| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"turk" |
| Date: |
25 Oct 2005 05:56:53 PM |
| Object: |
Meirs too dumb to pass 1st semester law |
http://www.rawstory.com/exclusives/dara/con_law_102505.htm
Miers flunks out first semester
By Dara Purvis | RAW STORY COLUMNIST
Reading a story in the Washington Post about the continuing nomination
battles of Harriet Miers, I was puzzled to learn that in her response to
some questions by the Senate Judiciary Committee, she referred to the
"proportional representation requirement" of the Fourteenth Amendment's
Equal Protection Clause.
Was it possible, I wondered, that my Constitutional Law professor at Yale
had been so derelict as to leave out such a concept? True, our overview had
been necessarily a brisk study of a subject of law that could easily occupy
a semester's worth of classes on its own, but a "proportional representation
requirement" sounded rather important, and yet entirely unfamiliar to me.
Luckily, the next paragraph cleared it up: Cass Sunstein, noted
constitutional law scholar and professor at the University of Chicago,
spelled out: "There is no proportional representation requirement in the
Equal Protection Clause."
It is that spirit of farce-the unbelievable moment of, "Oh, no, she really
did turn in written answers to the Senate supporting her nomination to the
highest court in the land with content that would flunk me out of my
first-semester constitutional law class"-that seems to have driven all
discussion of Miers this last week. (Yale Law School bucks the national
trend by having students take Constitutional Law in their first semester.)
I'm still not entirely sure of exactly how significant an error Miers made.
Her defenders were quick to explain that she was confusing the "one man, one
vote" concept laid down by the Supreme Court in a 1964 case called Reynolds
v. Sims, that dealt strictly with the often egregious discrepancy in numbers
of individual voters in legislative districts, with the concept of
proportional representation, or the idea that representation on a given
legislative body should reflect the demographic makeup (gender, race, and so
on) of the population it represents. The defense of Miers argues that she
simply used the term 'proportional representation requirement' to refer to
the 'one man, one vote' concept-sloppy language to be sure, but not
necessarily indicative of a glaring gap in constitutional understanding.
There are two problems with this explanation. One is that Miers alluded to
the phantom "proportional representation requirement' in reference to a case
brought against the city of Dallas alleging that the election structure of
the city violated the rights of minorities. In other words, she used the
phrase "proportional representation" in reference to a case that dealt with
the concept of vote dilution, making it rather difficult to argue that she
was carelessly using a generic term in reference to a legal concept. Second,
and more problematically, "proportional representation" is recognized as
having a precise meaning in legal scholarship. It would be entirely
understandable if the average layman used the term "proportional
representation" to refer to the "one person, one vote" principle. It would
also be understandable if the average person on the street referred to a
harpsichord as a piano. They're roughly similar, and there's no reason why
someone unfamiliar with keyboard instruments would know the correct name for
the correct item. But anyone who has a rudimentary knowledge of the topic
can explain the difference-which is why it's so shocking that a woman
nominated to be one of nine voices determining the fundamental understanding
of the basis of our nation's legal structure made such a flagrant mistake.
The slip in Miers's responses to the Senate was not, of course, the only
question raised this past week. Many of the raised eyebrows came from the
Senate itself: the bipartisan leadership of the Senate Judiciary Committee
explained in a news conference that Miers's response to their questions, as
a whole, was entirely inadequate. The senior Democratic member of the
committee, Senator Patrick Leahy, said that "the comments I have heard range
from incomplete to insulting." Further legislative hostility was aroused
after an individual meeting held between Miers and Republican Chairman Arlen
Specter. After the meeting, what each person said about the content of their
discussion, particularly what Miers told Specter about her opinion regarding
the line of cases that set the stage for Roe v. Wade, differed dramatically.
Specter, obviously angry about the snafu, said that in his dealings with
eleven nominees to the Supreme Court during his legislative career, he had
never previously "walked out of a room and had a disagreement as to what was
said."
