Gender doesn't make up for experience

[amul]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4304684.stm

That's right, he's picked another aid for a high-level position they're totally unqualified for. She's never been a judge, fer crying out loud.

My personal favorite line from the article: "But some of Mr Bush's supporters have expressed concern at her lack of conservative credentials....[much further down]...'The president's nomination of Miers is a betrayal of the conservative, pro-family voters,' said the conservative advocacy group Public Advocate." That's right, folks. They're worried about her conservative credentials. Never mind that she has NO credentials, but see, if she's never judged anything, than how can we know if she's interested in shoving the Moral Majority's agenda into everyone's bedrooms?

Oh, I'm sorry. She's a middle-ground choice because she's a woman, so hopefully Democrats will overlook her complete lack of experience as a Constitutional scholar. Because we'd much rather see an incompetent female lawyer than an actual MODERATE WITHOUT A RELIGIOUS AGENDA, which is what we were asking for in the first place.

Hell in a hand basket, I say!

Exactly how many crap choices is he going to offer before we all just throw up our hands and say, "Next!"

Comments

[heathergalaxy.livejournal.com]

picking former judges to be justices is a recent trend btw... most before and including rehnquist had never been judges before being appointed to scotus. just to give you some history, not saying she's a good choice of course.

[ex-pathogen.livejournal.com]

As trends go, I think it's an excellent one. Without a record of rulings, we have little idea which way she'll actually go on issues.

[themoocow.livejournal.com]

I have a problem with the idea of determining which way they'll go on an issue. It simplifies, and obstructs the whole process. The question you should ask, "Is will this person judge on the basis of what the Constitution /says/, or what they want it to say?"

It's up to you which you prefer. I prefer Judges to base there decisions on what the Constitution actually says, but some seem to disagree with me. I think those people are amazingly short sighted, but hey... I'm just a Right-Wing Facist. ;)

[ex-pathogen.livejournal.com]

I think it's funny that you complain of simplification when you have an icon that stupid.

[themoocow.livejournal.com]

I think it's funny you don't have a sense of humor.

[ex-pathogen.livejournal.com]

Sorry, I don't find ignorance particularly humorous.

[eevilyounggirl.livejournal.com]

There's a difference between wanton insults and humour.

I can take all the "liberals are tree-hugging birkenstock-wearing lame ducks" jokes one can fling. That particular icon, however, seems put in for purely incendiary purposes.

Sad thing is, I've seen that bumper sticker on cars before, and I can say with some degree of certainty that the people who've put them on aren't doing so with humour in mind. Since I don't know you, how do I know you are?

[themoocow.livejournal.com]

There's a difference between wanton insults and humour

As a general technicality, not really. When was the last time you laughed at a joke that wasn't insulting to the subject of the joke?

Sad thing is, I've seen that bumper sticker on cars before, and I can say with some degree of certainty that the people who've put them on aren't doing so with humour in mind.

I suppose that depends on your point of view. It's pretty unussual for me to agree on a Liberal's stance on any given subject. This is because I have objections to the entire Methodology/Ideology of Liberalism, completely outside of any individual issue. Still, I chose the icon because it made me laugh, not because I felt it was stating a Fundamental Truth.

Since I don't know you, how do I know you are?

Since you don't know me, how do you know I am?

[eevilyounggirl.livejournal.com]

I didn't know liberalism had a methodology. Huh.

The difference between wanton insults and humour is finesse. Sure, I could say "You are a fat goatfucker" and someone might find it humourous, but that's hardly a measure of whether or not it's actually funny. Some particularly twisted people find pictures on rotten.com humourous. Blanket statements (i.e. "All cats are grey," "Muffins are tasty," "Liberals are wrong," "White men can't jump") are usually intended as hyperbolic generalizations or as hurtful jabs at an entire group.

And, I don't know. An icon like that makes me think immediately "this person is like all the other people I have seen with this bumper sticker." It's rational to draw assumptions about people based on real-life experiences, which is something that becomes even more rational (if not necessary) on the internet. pathogen's comment was one I myself would have said, and though I don't know the nature of your relationship (if there is one, you both live in Chicago and apparently know some of the same people), your accusation of him as humourless rubbed me the wrong way. Hence the long-winded replies.

[themoocow.livejournal.com]

your accusation of him as humourless rubbed me the wrong way.

And yet his attack on my icon, rather then responding to my relatively polite comment on picking SCOTUS nominees, doesn't? Interesting.

Hence the long-winded replies.

