Miers Withdraws Nomination

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

munk

Joined
Mar 22, 2002
Messages
15,742
Well, this is what greeted me on my Yahoo idiot page this morning.
I am filled with disgust for well intentioned hypocrites.

W.F. Buckley once observed you could get a better Congress during an election cycle with the first 200 names out of the Boston Phone Book.

Every last one of them, or nearly so, in our House and Senate, are lawyers. That may convince them they have the background for the job, but it has always left me with grave doubts about our sanity.

The idea, that one to be useful must be proven by past accolades, and in this case, the lack of a posh Eastern Seaboard Matriculation, the lack of sitting on the Federal Bench, and the lack of public attention to Constitutional 'law', negates the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT CRITERIA; that of individual judgement excercised by the President, and by that example, all of us.

How many times in this Life have we seen the Plodder come out on top, not because of an impressive resume, but because of hard work, and being forced by History to act? If we applied the same standard to the Presidency the 'Intellectual" Conservatives wish to apply to the Supreme Court nomination, then neither George Bush, or Abraham Lincoln would have ever been President.

IN fact, many of the greatest acheivements of mankind would simply not be there any more.

I will never watch one of their smiling, milk lapping well spoken faces again without feeling the strong urge to vomit. That's you, George Will, Bill Crystal,
Ann Coulter, Charles Krauthammer, and a whole host of other venomous elites. Bork? The Democrats did good to sink you. For the wrong reasons, but they got the right Ham.

If this wasn't a family forum, I'd tell you what I really think.

There is a reason why during times of Revolution, the Intellectuals are rounded up, gagged, blindfolded, and shot.



munk
 
He led the sanctimonious charge in the press by writing a series of articles calling her incompetant and demanding she be withdrawn.


munk
 
Bork said he did not believe there was a constitutional right to privacy, so I didn't like him back in the 80's.

I didn't see what the big deal about Miers was. True she didn't have experience as a judge but I'm thinking Marshall didn't either and he was a good justice.

There was a right wing 527 gearing up to "Swiftboat" Miers so I guess she just wasn't willing to be subjected to it.

Interesting that with all the spin about Democrats obstructing Bush's nominations (the GOP actually held up or delayed way more of Clintons) that Miers was actually done in by a Republican group. Of course they are more successful at it cause they have more $$ ;)
 
At least Bork's name makes me smile. It makes me think of the Swedish Chef or perhaps Mork's bumbling brother.

The snakes have all risen from their baskets these days, and it's no longer practical to entertain the idea of the illusion that they are working for the public good. I've seen stray dogs fighting over bones that were more civil than politics in America today. Idiologs, Big Business, Haters for hating's sake, etc etc etc. I'm ready for a Mr. Smith. I can't watch the news or read the paper anymore. It's ALL politics, and it's ALL a pi$$ing match.
Miers might have been great. She might have sucked, but I don't think it should be up a bunch of agenda-pushing vultures to push or pull for whom they want or don't want sitting on the bench. Lots of Justices have been seated by several Presidents. Some didn't turn out the way the administration at that time wanted them to. Gotta roll the bones sometimes. Justices are an investment for your political afilliation by how they interpret the Constitution. Sometimes they pan out, sometimes they don't. How they view the Constitution is not anywhere near as important as if they understand it.
Maybe we should just invent a big Justice Super Computer. Feed in the case, and after a few minutes of crunching and grinding out pops a card that reads "Constitutional" or "Unconstitutional". The logic will be inescapable. We could tape Spock ears on the side of it.

Jake
 
Apparently her 1993 speech to the Executive Women of Dallas set the fundies off big time.

Especially this part:

"Where science determines the facts, the law can effectively govern. However, when science cannot determine the facts and decisions vary based upon religious belief, then government should not act. I do not mean to make very complex, emotional issues too simplistic. But some of these issues do not need to be as complicated as they have become if people deal with each other with respect and even reverence."

The religious right put Bush in office. I personally do not feel that President Bush is a religious person, but early on in his career in politics he learned that with the country so evenly divided that they could give him the margin to win, hence his embracing religion in a vague way. For instance nobody really knows his personal beliefs and he really doesn't regularly attend church. For more on this read here:

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041011&s=sullivan101104

Look at history. The Republican party has used the religious right to gain votes in every election. The most important issue to these people is to ban abortion. We have a president and a majority of both houses in congress for whom the margin of victory was gained by courting the religious right. Yet after 3 republican presidents and 5? Years of the GOP controlling the presidency and both houses of congress abortion is still as easy to get as ever. This tells me the Right Wing Fundamentalists are getting USED.

These people went out and worked hard, raised money and voted for these politicians, every day they see the GOP cut benefits to the middle class and throw money at the rich. They have waited patiently for their turn at the table, here is the golden opportunity and Bush nominates someone that may be pro choice. While I disagree with outlawing abortion personally I totally understand why these folks are pissed. :mad:
 
richardallen said:
Could you please further explain that statement?