And that is even outside of the more shocking questions being raised about
Miers. Twice in her career-once in Texas, once in D.C.-her license to
practice law was suspended because she didn't pay her dues to the bar
association. And five years ago, Miers was granted more than ten times the
market value for a small piece of family-owned land that the government
wanted to build a freeway off-ramp. Texas law says that in determining the
value of such properties, a judge should appoint three "disinterested"
officials to assess the property. In this case, the judge appointing those
three officials just happened to be one who had received thousands of
dollars in political donations from the law firm at which Miers worked. And
he just happened to appoint Peggy Lundy as one of the three officials-the
same Peggy Lundy listed as one of Miers's "personal friends" by the
conservative group "Progress for America;" the same Peggy Lundy who
describes the many times in the 1990s that she sought Miers out for advice.
It is telling of the level to which politics in this country has sunk that
Miers could be nominated. It is not enough that she has never served as a
judge at any level; the President actually nominated a woman whose license
to practice law has been suspended twice and who explained her exposure to
constitutional issues with a mistake that would be enough to flunk a
first-semester law student. It is more telling that the White House, which
presumably reviewed the answers she submitted to the Senate Judiciary
Committee, either felt so secure in the nomination of a woman whose chief
qualification is political loyalty or has such little respect for the
Constitution that those in charge of vetting her answers didn't even notice
the mistake themselves.
.
|
|
| User: "richard schumacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Meirs too dumb to pass 1st semester law |
25 Oct 2005 10:32:14 PM |
|
|
By the time this is over they'll be *begging* Bush to withdraw Miers and
replace her with Gonzales. Heh heh.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Docky Wocky" |
|
| Title: Re: Meirs too dumb to pass 1st semester law |
25 Oct 2005 10:17:18 PM |
|
|
What a wonderful example of liberal elitist, spoilt-brat, opinion screed..
Like a well-trained liberal seal, she wants to start a "feminist law firm"
when she finishes her Yale law degree.
Just what the world needs. Another liberal lawyer.
Imagine, Yale - one of the only law schools that teaches Constitutional Law
in the first year - so they can get that out of the way.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sasha" |
|
| Title: Re: Meirs too dumb to pass 1st semester law |
26 Oct 2005 08:45:41 AM |
|
|
Just what the world needs. Another liberal lawyer
Another Republican lackey dodging the subject completely, and resorting
to insult and attack. Do you have anything with which to address the
comments made about Miers? Anything at all?
Your childish and idiotic attempt at an insult is proof positive that
you agree entirely with the view that Miers is a useless tool.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Darrell Stec" |
|
| Title: Re: Meirs too dumb to pass 1st semester law |
26 Oct 2005 02:20:33 PM |
|
|
After serious contemplation, on or about Wednesday 26 October 2005 9:45 am
scironi@gmail.com wrote:
Just what the world needs. Another liberal lawyer
Another Republican lackey dodging the subject completely, and resorting
to insult and attack. Do you have anything with which to address the
comments made about Miers? Anything at all?
Your childish and idiotic attempt at an insult is proof positive that
you agree entirely with the view that Miers is a useless tool.
I don't think Miers is a useless tool at all. She was a preplanned
sacrificial lamb to make the Republicans look fair and nonpartisan. Once
they denounce her they can come back and say, "See, we didn't rush to
nominate her just because she was a Republican."
Watch out for the next person in line.
--
Later,
Darrell Stec
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Meirs too dumb to pass 1st semester law |
26 Oct 2005 03:30:43 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 15:20:33 -0400, in alt.atheism , Darrell Stec
<darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> in <3sa382Fn709hU2@individual.net>
wrote:
After serious contemplation, on or about Wednesday 26 October 2005 9:45 am
scironi@gmail.com wrote:
Just what the world needs. Another liberal lawyer
Another Republican lackey dodging the subject completely, and resorting
to insult and attack. Do you have anything with which to address the
comments made about Miers? Anything at all?
Your childish and idiotic attempt at an insult is proof positive that
you agree entirely with the view that Miers is a useless tool.
I don't think Miers is a useless tool at all. She was a preplanned
sacrificial lamb to make the Republicans look fair and nonpartisan. Once
they denounce her they can come back and say, "See, we didn't rush to
nominate her just because she was a Republican."
Watch out for the next person in line.
