Comments on: Harriet Miers is Unconstitutional

By: Mind of Mog

Mind of Mog — Sat, 15 Oct 2005 22:36:43 +0000

Around The Sphere

What I’m reading now that I have plenty of time, ie not needing to study. Stuff is more interesting than what I write.
Maximus is one unhappy blogger, disillusioned with all political parties, they all seem to drift in a direction more PC, more…

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 16:11:25 +0000

The fact that some women were on everyone's short list doesn't "annihilate" anything. The question is not whether all of Miers's critics are such hard-core sexists that they oppose any woman on the court, but rather, whether there is an element of sexism among some of them that may have caused them to come down harder on Miers than they would have on a male nominee with similar qualifications to hers. I don't pretend to know the answer to that question, and I'm not convinced you or anyone else does, either. I do agree that the evidence isn't there to support Ed Gillespie's apparent allegation that sexism was involved, but that's different from Laura Bush, upon being asked, acknowledging that such a thing is possible. Riddle me this, Clark. Do you believe it is possible - not necessarily probable, mind you, but possible - that there is a racist element to many liberals' opposition to Clarence Thomas? Or do you consider it "ludicrous" to entertain the possibility, given that all of Thomas's liberal opponents supported his predecessor, Thurgood Marshall, who was also black?

By: clark smith

clark smith — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 07:16:46 +0000

Clark: I disagree.

The fact remains that a number of highly qualified potential female nominees were strongly supported by those who oppose the nomination of Miers. This annihilates a ludicrous charge of sexism against those who oppose Miers not based on her gender, but on her relative lack of qualifications for the position.

Can it be that you still give any credence to the charge of sexism against those who oppose Miers?

Laura has said that she wanted her hubby to nominate a woman to replace O’Connor. Now THAT’S the very definition of sexism.

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 00:15:09 +0000

Aphrael, regarding #9 I was being facetious, else I wouldn’t be able to call you a “semantic nazi” over #10 now. It should go without that any act taken by a guy who happens to be a judge, on his own time, is not an act of judicial activism – or of “judicial” anything else.

By: aphrael

aphrael — Thu, 13 Oct 2005 23:35:39 +0000

XRLQ – I beg to differ. A judge circulating an initiative petition would not be judicial activism; it would be political activism engaged in by someone who happens to be a judge. On the other hand, a judge implementing the provisions of said initiative by decree as part of a court ruling would be judicial activism.

By: aphrael

aphrael — Thu, 13 Oct 2005 23:32:49 +0000

I don’t think that Godwin’s law applies to terms like “grammar nazi”, “spelling nazi”, or “language nazi”. As I use the terms – and observe them being used – they aren’t references to actual nazis.

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Thu, 13 Oct 2005 20:14:50 +0000

Aphrael:

XRLQ – had there been liberals hounding Roberts to withdraw on some idiotic ground, I’m certain that Specter, not to mention Cornyn, would have said something similar to what Leahy said here.

Similar, maybe, but I would hope not too similar. It’s one thing to criticize someone else’s statements as irresponsible, premature or whatever. It’s quite another to claim they shouln’t be “permitted” to speak their minds at all.

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Thu, 13 Oct 2005 19:56:13 +0000

You have a valid point there, but you mentioned the Nazis so I’m invoking Godwin’s law and winning this debate by TKO.

By: tgirsch

tgirsch — Thu, 13 Oct 2005 18:49:41 +0000

at which point I’ll either be shocked and awed by Bush’s brilliance in selecting this unlikely constitutional heroine, embarassed beyond belief that I voted for the guy, or something in between.

For a guy with language-Nazi tendencies (witness your “expletive” stunt in an earlier post), it surprises me that you wouldn’t know (or care) that “either” signifies a choice between two possibilities, not among three or more. :)

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Thu, 13 Oct 2005 16:37:18 +0000

Clark: I disagree. For all I know, the nomination of a similarly qualified male attorney named Harry Myers might well have sparked the same outrage, but then again, it may not have. We certainly wouldn’t have heard George Will drone on about diversity and identity politics. To claim as fact that Miers criticism has a sexist component would have been unjustifiable, but merely acknowledging this very real possibility as “possible” is not.

To claim that Laura Bush called Miers opponents “sexist” by acknowledging the possibility of sexism is every bit as silly as it would be to claim that Laura Ingraham called Miers herself “better than Scalia” on H&C the other day. Both Lauras used the same word – possible – to describe such possibilities. If anything, a stronger case could be made in Ingraham’s case, as she brought up that possibility on her own, with no prompting from either of the hosts.