Keno
Click to expand...


I think he was kind of echoing Thomas Jefferson:

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."

-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.
 
ARe you serious, Keno? It's a joke which expresses contempt for intellectuals. Historically, during many 'popular' revolutions, like the one France had, and numerous communist/socialist events in the last 100 years, the intelligencia is seen as an enemy of the people and are imprisoned and/or shot.

There is actually no purpose in executing intellectuals and academics. They are like weeds; they will spring up again in the best gardens.

>>>>>>>>

Hollow- this is a not a, 'Republicans did this', or 'Democrats did that'; this is about the Class structure and ruling elite of this Nation, which is a Constitutional Republic.


munk
 
I think he was kind of echoing Thomas Jefferson:

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."

-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.>>>>>>> Hollow

No, that IS NOT what I meant, and you are offensive to bring this to a bash against religion as you proport to speak for me. You have exercised your opinon; that is mine.


munk
 
yeah i was serious. still am. i didn't really get the joking part, that's why I asked. I got the impression that your statement was totally serious and I was confused by that, maybe even a bit upset.

Thanks for clarifying though.

Keno
 
NO, Keno; it wasn't serious and I'm glad you asked. No reasonable people executes anybody in that manner. That is lawlessness. Besides, some people believe "I'm" an intellectual: I may not be safe. !!!


Miers was class warfare, pure and simple, masked under by rationalizations and denial by Conservative 'thinkers'.

If you want to get ahead in America, go to the right schools.


munk
 
richardallen said:
Could you please further explain that statement?
Click to expand...

Yeah, does this mean that in days of yore Ben Franklin & Co. rounded up a bunch of smart guys and shot 'em?

Personally, I don't know how to get irritated about the whole general mess. The left wingers want to ban guns, the right wingers want to ban abortions and according to the old goats who signed the Constitution the Federal Government doesn't have any business banning either.
 
Its not necessarily the "intellectuals" that are the problem. They usually sit in their little academic rooms and write stuff that nobody reads. The problem is POLITICIANS who are in the business of being politicians, rather than representatives of their electorate.

None of these national politicians gives a rat's patoot about any of us. The only thing they care about is getting reelected, getting their names out there as "power brokers" and pursuing whatever political agenda their masters tell them to.

Anyone who makes a living in politics should be ashamed of himself\herself.
 
I wish there was a way out, Shann.

Let's look at Hollow's use of the "priesthood" for a moment. Intellectuals, those that are pundits for policy in press and political office, and the Politicians themselves, comprise a type of "Priesthood". That it is 'non religious' matters not at all. They have everything in common with the worst of dogma:

They believe they are better than you are
They believe decisions are best left to them
They believe they were appointed by higher authority- usually of their own family and/or innate superiority.

That is what humans do. It always has been this way. We let things go to our heads.


Hollowdweller; I know you weren't trying to be mean.

munk
 
Thanks for the names of people who have some very thought provoking views
on today's political scene:

Quote--"George Will, Bill Crystal,
Ann Coulter, Charles Krauthammer"

A couple more would be Neil Boortz and ""Maha Rushie"" :p ;) :D
 
munk said:
I think he was kind of echoing Thomas Jefferson:

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."

-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.>>>>>>> Hollow

No, that IS NOT what I meant, and you are offensive to bring this to a bash against religion as you proport to speak for me. You have exercised your opinon; that is mine.


munk
Click to expand...

Sorry. :rolleyes:
 
No, I'm sorry. I apologize. I was a little hot. I didnt want you throwing in the entire kitchen sink. But you and I have, over the years, engaged in much thought provoking discussion. Look at your use of the expression of "Priest" If you drop the conventional use of this, that is exactly what these self promoted leaders, shakers and movers of our society think they are: better than we. Our leaders. Servants us. We solicit for their approval.

There is a ruling class in this Nation and it stinks to high Heaven.


munk
 
Ahem....this may be pointing out the obvious but....this may not be the correct forum for policitical discussions.

Things tend to get a little heated especially when the forumites don't agree with the mods.

Just a thought.



Semp
 
Exactly. What you said about the ruling class. For instance the Dems always get support of the unions, but what have they done for them lately? NAFTA? Yeah that was a big help. I didn't see them raising a ruckus when Bush made the new Dept. of Homeland Security a scab outfit either. The GOP get a lot of support from gun owners and the anti abortion folks, but other than some stuff around the edges have they really danced with who brought them???

The ruling class which is really what I mean when I say Big Business is calling the shots mostly with both parties. Unions are problems for them. Gunplay during strikes are really problems so that's why you don't see anybody really pushing for really strong gun rights. Abortion is a way to get votes, the ruling class doesn't really care if it's illegal or not cause the people with enough money will always be able to get it.

I just keep seeing this slide toward almost a medieval society where we have royal families and we are all serfs and peasants.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top