15 Responses to “Justice Miers: A Blogosphere Scorned”

1. Potter Says:
   October 4th, 2005 at 5:48 pm

   This may be the first time I agree with William Kristol. Cass Sunstein was very good on the radio re this appointment ( Al Franken today and Terri Gross yesterday). I actually listened to the press conference today. Bush kept saying that he knows who she is and she is not going to change which is being construed as assurances to right wingers.

   I hope you get into explaining this business of judicial philosophy– strict constructionism and all that.

2. Balloon Juice Says:
   October 4th, 2005 at 6:39 pm

   [...] le to listen here. And, I might add, they have a blog themselves, and you can read about this episode/topic here. This could be entertaining, since this is not my f [...]

3. A little yellow bird Says:
   October 4th, 2005 at 7:17 pm

   Given the obscurity of George W.orthless Bush’s nominees for the Supreme Court, here is a wry suggestion from Billmon’s blog for who may chosen to replace Alan “Merlin of Moolah” Greenspan: (a link from http://www.billmon.org/) http://billmon.org/archives/002224.html Peace, Al

4. Wil Davis Says:
   October 4th, 2005 at 7:23 pm

   An interesting picture from the BBC – (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4305784.stm) – “Monkey Man Meets Zombie Woman” , or “The Emaciated Judge Meets Neanderthal Man”…

   - Wil

5. shpilk Says:
   October 4th, 2005 at 7:38 pm

   So, finally the empty suit of GW Bush results in buyer’s remorse.

   They have been left behind – as daylight dawns, the real agenda of Bush corporatism appears. The extremists have finally done what the Democrats could not do – they have destroyed the GOP.

6. xanphi3 Says:
   October 4th, 2005 at 7:42 pm

   Hey,

   Did you happen to see or hear the Pres’s speech this morning….. Damn it was weird! Actually most of it was the rather predictable double-stuff about his SCJ nominee… Its not cronyism because she’s qualified, she’s qualified because she’s my Friend and I trust her (isn’t that the definition of cronyism?). But then, out of the blue he announced that in the event of an avian flu epidemic that he would mobilize the Armed Forces to quarantine parts of the country! This is bizarre and troubling statement for the following reasons. First, avian flu poses the greatest threat to the far-east and isn’t epidemic yet and a pandemic (global epidemic) is possible but no where near an eminent threat to this country. Next, this is the second time in two months (the first just after Katrina) the Pres has expressed a desire to use US Troops on American soil to impose martial law, normally the national guard would be used for this situation. Your probably wondering “So, whats the difference between martial law with national guard and regular army?” The difference is who’s in charge in a domestic situation, the national guard answers to the governor of the state they originate from, the regular armed forces answers to the commander in chief in all situations. In this scenario the hierarchy of local then state then federal government founded by our constitution is shattered, the state militias (the national guard), established specifically to prevent this situation (federal hegemony) from happening are subjugated and democracy is effectively suspended. There is a federal statute (I can’t think of its name right now) that forbids the use of federal troops on US soil but an act of Congress can circumvent it…. Yup, the very same Congress that gave us the Patriot Act, a truly wonderful piece of legislation that suspends habeas corpus the foundation of American jurisprudence. A law that allows the government to detain people indefinitely with out being charged, obtain search warrant without evidence, conduct surveillance without warrants and so on. Can you say, “Locked-down Orwellian style imperialist state headed by a right-wing totalitarian bird-fearing regime.”?

   Naaawwwww…. I’m not paranoid
   Michael

7. fconte Says:
   October 4th, 2005 at 7:47 pm

   Great show, welcome proof that Radio Open Source gets the blogosphere.

   There will be a temptation among the Democrats, nodding to Napoleon, to do nothing and watch their opponents, the Republicans destroy themselves. But this would be a big mistake. There has been great debate on the right including on the topic of the Iraq War. This proves that the right is the place for ideas. Nothing on the left that has happened as of late has stirred the kind of soul-searching debate I find on the right. The left is void of innovative ideas on most of the issues Bush has tried to raise from education to social security to robust foreign policy.

   It’s time to put prinicples over politics, the costly politics that’s ensared Bush who thinks he still needs to be nice to the likes of Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden. The drumbeat of Bush as a divider has created a inspid presidency at time which so much domestically and abroad is at stake.

   A grassroots rebellion causing the withdrawal of the Miers nomination would be a victory over the politics of the vapid dictates of phoney centrists in the mediacrat party.

