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

[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.