Harriet Miers

H

&#8220Harriet Miers should not grow up to be on the United States Supreme Court.&#8221

The cynical among us may be forgiven for wondering whether we still do live in a republic, for the simple pulverzing fact is that the great bulk of the really vexing questions that confront this nation — those questions that drive right to the heart of who we are as a people — are in our day answered by the United States Supreme Court. That the Supreme Court has no constitutional authority to answer many of these questions is immaterial. The Court has become our Legislator. The inevitable consequence of this development, whatever one may think of it, is that no American patriot can regard the nomination of a new Justice with indifference.

As a consequence, there is profound disappointment today on the right. Harriet Miers was rumored as the next pick for the Supreme Court, but many people laughed off the suggestion. Some of those who were laughing are now crying. Still others are abandoning hope. Said one correspondent, “This Presidency is adrift.” From what we have seen lately, we tend to agree.

For all we know, and we know very little, Harriet Miers is the second coming of Antonin Scalia. But, we do not know. What we know is encouraging to the extent that she might be right on life issues. She did actively oppose the American Bar Association’s position. Assuming that Miers is a conservative jurist, we still cannot, at this time, accept or endorse this nomination.1

Many lawyers like to think that one day they could grow up to be on the United States Supreme Court. Those that do, however, are usually from top tier law schools. Their careers are followed by stints in the state judiciary, federal judiciary, Justice Department, or academia. Those picks that originate from government or from academia, usually have stellar careers and brilliant academic resumes, coupled with impressive writings often in academic journals. Anyone may be able to grow up to be President, but not just anyone can or should grow up to be on the United States Supreme Court.

From what we know, Harriet Miers should not grow up to be on the United States Supreme Court. She has an impressive career of “firsts” as a female attorney in Texas, but those are not enough. Miers did not graduate from a top tier law school. She has no string of impressive legal writings. She has never served as a judge (let alone clerked for a Supreme Court Justice or Circuit Court Judge). She has never had a practice focusing on issues relevant to the United States Supreme Court. She has had nothing in her career that indicates she is something other than just a great lawyer — and being more than just a great lawyer should be a key qualification for one of the final arbiters of American jurisprudence.

Many of the President’s defenders would argue that Harriet Miers is like Chief Justice Rehnquist, in that she worked for a Presidential administration, but had no experience on the bench before becoming an associate justice. That ignores the fact that Chief Justice Rehnquist graduated first in his class at Stanford, clerked for Justice Jackson, and had a stellar career at the United States Department of Justice.

Had the President been interested in competent jurists from unique walks of life, he could have chosen Michael Luttig who knows firsthand the devastation that crime can cause from the savage murder of his father. He could have chosen Karen Williams who was first a school teacher before going on to get a law degree. He could have chosen Janice Rogers Brown, a conservative black woman who worked her way all the way to the California Supreme Court and then was appointed to the United States Court of Appeals. He could have chosen Miguel Estrada, an immigrant to this country who had an impressive career in the Justice Department with a paper trail to prove his fitness and qualifications and who suffered the loss of the wife he loves. All of these potential nominees have unique experience in their personal lives and distinguished careers in law beyond just being great lawyers.

We can be convinced that Miers is stellar. We can be convinced that Miers will be an originalist willing to reject the liberal dogma of Roe. But from where we sit now, this is a profoundly disappointing nomination, a missed opportunity, and an abdication of responsibility to make sound, well qualified nominations. Whether it is also a betrayal of first principles is still to be determined.

  1. From Ryan Lizza’s reporting we can infer Ms. Miers supported the International Criminal Court, tax increases, and a prohibition on laws that would prohibit gay adoption.