Except they don't look fair and non-partisan. If this was a plan it
was an astoundingly high risk plan. Events are not under their
control. If Rove and Libby are out as of this week then he can't play
that game any more. The support is going to plummet and people will
support a Dem filibuster. My guess will be that the next nominee will
be a sitting senator. (If you give me really good odds, though, I will
pick Fred Thompson as a intriguing outside shot.) And a moderate
senator at that.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Darrell Stec" |
|
| Title: Re: Meirs too dumb to pass 1st semester law |
26 Oct 2005 07:18:05 PM |
|
|
After serious contemplation, on or about Wednesday 26 October 2005 4:30 pm
RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 15:20:33 -0400, in alt.atheism , Darrell Stec
<darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> in <3sa382Fn709hU2@individual.net>
wrote:
After serious contemplation, on or about Wednesday 26 October 2005 9:45 am
scironi@gmail.com wrote:
Just what the world needs. Another liberal lawyer
Another Republican lackey dodging the subject completely, and resorting
to insult and attack. Do you have anything with which to address the
comments made about Miers? Anything at all?
Your childish and idiotic attempt at an insult is proof positive that
you agree entirely with the view that Miers is a useless tool.
I don't think Miers is a useless tool at all. She was a preplanned
sacrificial lamb to make the Republicans look fair and nonpartisan. Once
they denounce her they can come back and say, "See, we didn't rush to
nominate her just because she was a Republican."
Watch out for the next person in line.
Except they don't look fair and non-partisan.
From what I hear from family and friends that are Republicans, they
certainly think things look fair and non-partisan. And Republicans are the
only ones they need to impress.
If this was a plan it
was an astoundingly high risk plan. Events are not under their
control. If Rove and Libby are out as of this week then he can't play
that game any more. The support is going to plummet and people will
support a Dem filibuster.
But that is fine. Meirs wasn't meant to win anyway.
My guess will be that the next nominee will
be a sitting senator. (If you give me really good odds, though, I will
pick Fred Thompson as a intriguing outside shot.) And a moderate
senator at that.
Why would Bush suggest someone who is moderate and might actually be able to
think? He hasn't shown that ability so far. He's already placed one
dummy.
--
Later,
Darrell Stec
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Meirs too dumb to pass 1st semester law |
26 Oct 2005 08:57:39 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 20:18:05 -0400, in alt.atheism , Darrell Stec
<darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> in <3saklvFnd60kU1@individual.net>
wrote:
After serious contemplation, on or about Wednesday 26 October 2005 4:30 pm
RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 15:20:33 -0400, in alt.atheism , Darrell Stec
<darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> in <3sa382Fn709hU2@individual.net>
wrote:
After serious contemplation, on or about Wednesday 26 October 2005 9:45 am
scironi@gmail.com wrote:
Just what the world needs. Another liberal lawyer
Another Republican lackey dodging the subject completely, and resorting
to insult and attack. Do you have anything with which to address the
comments made about Miers? Anything at all?
Your childish and idiotic attempt at an insult is proof positive that
you agree entirely with the view that Miers is a useless tool.
I don't think Miers is a useless tool at all. She was a preplanned
sacrificial lamb to make the Republicans look fair and nonpartisan. Once
they denounce her they can come back and say, "See, we didn't rush to
nominate her just because she was a Republican."
Watch out for the next person in line.
Except they don't look fair and non-partisan.
From what I hear from family and friends that are Republicans, they
certainly think things look fair and non-partisan. And Republicans are the
only ones they need to impress.
If this was a plan it
was an astoundingly high risk plan. Events are not under their
control. If Rove and Libby are out as of this week then he can't play
that game any more. The support is going to plummet and people will
support a Dem filibuster.
But that is fine. Meirs wasn't meant to win anyway.
I meant for the next one. And this loss make Shrub look bad, both
powerless and incompetent.
My guess will be that the next nominee will
be a sitting senator. (If you give me really good odds, though, I will
pick Fred Thompson as a intriguing outside shot.) And a moderate
senator at that.
Why would Bush suggest someone who is moderate and might actually be able to
think? He hasn't shown that ability so far. He's already placed one
dummy.