Which is fine. It was an argument, rather then an off the cuff dismissal.

[amul.livejournal.com]

*shrug* I have a problem with it, too. But I recognize that it's the way the world actually works right now, so it's the game we're forced to deal our cards into.

...base there decisions on what the Constitution actually says...

And whose interpretation of what the Consitution says are we supposed to use? How are we supposed to apply directives concerning such broad topics as "Life, Liberty and Happiness" to a global marketplace that destroys the invidiuals sense of freedom from encroachment? Where in the constitution does it define at what stage must it's dictates apply to an unborn child?

How does the Constitution feel about Intelligent Design?

Frankly, I'd prefer it if I could simply trust that Supreme Court Justices were patriots. But I have no way to ascertain even that. So I must instead wonder if the next justice shares the viewpoint of those most concerned with the health and welfare of my country, and all it's fellow nations. If the nominee will help shape the culture and economics of our country in a way that will foster the ideals I want this country to continue to stand for.

But I've spent over an hour reading up on Miers' bio online, from sources like CNN and the BBC, and all I really know about her is that she's been standing next to the guy I think has done nothing but fuck up as President.

[themoocow.livejournal.com]

And whose interpretation of what the Consitution says are we supposed to use?

I think you're missing the point entirely. There is no "interpreting the Constitution". That's exactly what we Conservatives would like to avoid.

Where in the constitution does it define at what stage must it's dictates apply to an unborn child?

It doesn't.

How does the Constitution feel about Intelligent Design?

It has no feeling on it.

You see, the problem that you're running into is you're trying to make a 200+ year old document relate to the modern age. And in many cases it doesn't. The Founding Fathers simply couldn't forsee the world in which we live. But ah! They were smart fellows. They /knew/ they couldn't forsee all the changes the world would go through after they had passed to dust. And so, they included in the document itself a way in which it can be altered!

Example: Roe v. Wade is not a bad decision because it helped to legalize abortion. It's a bad decision because the Constitution says nothing about abortion. The Court should have ruled against Roe, because unless the Constitution specifically gives the power to the Federal Government or guarantees the Right to the People, the authority in the matter resides with the States.

If a guaranteed Right to Abortion is desired, then it must be added to the Constitution via the Amendment process as laid out in Article V.

[almostjay.livejournal.com]

A little jab here; I believe that those powers not reserved for the Federal government in the Constitution are assumed to be held then by the citizens. This is the interpretation that I've read Publius to take, also.

Jared

[themoocow.livejournal.com]

A little jab here

Jab away! ;)

I believe that those powers not reserved for the Federal government in the Constitution are assumed to be held then by the citizens.

You are partially correct. I was lax in my terminology, for which I appologize.

"Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

The primary point still stands, that being that power does not rest with the Feds unless specifically given to it by the Constitution. Aside from that, determining whether it's a State Right or a Citizen Right, if not already spelled out in the Constitution, one must look to the individual State Constitutions.

[almostjay.livejournal.com]

Which makes sense as the opinion I reffered to was written before the Tenth Amendment. But yes, definitely yes to the point that the powers of the Federal government are restricted only to what is in the Constitution. Which reminds me, does anyone realize its legal to own artillery pieces in the US? I love it!

Jared

[themoocow.livejournal.com]

Which reminds me, does anyone realize its legal to own artillery pieces in the US?

Really? You sure? I know that a lot of the heavier military pieces have been outlawed for private ownership. My BroLaw has a 50 Cal rifel, which he has to keep all sorts of paperwork with at all times proving that he owned it prior to the ban.

[almostjay.livejournal.com]

oops, correction. I meant mortars. I want one. I want alot of stuff that goes boom, though. Like machineguns. Yeah, that stuff does take alot of paperwork and money, though. It's a total pain in the ass to buy something simple like an AK-47, or FN FAL. An M240B or 249 is just.... arg. WHY!?

Jared

[hny2k.livejournal.com]

And whose interpretation of what the Consitution says are we supposed to use? How are we supposed to apply directives concerning such broad topics as "Life, Liberty and Happiness" to a global marketplace that destroys the invidiuals sense of freedom from encroachment?

Well we're not, since that phrase isn't in the Constitution, but the Declaration of Independence. :-)

(And is actually "the pursuit of happiness", a not uninmportant distinction, but I digress).

[themoocow.livejournal.com]

Eh.... his point still stands I think. The preamble to the Constitution is really nice sounding, but what the heck does it /mean/? Granted, it isn't part of the legal document, but still, it's arguable that it should effect how we consider the meaning of the rest of the document.