About the author

Erick Erickson

43 comments

  • A friend asked me if Bush would betray the conservative movement with his next SCOTUS nominee. My response was, “I think he’ll do the right thing.” I’m eating my words a bit this morning.Harriet Miers seems to be well qualified and experienced. She has many advancements as a female lawyer in a state (Texas) dominated by the male personna–excepting Ann Richards, and we all know what a wonderful thing that was for the Lone Star State.While reading through the RNC talking points email today, I was struck by the repeated references to Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and the similarities draw between Miers and her. Especially this one,

    Like Justice O’Connor, throughout her career, Ms. Miers has been a female trailblazer.

    It is evident that this choice was strongly influenced by a fear of two things:

    A nomination fight based on hysteria drummed up by the Democrats if a male nominee was chosen.

    The desire to avoid any comparisons to Justices Thomas or Scalia.

    How sad.

    Maybe I am wrong and she is a star, but I doubt it at this point. Will she be bad? Who knows. One thing is for sure, it is likely we won’t get any worse than O’Connor. It just seems likely we won’t get much better. And the one who said in 2004, “I want Justices who have the temperment of Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia,” in an attempt to drum up the conservative base in a tough election seems to have buckled under the pressure of falling poll numbers in the aftermath of Katrina.

  • Ah, I see a elitism at work here, and of course the usual male chauvinism at work! Even, women fall into the trap of being more critical of women just by following a man’s lead. Rehnquist had not sit in the Judge’s seat before going to the Supreme Court and from what I heard from VP Cheney there have been others.

    And going to a top tier law school only means that you are poorer when you get through with school! I am happy to see that a brilliant lady has been nominated, and most happy that she is a Christian. I am sure she will make an excellent Judge. Most women have to work ten times harder than men, maybe more, to work their way to the top. Breaking through the glass ceiling is still hard in 2005. Way to go President Bush. And you don’t get any more conservative than me, so a member of the far right is indeed pleased.

  • “And going to a top tier law school only means that you are poorer when you get through with school!”

    Left or right, red or blue, no reasonable person acquainted with law schools or the legal system in general can agree with this statement. Going to a top tier law school–which means one that is nationally recruited by law firms–is the single greatest determining factor in one’s legal career. Going to a top law school means several things: first, that one had an impressive enough undergraduate career to get in; and two, this person had their pick of law firms in which to work (not everyone, Miers included, can be an associate at a Cravath or a Lipton–oh, and by the way, those firms WERE hiring female attorneys in the 70’s when Miers was supposedly “trailblazing” her way through Texas).

    Some further points on this:
    – Virtually every law school (SMU included), gives merit scholarships to the top 10% or 15% of their class. The fact that Miers wasn’t awarded such a scholarship at a top law school is forgivable; the fact that she didn’t get in is disheartening; the fact that she couldn’t even make honor roll at SMU is, for a future Supreme Court Justice, disgusting. So the statement concerning one being “poor” graduating from a top school is an utter fallacy. Let me assure you that John G. Roberts, who had to work in coal mines through his undergraduate career, had some hefty scholarships when he was in law school.

    – Another point on Miers specifically: guess what? One of the best law schools in the entire country, one that’s nationally recruited, is the University of Texas. It’s one thing if a Supreme Court Justice doesn’t go to the best law school in the country–it’s another if she can’t even get in to the best law school in her home state.

    Can’t you side with the right anymore and still dispute people’s qualifications? Thinking like Linda’s–that our president can nominate anyone he wants, qualifications be damned–is what’s eventually going to cause the pendulum to swing back to left.

  • No, I cannot! It is more important to me that she went to a Methodist College. I don’t give credence to your attacks on anyone. I have a right to think like I want. I do not have to side with the right that you side with because the right is not right anymore. Why don’t you take a look at Tom Delay? I have listened to the spin, and it sounds like money laundering to me. The right is no longer right in this country, as it has been besieged by a bunch of wealthy snobs. There is nothing in the Constitution that says that a person has to go to a tier one law school or has the right changed it. I think President Bush has smart enough advisors that he does not need for people like you to critique his Supreme Court nominee. I do trust President Bush. What is wrong with people like you Apt is that you do not know how to think for yourself, you have to have the “Right” talking points. Now, I venture to say that you would be a cheerleader if the political pundits had pushed the nominee today with positive spin. Our country is about the rights of all invidividuals. I say to Harriet Myers, “we’ve come along baby.”

