really fighting her—and Bush can point out that he selected someone on Reid’s list, that he took Dem advice, and that he’s being rewarded with vehement opposition.
Don’t know how much of this is a poker game, though, and how much it is Bush rewarding a loyal friend whom he believes to be reliably conservative.
Don’t know how much of this is a poker game, though, and how much it is Bush rewarding a loyal friend whom he believes to be reliably conservative.
Probably an equal helping of both.
If I were president and people spewed at me every day all of the hateful stuff Bush gets spewed with, and I wanted someone to be Supreme Court Justice, I would nominate that person.
If I had to watch people march on the White House with Hitler mustaches drawn on my picture, and hear Kanye West get applause that I hate black people, I might begin to think that I deserved to nominate whoever I wanted because I was surely paying the price for sitting in that office.
And if it made people mad, I would ask them what they had done for me lately.
But maybe that is why I’m not president.
I’m a simple man. Were I President, I would have pressed “The Button” about five or six times. France, Germany, Iran, Venezuela… the list goes on.
I think the language posts are some of the finest you’ve written and I also think they help explain why some conservatives are frosted by this nominee. The don’t want to hide their beliefs on interpretation under a barrel and they don’t necessarily want to stick it in the Dems eye, although that would certainly frost the cake.
They merely want someone to step to the table and state that a strict constructionist view of the Constitution need not be hidden, is not a shameful position, and they want an exemplary conservative judge to lay it out for the American people in a Supreme Court hearing on capitol hill after a resolute commander in chief appoints said person.
The stealth candidate is getting really old. It’s the type of politics all the careful people yacked on about over the Bennett blowup. We believe X, but let’s not talk about it in public and let’s nance our way through the discussion as if we are juggling live snakes instead of a reasonable, defensible, sensible posititon.
I’m sick and tired of sneaking people in the back door, apologizing all the way so as not to make waves, while refusing to defend our actual right to believe an activist court is ruinous to the country.
They may both end up to be fine jurists and I don’t doubt for a second Bush believes he knows them well enough to be confident of that. However, it stops debate, puts off questions and answers that need to be discussed, and leaves the American people in the dark with nothing more than a there, there, trust us.
I’ll trust them, the Bush Administration and the Republicans in the Senate, just as soon as they take a stand on principles in the light of the midday sun and invite the country to hear their positions in open debate.
Karl Maher is so on the money describing conservative Texas women. Except I say “crap.”
MayBee – you just crystallized for me why it is that so many folks wanted to see a nominee who’d provide a sharp stick in the eye of the Left.
Too often, the Bush White House has seemed to back down from fights it could easily have won, and the tea-leaf readers have all said “Oh, it’s a poker game”.
Aside from Bush’s having gotten re-elected, however, I don’t see any meaningful payback for all the yards of shit his administration’s eaten on behalf of his stances, including the self-serve shit such as the Medicare bill, the acceptance of repeated senatorial obstructionism, the other massive spending programs, and sundry other climb-downs and humiliations.
Watching them get willingly humbled, knowing that in their shoes, most would want retribution, and hoping it’s just a poker game that’ll surprise at the end is the reason people desire things that are essentially fruitless, like SCOTUS nominee’s who’ll make the Left wet the bed.
Roberts’ opposition was never going to amount to anything – he’s too flippin’ good a choice, as long as he doesn’t weenie out in his dotage. Mier’s? We’ll see, and while I’m prepared to be disappointed in the end, the primary thing that she’s got going against her is the fact that Harry Pelosi has said he likes her.
If that’s true praise from Reid, and Bush lives to regret the choice, two things occur to me. First, he’ll never admit it, because he never does. Second, Karl “Turd Blossom” Rove ain’t nearly the evil genius he’s been cracked up to be.
I am not all that upset – yet. I just hope that she does tell Kennedy, Schumer, and the rest of the Walendas that they are full of shit. Her approval ratings would rocket overnight to about …. Even though I can only think of about one Conservative thing Bush has ever done, we’re just going to have to wait and see. It won’t be long until we know.
And something I want to sh – sh – sha – sha…..throw into the ring. Most people fantasize about winning the lottery. I like to zone out pretending that Leaky Leahy, The Swimmer, Diane Feinstein (the Sphincter), and Chuckie-uckie are grilling me as a Supreme Court nominee.
