More on Miers
SSC below demands "Miers Critics Need to Offer More". Ok, here's more.
1) Affirmative action and quotas : She's for quotas, goals, timetables (the whole bag) and clearly doesn't think they violate the plain language of the 14th amendment or the 1964 Civil Rights act.
2) On the role of the courts (from 1993 speech) "My basic message here is that when you hear the Courts blamed for activism or intrusion where they do not belong ... Stop and examine what the elected leadership has done to solve the problem at issue and whether abdication to courts to make the hard decisions is not a too prevalent tactic in today's world. Politicians who are too concerned about maintaining their jobs." (ellipses in original)
So let's get this straight. Rather than criticizing the courts for overstepping their bounds, we should see whether our elected leadership (who, shockingly, worries about getting reelected) is "abdicating." And exactly who decides whether the elected leaders are abdicating as opposed to simply deciding to do nothing? The courts of course! You see, the Mass. Supreme Court had no question but to legalize gay "marriage." The legislators were simply abdicating their responsibility to do something about equal rights for gays! (This is not an idle worry. Miers'speech was made after the Texas Supreme Court read into the Texas Constitution that the funding scheme for Texas schools was unconstitutional and was getting much flack for this. Miers, instead of criticizing the court for overturning a funding scheme around for decades, criticized the legislature for not "doing something" about public education.) And this is the woman we want to help reign in the courts? This reasoning (the legislature just wasn't solving the problem!) can be used to justify court interference anywhere and everywhere.
3) Abortion: (from the same speech) "The ongoing debate continues surrounding the attempt to once again criminalize abortions or to once and for all guarantee the freedom of the individual women's right to decide for herself whether she will have an abortion. " Does this sound more like Kate Michelman or someone ready to overturn Roe v. Wade?
ssc? S'saurus?
1) Affirmative action and quotas : She's for quotas, goals, timetables (the whole bag) and clearly doesn't think they violate the plain language of the 14th amendment or the 1964 Civil Rights act.
2) On the role of the courts (from 1993 speech) "My basic message here is that when you hear the Courts blamed for activism or intrusion where they do not belong ... Stop and examine what the elected leadership has done to solve the problem at issue and whether abdication to courts to make the hard decisions is not a too prevalent tactic in today's world. Politicians who are too concerned about maintaining their jobs." (ellipses in original)
So let's get this straight. Rather than criticizing the courts for overstepping their bounds, we should see whether our elected leadership (who, shockingly, worries about getting reelected) is "abdicating." And exactly who decides whether the elected leaders are abdicating as opposed to simply deciding to do nothing? The courts of course! You see, the Mass. Supreme Court had no question but to legalize gay "marriage." The legislators were simply abdicating their responsibility to do something about equal rights for gays! (This is not an idle worry. Miers'speech was made after the Texas Supreme Court read into the Texas Constitution that the funding scheme for Texas schools was unconstitutional and was getting much flack for this. Miers, instead of criticizing the court for overturning a funding scheme around for decades, criticized the legislature for not "doing something" about public education.) And this is the woman we want to help reign in the courts? This reasoning (the legislature just wasn't solving the problem!) can be used to justify court interference anywhere and everywhere.
3) Abortion: (from the same speech) "The ongoing debate continues surrounding the attempt to once again criminalize abortions or to once and for all guarantee the freedom of the individual women's right to decide for herself whether she will have an abortion. " Does this sound more like Kate Michelman or someone ready to overturn Roe v. Wade?
ssc? S'saurus?
posted by Harsh Pencil | 10/26/2005 08:20:00 PM
Miers is a mistake.
This must have been the last straw. And the S'aurus comment. Who wouldn't have thrown in the towel?
Post a Comment