[hny2k.livejournal.com]

You are correct in that, though I wasn't just being snarky. I was going to add a post that there was an important point buried in there, which I guess I'll use now to do.

Roughly put, we have to understand what the purpose of the documents is in order for us to raise questions about how they are interpreted. For example, the Declaration of Independence, where you find the phrase "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" is not the same as the Constitution and its included Preamble. Each has their own purpose, and in fact, the Declaration and Constitution were each written by two almost entirely different groups of men. They can't all be considered as one jumbled unit, but uniquely.

Your reference of the Preamble, though, raises a good example of why I mention this. In it you find the phrase "promote the general welfare". This has been seized upon as justification for anything the federal goverment does that fits under that description whether or not there is any mention of this power anywhere else. However, the point of the Preamble was simply to explain why the Constitution was being written, not what the powers delineated to the new government were. That was what the rest of the document was for. Madison himself said some years later that if he knew that this phrase would be used as an excuse to nullify the rest of the Constitution he would have never included it in there.

So I do agree with you that how a judge interprets what the Constitution allows the federal government to do is very important. However, what also must go hand-in-hand with that is an understanding on our end of what we should be expecting of them. That requires us to know what these documents are, what they say, and what their purposes is. Without that, nothing else really follows.

[amul.livejournal.com]

Much as I hate to do it, I have to side with Matt on this one. Constitutional scholarship is such an overwhelming topic these days, with the thousands of essays and treatises written on what each particular nuance means, that it'll completely undermine the authority of the Supreme Court if we do not elect judges who have proven their competence and impartiality.

[(Anonymous)]

dudes, i'm on your side! i'm just saying what happened before... it's nothing new, but agreed i'm all for specialization and knowledge of the field!

[themoocow.livejournal.com]

They're worried about her conservative credentials. Never mind that she has NO credentials, but see, if she's never judged anything, than how can we know if she's interested in shoving the Moral Majority's agenda into everyone's bedrooms?


Question: Do you understand that "Conservative" and "Moral Majority" aren't the same thing? There is in some cases an overlap, but they are not the same thing.

The concern of the bulk of Conservatives is that she won't be a Constructionist, and rather turn out to be a Revisionist like Kennedy and Souter.

It's funny that you want a Moderate, when it's really the Conservatives which have voted to protect Freedom more then the Liberals or Moderates in the last several major decisions. Example: Thomas and Rehnquist, the hardline Conservatives, voted against allowing the Federal Government to ban Medical Marijuana in California. Similarly, they voted against allowing the Government to steal your land for Private Business Development. In both cases it was the Liberals who voted to restrict Freedom by granting the Federal Government greater power then it should have.

[amul.livejournal.com]

Yes, there are a few bars somewhere in Washington where "conservative" does not automatically mean Right Wing Christian. But when I'm at GenCon, I tell people I live in Chicago, and when I'm this far away from any Republican representative, I say that they've all sold out to the Christian supremicists.

The concern of Public Advocate, the group refered to in the article, is whether or not she's pro-life.

I personally believe that we need to revise the Constitution. Particularly, I'd like it's system of checks and balances to be put back in.

Exactly whose Freedom (Capitalized, No Less) were they protecting? And if you hadn't noticed, the government HAS been stealing our land, imprisoning without trial by peers, and encouraging an era of terror designed to oppress it's citizens.

This much I'll grant you. Thomas and Rehnquist were, indeed, hardline Conservatives. What I appreciated about them was that they were Conservatives who remained concerned with the fair and even-handed governance of our country. This latest "candidate" is an unknown who hangs out with the biggest sell-out, lack-luster, spineless, unable-to-go-three-weeks-without-a-vacation idiot I've ever observed in a government job. My trust in her is zlich.

[themoocow.livejournal.com]

Exactly whose Freedom (Capitalized, No Less) were they protecting?

In case one, they were protecting the Freedom of the People of California to determine for themselves (via their elected representatives) whether they wished medical marijuana to be legal.

In case two, they took away the Right of the People to not have their property taken away by the Government without Due Process.

And if you hadn't noticed, the government HAS been stealing our land

Yes, thanks in part to the decision of the Court. One, as noted above, in which Conservatives were the dissenters.

imprisoning without trial by peers

Not gonna get into that one.....

encouraging an era of terror designed to oppress it's citizens.

You've been reading my journal too much. Outbursts of irrational prose are my schtict. ;)