Since I generally don’t give a shit about too many things (power and prestige being the first among many), I fantasize such giving such answers as: “C’mon. Are you really that stupid?”, or: (for the Swimmer) “Are you gargling, or asking me a question?”, or: “What the fuck is the matter with you?”. How about: “When are you gonna grow up, you dipshit?” Of course, one of my questions to them would be: “Hey! Where is Henry Waxman when we really need him?”. Or: “Who taught you to say that? Charlie ‘The Genius’ Rangel?” Of course, breaking into hysterical laughter after Joe Biden (The dumbest man in the Senate) asks a 20 minute question – and I use the word loosely – would be hilarious, too. The possibilities are endlessly amusing. I really believe that if someone did stand up to these ridiculous tinhorns in this way, the Libs would puff up with so much outrage that their heads would explode. Now THAT would be worth NOT becoming an SC justice for. I also have a feeling that anyone who did this would be an instant national hero.
This is really a fun game, and in my “old age”, it is actually more fun than fantasizing about boffing my neighbor’s cheerleader daughter. I would recommend that everybody try this at least once – the game that is, not the neighbor’s daughter. I guarantee you will be snickering to yourself before you know it…
Perv.
Dog, I think it would be interesting to watch you testify to Kennedy about your fantasy of boffing the cheerleading teen. You might just get his vote.
Patton- good post, and I agree with a lot of what you said. I am of two minds, here.
One mind thinks that more than Bush wanted to poke a stick in the Left’s eye, he wanted to get Harriet Miers on the court. I think that is specifically what he wants to do. Actually, I think what he’d like more than anything is to nominate Gonzales, but that can’t be done unless by executive order on the last night of his presidency.
It’s his presidency, and most of the Senators and the press are already picking over his political carcass trying to salvage what they can for their own purposes and the next election. You wanted someone else, Frist? You should have worked Social Security a little harder. You sad, Cornerites? Sorry you couldn’t stick by me after my Katrina laundry-list speech.
My other mind says, Bush knows her. He’s known her for years, and kept her close. There’s no going outside the box and getting Soutered here. Maybe Rove the evil genius has been keeping her close and quiet all along.
My (bonus) third mind is that she’s got a picture of him wearing nothing but leather chaps with a coke straw up his nose.
Perv.
Carin
We can always have our own homecoming.
Jeff,
Check it out. I brag on you.
Makes me nostalgic for the initial reaction after W nominated Roberts.
The fuckin sky is falling!!!!
The fuckin sky is falling!!!!
The fuckin sky is falling!!!!
Oh, maybe not.
Katrina(TM)!!!
Katrina(TM)!!!
Katrina(TM)!!!
Oh, maybe not.
I would think most of the right blogosphere (comments included) have such little crediblility left, maybe they should reserve it / conserve it until they actually KNOW something about the nominee.
TR: Plans. I plans on sending the guys at the corner some talcum powder to help with the chafing (sp?) of thier panties.
Maybee,
“Dog, I think it would be interesting to watch you testify to Kennedy about your fantasy of boffing the cheerleading teen. You might just get his vote.”
Not when he heard that I have to use his favorite pick-up line: “Ever sleep with someone who’s older than your grandfather and smells like a bacon stain?”
Hey Ed,
Here’s a list of judges appointed since Jan.31, 2001. Bush has to date appointed 213 federal judges.
You can click on the judges names and read the relevant information on them.
By the way, Clinton appointed 578 judges in his two terms.
<a href=”http://www.fjc.gov/public/home.nsf/hisj” target=”_blank”>
Smacko —
Here’s my initial take on Roberts. And everybody here already knows how critical I was of the media for its Katrina hysteria and its rush to write big bold narratives (Kyoto! Racism! Underfunding! FEMA!) that never panned out.
Not that you folks in the “reality-based” community ever bother to get your facts straight. Too much work—and it takes too much time away from your trolling rightwing blogs dropping inane comments under fake names and then going back to your sad little lives of being wrong about, well, everything, mostly.
We are kicking ass in Iraq. Rove’s not in jail yet. Cheney is still alive and George is still president.
Rangle is still a niggler. TKennedy still has 4 scotches for breakfast. Schumer is still a recepticle used for disposing of old deuche-bags and Pelosi is still stupid. Oh and I think Harry Reid likes little boys.
I remember when Cheney was telling senators to fuck-off and Bush was calling reporters fuckin’ assholes.
I say wait and see.
Jeff,
I’m hurt. Deeply.
That was posted here cause you seemed the ONLY right leaning blogger who DID NOT succumb to the ‘off election’ year hysteria that affects so many.
The far right ‘eat thier young to prove the heart is pure’ technique is painfull. Specially since I am a cultural conservative myself.
Then the threats of ‘not voting repub again’ start up. I personally blame all these crank, one issue, short sighted, protest voters for 9-11.