  • It is not legal snobbery to want the best of the best on the Supreme Court. The fact of the matter is simple. I want life + qualifications. We may have the former, but we most assuredly do not have the latter.

    And we should not have to doubt or question. There are plenty of women who are much more qualified and we do not have to doubt about their commitment to life or originalism.

  • I hear that she has worked hard throughout her career, and has put in many pro bono hours. Sounds like she is a real American like the majority of us are. She has said that she would follow the Constitution, and made comments that “John Roberts may not be conservative enough”, afterall, she has been helping pick out the other nominees. I go along with the theory that we need balance on the Supreme Court, and I have no doubt that she has been groomed for this since 2003 maybe longer. What difference does it make where she went to school, what her GPA is or anything like that, she has earned her degree and she passed the bar? Maybe where she went to school, there was no grade inflation like that which we have here in Georgia.

  • I would bet that Ted Olson would be most supportive of her. I really do think that Georgia is about 20 years behind in accepting women into the good ole boys club. And that is why we are ranked 49th in education in this state because elitism had created a stagnation in the school system. It is sad, but it is a reality.

  • You see when Hariet went to college, there was no such thing as curves on test, and a professor dropping the lowest test to get your final grade. And, you have to take into consideration that Texas was probably like where I went to school in Indiana and Kentucky where the cutoff for an A was a 94. And when you got a 94, it was on your report card as an A-. You just may not know all of the facts, so do not be so quick to assume that she is any less intelligent than anyone that has ever been appointed to the bench.

  • So now your position is we should only support SCOTUS candidates we agree with on major issues AND who went to the right school, got the right grades, and then clerked for some judge. Okay???

    No, I think development of judicial temperment doesn’t end at at 17 years old. So if someone isn’t a straight “A” student in 11th grade and doesn’t get into Harvard or Yale well that means they will never be good enough. BS! I don’t know Harriet Miers from any other potential nominee. But I do know that people can change a lot from high school to adulthood.

    Ginsberg and Souter both graduated from Harvard Law School. Doesn’t speak real highly of the education they received, does it?

  • As a rebuttal to Ryan Lizza’s reporting about the tax increase on property in Dallas in 1990, even though I am adamantly opposed to tax increse in 99.9% instances, I can understand the need to raise taxes. When one takes into consideration that Texas has no state income tax, and when one takes into account that Texas is the fastest growing state, with massive immigration and the tech boom that started in 1990 it was no doubt a have to situation to raise property taxes to accomadate the constraints on the public school system. I knew that there was no state income tax in Texas, and I knew about the growht in Texas as that goes without saying by their geographical location, but I wanted to get a source.

    Source:
    http://www.mccombs.utexas.edu/research/bbr/bbrpub/tbr/pdf/June_05.pdf

    Now if the courts stick with the gay adoption about if the adoption is in the best interest of the child, I reluctantly agree. If it is an aunt that is adopting a child because the only parent is deceased. But I know that this would be a ruling wide open to interpretation. Since, the reporter did not bother to look up tax statistics about Texas, I doubt if she has all the facts correct about gay adoption rights.

  • I think there’s a fundamental disagreement on this board concerning conservatism vs. legal scholarship (re: Linda, EricWoods, LargeBill).

    It would seem that for some on this board, a conservative bent (and for others, an extreme conservative bent) is all that’s required for an acceptable Supreme Court Justice. I’m not going to argue this point; if someone personally feels that the US is going to hell in a handbasket and that Bush should pack the Supreme Court with the most ideologically defined justices, then any candidate who sides to the right on those issues would do just fine. I doubt Miers would perform poorly under these conditions. If aspects of Miers life, like going to a Methodist college, are of supreme importance than Miers fits the bill.

