Beldar re: Harriet Miers
If you’re not reading Beldar for information on Harriet Miers, you are REALLY missing out. It’s a crime that his work isn’t being published in the Washington Post, instead of just on a blog. You owe it to yourself (no matter what your position is on Miers) to go read everything he’s written on the issue, if you’re the least bit interested in the SCOTUS pick.
Anne says:
This counts in my book as SPAM.
1) Post was not even read.
2) Nothing in the post was even addressed.
2) Nothing but shilling for some website and a phone number.
4) Offensive content.
Seeya, Anne.
–The Management
MCPO Airdale says:
OK, I read Beldar’s stuff. Rather verbose wouldn’t you say?
It is a long way to go to explain the theory of why sharks don’t eat lawyers. . . and the “we’re from Texas” thing got old after the 19th time.
I don’t have any “elitist” problems with Miers. As I have said, it is a squandered opportunity to have nominated his close, personal attorney.
Beth says:
All I’m saying is he’s demolished some of the arguments against her, based on factual evidence, rather than simply saying “they’re elitists.”
Verbose, maybe, but not when you’re trying to explain things like what he’s doing; and, like you said, he IS a lawyer. ;-)
Don Surber says:
Like the new look. Watching SNL News. They are doing all the Couter talking points. Gee, do the anti-Miers people feel real cool and groovy now? Anyway, the Beldar sells the case. Thanks for the HT
The Commissar says:
Journalized Winter???? You?? Lover of shiny things??
F***ing copycat!!! I oughta sue!!! And ya know what? When I sue you, I am gonna get me an “intellectual powerhouse” for my counsel. You know who you can have. :)
Anyway, I TB’d to this post. Sorry, Beth, I just dont see it.
Vinnie says:
The Commissar, putting the “Dik” in “Diktat.”
AJStrata says:
Hey, nice new digs Beth! And thanks for the links.
ZP says:
I think the most interesting comment I’ve heard about Beldar’s analysis was “why hasn’t the White House been saying this?
I think he is making some excellent points. I am still of the glass-half full variety when it comes to Miers. I think President Bush knows what he wants in a nominee, a nominee who is going to help change the court, and he thinks that she is it. I think it’s ridiculous watching the far right meltdown going on right now. There is no cause for it. Bush has made some good court picks, not just the Supreme Court picks, and I think a lot of people keep forgetting that.
alex says:
I didn’t find Beldar’s analysis of Miers’ resume all that compelling, personally–partly because I’m no lawyer and so I honestly lack the experience or intuition to say what in a lawyer’s resume should impress me–but mainly because the points which he picked out as indicative of the great legal importance of the cases she’d argued or of the quality of her briefs seemed very strained to me (and the overemphatic snark with which these relatively trivial points were presented didn’t help). Even speaking from a non-lawyerly perspective, it’s hard not to think that this is a pretty non-exceptional resume for a candidate to such high office (and this is only emphasized, for me, by the multitude of lawyerish Miers supporters who simultaneously try to argue that she DOES have an impressive resume–and that, really, a Supreme Court candidate doesn’t NEED an impressive resume and to ask for one is somehow elitist). I realize that a lot of folks on the right or rightish side of the aisle are so horrified by the only available alternative to the Republican party that we sometimes tend to try to rationalize away even the most egregious missteps of this administration in an effort to protect it from the consistently destructive and self-interested criticism of the left. But Bush is a Republican president with a Republican Congress: he should at least make some effort to nominate one candidate with strict constructionalist bonafides not to mention a recognizable intellectual pedigree. Political pussyfooting with a candidate like Miers seems bound to land us with a new Supreme Court justice who just wasn’t worth the effort to get her confirmed–and for us to accept on nothing more than blind faith that she’s really some sort of Scalia or Thomas in disguise is profoundly undemocratic.
Bill Faith says:
Beldar’s always a good read, not just aboutHarriet Miers. He was a powerful ally during the Kerry wars, don’t forget.
MCPO Airdale says:
alex makes my point much more elequently. Thanks you sir!
Krusty Krab says:
MCPO:
I think you are mixing up “verbose” with “detailed”. Verbose implies the use of unnecessary words. While long, Beldar’s post contains no such excessive use of language.
Personally, I have no problem with longer posts when they serve a purpose, and enjoy Beldar’s writing style, but perhaps that’s just me.
Beth says:
All I’m going to say is, think about this, that I wrote, as a possibility (and I maintain, a logical probability) for “why Harriet Miers.”
Beldar looks at the legal aspects (brilliantly, IMHO), and I look at the political.
Turing word, amazingly = VRWC. muahahahahahaha!!!
Val's Hall says:
I like Beldar and I think he’s been more sensible than most of the other bloggers, but I think his points only amount to so much sophistry now. Harriet Miers is now on the record as strongly and unequivcally supporting affirmative action– she was even one of the drafters for the pro-racial and gender preferences opinions in the Grutter case. This alone is an utter and absolute disqualification for a SCOTUS justice, since the Constitution and Civil Rights Law explicitly prohibit state-sponsored discriminatory policies, which affirmative action is, after all.
Funny thing is, I was initially for Miers. I thought she might be a pleasant surprise. But her documented support of affirmative action is patently unacceptable. Any Republican Senator who supports Miers should have his or her name announced in loud, bright colored letters throughout the World Wide Web and blogosphere as cowards and traitors to an objective that conservatives have worked decades for. Oh, and BTW, if Miers is confirmed, here’s a msg to you at the Republican National Committee: Don’t even think about asking us for money anymore, or starting get-out-the-vote drives. Short of the Democrats putting Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy on the 2008 ticket, nothing is going to bring us to support you anymore. We’ve been betrayed too often by so-called conservative Presidents who’ve promised us so much yet not backed up their promises with action. And this, when the GOP has a 55-45 majority in the Senate. It’s totally unacceptable.
Beth says:
the Constitution and Civil Rights Law explicitly prohibit state-sponsored discriminatory policies, which affirmative action is, after all.
Apparently not, if affirmative action policies are in place and haven’t been struck down as unconstitutional. They might be in your opinion, but nobody’s been able to plead that case successfully before the Supreme Court–which means, by your standards, the Supreme Court Justices aren’t qualified, either.
I thought we conservatives didn’t do litmus tests, anyway. (!)
If an argument before the court proves affirmative action unconstitutional (which I personally doubt will happen), then originalist judges will rule accordingly. You have not proven that Miers would be anything other than that, just by citing her work as a lawyer on an aff action case.
Beth says:
I almost forgot to say “HI, Bill!” Long time no see! :grin:
You’re right, he was there during the Kerry wars!
Mr. Snitch! says:
I also like Beldar’s posts on this subject quite a lot. But you have moved over to WordPress! Care to tell us why?
Beth says:
Oh, I’ve been on Wordpress all along. I just switched to this as the default theme (you can change it back by clicking the theme you like–right under the Blogads) because it loads so much faster and doesn’t load all screwy in Firefox like the others sometimes do.
And I loooooooooove WordPress! Always have! I’m not crazy about this theme, but until my new theme is finished, this one just alleviates some of the problems with the others. It’ll do.
MCPO Airdale says:
My last word on Beldar. . . only a lawyer would call a 350 page document a “brief”.