8. Blue Neponset Says:
   October 4th, 2005 at 7:55 pm

   Glad to see the Blogs are getting a say on this nominee. Thanks for having Erick Erickson and John Cole on. I rarely agree with them, but they are making sense on this horrible nomination.

9. Potter Says:
   October 4th, 2005 at 8:03 pm

   I thought they were all partisans over there on the right- some seem to have principles even thought I do not agree with them. So- if the Meirs nomination fails, perhaps we will get a person who passes their litmas test. Oh yes, I forgot, no litmas test.

   Please discuss this business of strict constructionism etc.

   Let’s hear from Laurence Tribe- a man should have been on the Supreme Court a long time ago.

10. beneluxboy Says:
    October 5th, 2005 at 1:42 am

    This was an interesting show. I’m a liberal, so Miers selection has the illusion of relative comfort, but only because she’s not yet an obvious idealogue out to make everyone play by her personal rules. I hope that the Democrats give her a thorough examination, as if she was an evident “activist judge” for neo-conservatism, regardless of how warm she makes Senator Reid feel.

    Maybe if the right wing continues to view Bush’s selection of Miers as inept, they’ll nominate a real statesman for president next time.

    Richard Viguerie’s comment that the courts have it out for religious people would also be an interesting topic for a show. I think that what he interprets as a threat probably feels like a breath of freedom to another citizen. Who’s belief system is truly impeding the invidual’s right to free will? How much power can religious conservatives acquire and still claim to be persecuted?

11. TomGrey-Liberty Dad Says:
    October 5th, 2005 at 6:09 am

    I’m listening for half an hour — and NOT A WORD about what qualifications she DOES have.

    What has she actually done? What successes has she achieved?

12. TomGrey-Liberty Dad Says:
    October 5th, 2005 at 6:17 am

    Marvin Olasky likes her, and her dedication to her church.

    Beldar rips Prof. Barnett. http://www.beldar.org/beldarblog/2005/10/a_rebuttal_to_p.html

    I especially like Beldar’s description of what those “highly qualified” prima donnas would actually DO on the Court — write a separate dissenting/ concurring opinion with references to make the law as clear as mud. Like today: 10 commandments ARE constitutional in one case, but NOT in another.
    Bah.
    Common sense and goodness, NOT another pointy head intellectual.
    (also no need to fight the Dems and win the battle of words — just get Justices confirmed who will overturn the Roe amendment abomination.)

13. Potter Says:
    October 5th, 2005 at 6:25 am

    Litmus- I forgot how to spell it it’s been so long since science class. Now you can buy a digital probe. You stick it in the soil and voila! you get a reading. We need some sort of skull cap with probes…….

14. Jon Says:
    October 5th, 2005 at 3:27 pm

    Very interesting discussion. I believe that a point made in the program is really critical: There is too great a danger for a conflict-of-interest with respect to the constitutional separation of powers. Should an individual who has worked so closely with the President during these past years on cases that could well involve excesses of presidential authority be confirmed to sit on the final court that would judge the legality of these matters? Based on the discussions in the program, I sense there might actually be bipartisan agreement on this matter. If this turns out to be the case, then this isn’t necessarily even the nomination for which the grand debate on actual judicial philosophies need take place.

15. dsewell Says:
    October 5th, 2005 at 10:51 pm

    This was an excellent show. Chris, I haven’t been listening to you for a long time so I didn’t realize you can do as good a job interviewing folks on the right as you do folks on the left–and it was kind of nice to have that diversity today. Stirling’s point about the Democrats’ dilemma on this nomination was very well taken, but count me as another liberal who agrees that we need to make Alexander Hamilton’s case just as loudly as many conservatives are.

    It would be nice to think that “competence” could be the value uniting the 80% or so of Americans who are not hopeless ideologues of one stripe or another, that we could rediscover the great American virtue of pragmatism.

    I do think it’s ironic for movement conservatives to be blaming GW Bush for betraying them, rather than blaming their own voracious overreaching; as the frenzy during the Terry Schiavo case illustrated, a lot of them felt the country was about to tip once and for all toward whatever version of theocracy they wanted it to rest in, and several months later they still haven’t figured out that it’s not going to happen. It’s not unlike the situation of the New Left in the mid-1970s, still trying to levitate the Pentagon in defiance of the laws of political gravity. Reality eventually asserts itself.

Write a Reply