    But if we’re honestly going to argue a potential justice’s worthiness based on legal scholarship, Miers falls quite flat regardless of her ideological affiliation. Despite your rankor towards Ginsburg and Souter, it’s hard to argue that they didn’t have spectacular legal careers. It’s proof, if you will, that what we can define as legal scholarship has little basis in political affiliation. It’s an example, too, that Miers can’t hold a candle to other conservative justices like Renquist or Scalia (I’d debate Thomas’ qualifications, but that’s another issue) or even newly confirmed Roberts.

    As for the issue of “working hard” and “grade inflation,” these are quite childish arguments to make. Someone on this board mentioned that people change as they become adults, and that grades don’t matter. Let me start off by saying that by the time Miers had completed her undergrad, she was very much an adult. When she entered law school, she was very an adult. And still, she failed to distinguish herself from her graduating class. For the sake of argument, if we were going to take someone for the Supreme Court exclusively from SMU, why not take one of the hundreds of folks who graduated ahead of her in undergrad, or the dozens that did so at law school? I can assure you that not only can we find a female lawyer who performed better at law school and at her firm than Miers, but that there’s an even MORE conservative one. Why should you settle for less? Let’s keep in mind that there is only a single spot open on the SUPREME Court–if there’s ANYBODY else who can do a better job, than Miers is a poor candidate.

    An additional point concerning marks: if marks are so unimportant, than there’s no quantitative way to distinguish graduating members of a class; no incentive to compete against one’s classmates; in short, no reason to study. This very idea of competition, be it the free market or law school, is exactly the basis for this country’s creation. The ramifications of marginalizing scholarship, as some would like to do here, are dire indeed.

  • The Republican talking heads have forgot that the President and his smart counsel were able to defeat the Trial Lawyer’s Association, and put Al Gore somewhere in cyber space looking for his patent on the Internet. Remember the saving grace lawyer the media praised up one side and down the other, David Boise, with the intent of turning our Constitution inside out by demanding recounts in four Florida counties. Mr. Boise was an avid poker player as a hobby, but he got beat in the highest stakes poker game he ever played. So, yes, I unconditionally trust President Bush to understand more than anyone that we need a strict constructionist on the Supreme Court.

  • I will take a detail oriented math major any day over a political science oriented Judge. Hariet will bring an ability to carefully analyze every fact, and will be an asset to the bench. Character and integrity counts more than so-called distinguishment in law school. Maybe, she had some liberal professors that did not like her conservative stance. I had a teacher give me a B in a business class simply because I was opposed to tenured professors from being excluded from student evaluations when I was President of the Student Government. So, I know the drill in liberal schools. And grade inflation is not “childish”, as it is a reality with graduates since 1980. As I sad before, I trust President Bush to do the right thing. I want to point out that I do realize that Mr. Delay is innocent until proven guilty from an earlier post.

  • I never said that legal scholarship was unimportant. My contention is that learning doesn’t end at age 23. Someone could be in the top 10% of the their class. Someone else could be smack dab in the middle. 30 years later I’d be more concerned with what they have done since than in their LSAT’s or how they were graded in school. I worked for a high school drop out who was a multi-millionaire owner of his own business. I’ve known guys with post-graduate degrees without jobs. Education is important but life doesn’t end in school.

  • I am a graduate of Columbia Law School (Justice Ginsburg’s alma mater… not Harvard). I have been reading this discussion with interest. I have to agree with apt and some of the others. Having “life experience” is useful, but we have to keep in mind that this is not a city council seat or even the Presidency. This is a seat on the Supreme Court — one of only nine, and a lifetime appointment. Being a Supreme Court justice is not the same as being a politician. Having read and studied hundreds of Supreme Court and federal appellate opinions, I can tell you that intelligence, critical reasoning, analytical ability, and wisdom are far more important to being a great justice than being a “hard worker” or having “life experience.” These cases are highly complex, and the attorneys (men and women) that argue before the Supreme Court are uniformly brilliant… indeed, they are among the smartest people in the country. Having a justice who is at least as smart as the lawyers who are trying to persuade them is absolutely necessary.