See:
Protest vote for Perot—>8 years of Willie—>9-11.
Maybe not ALL that clear cut, but still a good rant none the less.
BTY, do not drop your language/signifier series. THAT is prolly the single most important battle in the ongoing cultural struggle.
TW: Rather. Fake but Accurate indeed
Hmmmm.
“Here’s a list of judges appointed since Jan.31, 2001. Bush has to date appointed 213 federal judges.
You can click on the judges names and read the relevant information on them.”
That’s nice, but it gives a very basic biographical data. It doesn’t show, in any way, shape or form, whether or not they’re conservative or even if they have conservative leanings.
One basic question I have is just how many conservatives has Bush appointed to the federal bench? How many liberals? What’s the ratio?
I can’t find this anywhere.
Hmmmm.
“Makes me nostalgic for the initial reaction after W nominated Roberts. “
Since Roberts has yet to vote on anything, perhaps the sky is fucking falling. We just haven’t seen it yet either way.
I thought the Kennedy pickup line was “Hey darlin, want to get a few drinks then go for a swim?”
I thought it was:
“Ere ah you ere ah know what they ere ah say about a maaahn with ere ah ah a huge ere ah head, ere ah don’t you?”
Please note that I have not decided if I agree with Miers nomination.
My problem is with the hysteria from the right surrounding it. Already the E-Pundits are reconsidering based on the merits of the nominee.
Emoting is for KOSacks, not for True Men.
Instead of trying to come up with byzantine justifications for Bush’s decision, I’m whipping out Occam’s Razor. I believe it’s exactly what it appears to be: a mistake.
Of course, I hope I’m wrong…
“Emoting is for KOSacks, not for True Men.”
And Ohio senators.
After a night of reading blogs and of reflection, I have come to the conclusion that Bush has lost his mind. After putting this nomination in context of the Insain-Feingold act, Bush’s refusal to support any Conservative Congressional candidates over moderate and left moderate candidates, his un-F’ing-believeable spending spree, his total refusal to explain or defend himself, and countless other inexplicable actions, I have to say I feel like my wife has taken the kids and the bank account and run off with the milkman.
I have defended almost everything that Bush has done for five years, and this is what I get. As far as I can see, Bush has just committed political suicide. The only thing that could save him in my book, is if we find out that Arlen Specter (who Bush campaigned for – another black mark) threatened Bush with a rejection if he appointed someone who actually believes in the Constitution. And I’m not sure if even THAT would wash. Giving in to pussies is not my idea of leadership. Mine is one voice that won’t be speaking up for him anymore, barring a miracle. “Trust me” my butt!
I hope the RIGHT nixes this appointment. It would serve Bush right. I just can’t fool myself into believing any longer that Bush belongs on the same page as Reagan. With this steaming pile of dung, Bush has put himself firmly on the Kos page, not the Reagan page. WAKE UP, W!!! GROW SOME BALLS!!!
House of pain….
My apologies, Smacko. I was in the middle of dealing with a troll here and took out my frustration on you prematurely.
Having said that, there were a number of right-leaning sites that didn’t succumb to the hysteria—though too many did, you’re right.
I blame Michael Brown.
Too often, the Bush White House has seemed to back down from fights it could easily have won, and the tea-leaf readers have all said “Oh, it’s a poker gameâ€Â.
Aside from Bush’s having gotten re-elected, however, I don’t see any meaningful payback for all the yards of shit his administration’s eaten on behalf of his stances
Guantanamo’s open. We are continuing the good work in Iraq. Afghan elections went well.
Not one social conservative triumph will endure if we lose the long battle against Islamofascism. I for one am willing to forgive a lot if Bush’s actions further that fight.
But then I’m more of a small ‘l’ neo-libertarian. There are a bunch of that sort of voter who supported this administration last fall ….
I do think that Occam’s Razor applies here. Let me make the case that:
1. She’s a constructionist. She has recently stated that she believes in the law as it is written.
2. No one, except BushCo, knows that much about her. Thus, no paper trail to pummel her with in the upcoming hearings.
I know that many of us are spoiling for a filibuster showdown in the Senate and that we wanted to go to war with someone like Brown as the nominee. Maybe Bush doesn’t want that fight. Sometimes, the simplest answer is the correct one.
Me? I just find it fascinating that we have our first SCOTUS nominee with a mullet.
Hmmmm.
“Not one social conservative triumph will endure …”
What “social conservative triumph” are you talking about?
ed, I don’t think he’s necessarily referring to any in particular. He’s making a larger point.
And before anybody asks me what that is, see here.