Roberts is not a dummy. Or did you mean himself? ;-) Bush is going to
suggest a moderate because he is going to need a win really badly. And
so are the senators who are up for re-election.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Darrell Stec" |
|
| Title: Re: Meirs too dumb to pass 1st semester law |
26 Oct 2005 10:26:23 PM |
|
|
After serious contemplation, on or about Wednesday 26 October 2005 9:57 pm
RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com wrote:
My guess will be that the next nominee will
be a sitting senator. (If you give me really good odds, though, I will
pick Fred Thompson as a intriguing outside shot.) And a moderate
senator at that.
Why would Bush suggest someone who is moderate and might actually be able
to
think? He hasn't shown that ability so far. He's already placed one
dummy.
Roberts is not a dummy.
Anyone that can swallow that religious right stuff is a dummy.
Or did you mean himself? ;-) Bush is going to
suggest a moderate because he is going to need a win really badly. And
so are the senators who are up for re-election.
That is what an intelligent person would do, not an alcoholic whose daddy
bought him the White House. Why would he need the win? He can't be
elected again. I'm not sure Bush is rational enough to care about what the
senators want and besides putting another religious right dummy up there
will help the Republican re-election cause, not hinder it.
--
Later,
Darrell Stec
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Meirs too dumb to pass 1st semester law |
26 Oct 2005 11:41:21 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 23:26:23 -0400, in alt.atheism , Darrell Stec
<darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> in <3savn2Fnea8eU1@individual.net>
wrote:
After serious contemplation, on or about Wednesday 26 October 2005 9:57 pm
RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com wrote:
My guess will be that the next nominee will
be a sitting senator. (If you give me really good odds, though, I will
pick Fred Thompson as a intriguing outside shot.) And a moderate
senator at that.
Why would Bush suggest someone who is moderate and might actually be able
to
think? He hasn't shown that ability so far. He's already placed one
dummy.
Roberts is not a dummy.
Anyone that can swallow that religious right stuff is a dummy.
Don't let your bigotry get in the way of your thinking. Rehnquist, for
example, was brilliant. Wrong on almost everything I care about, but
brilliant. Scalia is quite sharp, between him and Thomas you have two
reasonably smart justices.
Or did you mean himself? ;-) Bush is going to
suggest a moderate because he is going to need a win really badly. And
so are the senators who are up for re-election.
That is what an intelligent person would do, not an alcoholic whose daddy
bought him the White House. Why would he need the win? He can't be
elected again. I'm not sure Bush is rational enough to care about what the
senators want and besides putting another religious right dummy up there
will help the Republican re-election cause, not hinder it.
I disagree on that. Republicans don't win on right-wing issues, they
win on fear and money. They are going to have to make some painful
choices. If Rove and Libby are indicted expect to see lots of true
stupidity from the WH and lots of distancing by the party from the
Administration. If Cheney is mentioned all bets are off.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sasha" |
|
| Title: Re: Meirs too dumb to pass 1st semester law |
26 Oct 2005 02:58:18 PM |
|
|
That's an excellent point...perhaps she is an attempt to soften the
blow, show us how bad it could have been before bringing in someone
only slightly more tolerable.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: Meirs too dumb to pass 1st semester law |
26 Oct 2005 08:17:48 AM |
|
|
Docky Wocky wrote:
Just what the world needs. Another liberal lawyer.
So you admit that most people with the education to be a lawyer are liberals.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"[W]e have never held that moral disapproval, without any other asserted
state interest, is a sufficient rationale under the Equal Protection
Clause to justify a law that discriminates among groups of persons."
- Sandra Day O`Conner, _Lawrence v Texas_
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=02-102
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Meirs too dumb to pass 1st semester law |
26 Oct 2005 07:41:19 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 03:17:18 GMT, in alt.atheism , "Docky Wocky"
<mrchuck@lst.net> in <2zC7f.4998$Yn4.2645@trnddc03> wrote:
What a wonderful example of liberal elitist, spoilt-brat, opinion screed..
Like a well-trained liberal seal, she wants to start a "feminist law firm"
when she finishes her Yale law degree.
Just what the world needs. Another liberal lawyer.
Imagine, Yale - one of the only law schools that teaches Constitutional Law
in the first year - so they can get that out of the way.
Did you have a substantive comment to make or just ad hominem?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