    Admittedly, one’s law school is not the perfect proxy for one’s intelligence and analytical ability. However, people do generally go to the most prestigious law school they can get into because that is how the profession operates. The top law firms and best judicial clerkships only hire from the most prestigious schools… not because they are “snobs” (although many are), but because law is a profession of the mind. Our livelihood doesn’t depend on how skilled we are at hammering a nail or singing a song, but rather at how well we analyze and reason out an issue. Thus, these law firms and judges focus on these schools because — absent an IQ test for every law student in the country — it is more likely than not that a student at a Harvard or a Yale is going to be more intelligent, and thus a better lawyer, than a student at SMU.

    All that said, it’s possible that Ms. Miers is a brilliant legal mind. But apt is right, given her (lack of) legal credentials, it is more probable that she is not.

  • One more point: It is also important that a justice be at least as brilliant as his/her fellow justices. The justices attempt to persuade each other before the opinion is written, so it is key that a justice have sufficient analytical ability to participate in this back-and-forth. And the current justices are amazing. John Paul Stevens had the highest GPA in the history of Northwestern Law. Ruth Ginsburg was number one in her class at Columbia Law. Antonin Scalia was valedictorian at Georgetown undergrad and finished with highest honors from Harvard Law. David Souter was a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford. Sandra Day O’Connor was third in her class at Stanford (the same year that Rehnquist was number one). These are all, simply put, absolutely brilliant people. Even Clarence Thomas went to Yale Law, considered the top law school in America.

  • Well, I am sure that Hillary had a high GPA in college, too and I wouldn’t trust her to run a sanitation facility. Well, on second thought garbage just might be her forte. Ha! You see, it makes no difference where one goes to school becaue if you got a God given intellect, a degree from Valdosta State can be equivalent to a degree from Harvard.

    Have you not learned, that money does not buy a brain? I am sure that Ms. Miers is as bright as anyone sitting on the Supreme Court.

  • Linda, you are totally right, money does not buy a brain. But you miss the point. None of us really knows whether Ms. Miers is smart or not. The only evidence we have is where she has been and what she has done. And, unfortunately, nothing in that track record indicates that she is of Supreme Court caliber. That is the real issue here: Do we take a chance with someone who is relatively unknown?

    Secondly, I have to differ with your view that it “makes no difference where one goes to school”. I’m sure there are smart people at Valdosta State, but without question there are many more smart people at Harvard, both in percentage terms and in absolute numbers. Prestigious, elite schools are so for a reason: they attract the brightest minds in the world, and their student bodies are disproportionately comprised of such people. Again, that is not to say that someone who goes to Valdosta State cannot be smart, it’s just that the probability that they are very smart is significantly less than if they had Harvard on their resume. In other words, 9 out of 10 people you meet from Harvard are probably going to be extremely bright, whereas say only 1 or 2 out of 10 from Valdosta State will be on that level. Of course, we shouldn’t pre-judge people from Valdosta State before we really know them, but absent additional information, it’s one of the few metrics we have.

    Finally, Hillary Clinton, whatever your disagreements with her ideology, is widely regarded by everyone on both sides of the aisle as an extremely bright individual. She was the first student ever asked to deliver the commencement address at the elite Wellesley College, as valedictorian. She went to the super-elite Yale Law School, where she excelled (and supposedly had to tutor Bill). Her approach to solving our nation’s ills is somewhat different from those on the right, but it doesn’t mean that she isn’t worthy of due respect.

  • It would seem that some on this board (Linda) would argue that the left is completely devoid of intelligence. It’s a similar argument I heard from the left for voting for Bush: that those who voted Republican in the election were “stupid.” This is obviously a false statement, just as protestations from the right that people like Hillary Clinton (whom, for the record, I despite) are “stupid.” There are some brilliant people on both sides of the political spectrum. Knocking their intelligence, simple because one vehemently disagrees with them, is the only “stupid” argument to be making.

    On another note, I have to side completely with Ray: it’s not that Miers isn’t smart because she went to SMU, it’s that it’s less certain that she is.

    The question, again, that no one wants to answer is, “Aren’t there people equally as good to serve on the Supreme Court, that we have a better idea of their legal scholarship?”

    And Bush isn’t God: you can like him or not, but to trust him completely without question is as close as one gets to idolatry–the morals of which I don’t think I need to go into.

  • Well, I just see male chauvinism at work. Not everyone is born with a silver spoon in their mouth or with political connections to go to school. The only smart Democrats that I have every met are Democrats that have become Independents, Libertarians or moved to the Republican Party. So hence, like it or not, I have listened to the so-called Yale and Harvard Democrat Elitists, and to be quite frank they give me hives.

    And Hillary is no doubt as clever as a fox, but I pray that people are smart enough not to vote for her. I hope that Orak Obama (sp?) runs against her in the primary. So put that in your pipe and smoke it! LOL

  • Deduction about Democrats:

    At least 75% of the media votes Democrat; hence I know this party has left me.

    At least 30% of the media are Aehtists; hence the Democrat Party is against me as a Christian.

    The Democrat Party uses minorities to get votes, by promising redistribution of weath that harms my family, clients and friends; hence the Democrat Paty is not my party.

    So unless you fall into one of the above mentioned items that I see that defines your party, then why are you a Democrat?

  • I do not worship President Bush, but I do know that it takes very high standards to work in the White House when a Republican is President. With this fact in mind, I support Harriet Miers because President Bush would not nominate someone that was not of the highest character and ability to serve on the highest court in the land.

  • Number 1, I’m not a democrat–but I’m certainly don’t trust Bush simply because he’s a Republican in the White House.

    Number 2, I see that redistribution of wealth for you is only a “minority” issue. Besides the fact that you’ve (gleefully) exposed yourself to be the bigot you are, tell that to the millions (7% of the last census) of poor white folk living in trailer homes, the same trailer homes that got destroyed by Katrina and Rita.

    Number 3, “President Bush would not nominate someone that was not of the highest character and ability.” Like former FEMA director, his hunting buddy, Michael Brown? (Who was thoroughly vetted by a Republican Senate hearing for his incompetence?)

    It’s good to know extremists like yourself are kept in margins of society, unfortunately just like the “minorities” you blame for taking your money. Don’t you have a cross to burn somewhere?

  • Dear Apt,

    You see, that is where you are dead wrong. Last time I heard about 14% of our budget is spent on entitlement programs. I am most cerainly not a bigot, and I grew up in trailer parks. Yeah, that is right you are debating with trailer trash, as I’m sure you would have called me if you had went to elementary school and high school with me.

    You are a real dumb [email protected]@ because you assume to much. I was a poor girl that wore clothes from rummage sales, the term today is yard sales. I have more sympathy for the impoverished than you could ever relate too. I went to school when there was not such thing as the free lunch program, and sit through lunch in the library many days because I had no lunch money.

    You can’t tell me a thing about poverty. I know what entitlement programs do, they make fat cats like you rich. You know the lawyers that suck the blood out of the economy like a vampire. You are a moron.

  • I spelled some words wrong because of being so angry at you, Apt. You better be glad you are not sitting across the room from me or you would have got my foot right up your smart butt!

  • I’m not disagreeing with your dislike of entitlement programs–I’m disagreeing with your accusation that they’re specific to minorities. Self-described “trailer trash” like yourself should be well aware of that the welfare problem in the United States is not limited to those scary “minorities.” Why not trying staying on topic? That’s what those Supreme Court Justices call “debate.” Here’s an example in case you’re still confused: debate.

    Despite this, it’s good to know that the school you went to could at least teach you to recognize that you spelled things incorrectly.

  • While you’re venting, maybe you’d like to vent some more about specifically how entitlement programs make “fat cats”–those who don’t receive money from entitlement programs–rich. I’d be interested to hear the logic behind it. If that’s a little too difficult, then simply telling me that the “fat cats” are bad Christians will surely suffice.

  • Or worse: atheists! Heaven forbid someone excercise their constitutional right to freedom of religion!

  • Or worse: atheists! Heaven forbid someone excercise their constitutional right to freedom of religion!

    Well, there are two flaws in this statement: Atheist is not a religion and Atheist are out to undermine Christianity and remove it from society, and no doubt create laws that make it a crime to discuss Christianity in a public place. Actually, it is practically to that point now.

  • Actually, I have found some speeches given by infamous Bill Clinton on the secularism of the United States, and how that is where we need to go to have better harmony in the United States. Hint: New World Order

  • And, with Ms. Miers I certainly do not think that she would want to secularize the United States. I feel certain that she will rule on keeping “one nation under God in the pledge” and will know doubt be instrumental in making sure the affirmative action initiative gets on the ballot in 2006 in Michigan. There are many key things that will chart the future of the United States going forward, and we need a Christian like Ms. Miers on the bench.

  • I do not know the name of the ballot initiative in Michigan, but it seeks to overturn the ridiculous standards of being admitted into Michigan Law School with less than stellar credentials. I would assume you would agree with that. The Citizens should get the right to vote on this issue that is more broad than what I have described.

  • Linda,
    By the way, in the affirmative action case about Michigan’s law school last year, it is widely reported by those who worked with her in the White House, including some I know personally, that Miers had no problem with the affirmative action quotas.

  • You know I did not ever relate entitlement programs to minorities. Do you not know that 75% of those that live in poverty are white. Take a look at the Appalachians where the population is about 98% white, and the medium income is around $19,000. You see poverty knows not race, and I just see that entitlement programs is not the solution.
    People need a hand up not a hand out. Peple need to be taught to be self-reliant and not encouraged to stay trapped in the welfare system. You would have to admit that the Democrats have used the poor the most to get votes. I know because my Dad is a yellow dog Democrat, and he thinks if the Republicans get elected he will lose his social security check.

    The Democrats ruined the party by offering false hope, and by selling out the party to the Hollywood left.

    We need a real down to earth person to sit on the Supreme Court, and hopefully she live up to the President’s expectaions and even exceed them.

  • By the way, in the affirmative action case about Michigan’s law school last year, it is widely reported by those who worked with her in the White House, including some I know personally, that Miers had no problem with the affirmative action quotas.

    Eric,

    I know you have sources, but why in the world would Ms. Miers talk about current issues to be ruled on. She has been groomed for this seat on the Supreme Court for years, and that is what I truly believe. But you know that is a good leak to feed to Jerry Carville!

  • My son went to school last year in the 4th grade after the election and taught the kids about the electoral college. He almost got expelled for asking the kids if they were gay or if they were straight because he watched the Cheney/Edwards debate.

    See that is a perfect example of how the scum bag media does, they can’t even put on a debate that is child proof!

  • “See that is a perfect example of how the scum bag media does, they can’t even put on a debate that is child proof!”

    Last time I checked, it was Cheney and Edwards who referenced homosexuality during the debate, not “the media.” Since you probably don’t believe me because you trust everything the White House says, why don’t you read it for yourself:

    http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004b.html

    It was a vice-presidential debate: not Sesame Street, which I’m sure you consider blasphemous because it depicts animals talking and that goes against what it says in the bible.

    Regardless, you sure like your generalizations Linda: “the media,” “the minorities.” I hope you instill the same level of critical thinking into your son by telling him the world is faulty because of “the blacks” and “the Jews.” (That’s sarcasm, by the way; the more you speak, the more I find it necessary to point little things like that out.)

    Beyond this post, I’m going to have to discontinue posting to this board. The sheer extremity of some don’t deserve further attention. This is the last time I’m registering Republican.

By Erick Erickson

Recent Comments

Meta