# Harriet Miers? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 3, 2005, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556 "2005-10-03T12:14:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2005, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/301 "2005-10-10T15:25:07Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Odd. For the righties insisting that judges not be “activist”, that they rule only on the law and the Constitution, that should be considered an _endorsement_. As I’ve said many times before, many “righties” want conservative judicial activists on the court, even though they say (or even think) that they want what they call “strict constructionists”. I’d put Bush in that camp. They don’t realize that a strict reading of the constitution will often return rulings that are contrary to their social conservative agenda. There are, however, some reasoned voices on the right who do know what they’re talking about and do want the nominee to have a clear judicial philosophy along the lines of Scalia (someone who takes a textualist approach to determing original intent). So, I don’t understand your point. How does “having a judicial philosophy” = “judicial activism”? It all depends on exactly what the philosophy is. The biggest fear seems to be that she will have to develop her philosophy on the job, and that there’s no guarantee what the sepcifics of that philosophy will be. Seems like a valid concern to me. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2005, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/302 "2005-10-10T15:27:18Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > As I’ve said many times before, many “righties” want conservative judicial activists on the court, even though they say (or even think) that they want what they call “strict constructionists”. I’d put Bush in that camp. They don’t realize that a strict reading of the constitution will often return rulings that are contrary to their social conservative agenda. There are, however, some reasoned voices on the right who do know what they’re talking about and do want the nominee to have a clear judicial philosophy along the lines of Scalia (someone who takes a textualist approach to determing original intent). > > So, I don’t understand your point. How does “having a judicial philosophy” = “judicial activism”? It all depends on exactly what the philosophy is. The biggest fear seems to be that she will have to develop her philosophy on the job, and that there’s no guarantee what the sepcifics of that philosophy will be. Seems like a valid concern to me. Hey, I’m a textualist; that’s why I’m so far left! 😉 ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2005, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/303 "2005-10-10T15:51:59Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > As I’ve said many times before, many “righties” want conservative judicial activists on the court, even though they say (or even think) that they want what they call “strict constructionists”. Of course. Hypocrisy rears its ugly head once again. > [@](#): > > So, I don’t understand your point. How does “having a judicial philosophy” = “judicial activism”? Don’t take meanings at their surface only. It isn’t really a \*judicial \* philosophy that Bork and other righties think she should have and apply, but a political one, as you’ve just hinted at. In short, for the folks we hear using it, “conservative judicial philosophy” is code - they (except perhaps Dobson) don’t know for sure that she’d vote to reverse Roe, on whatever basis can be found. That’s Issue Number One - methods of interpretation are really relevant to them only in regard to their effectiveness at getting rid of abortion. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2005, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/304 "2005-10-10T16:02:31Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Of course. Hypocrisy rears its ugly head once again. It’s worse than that-- hypocracy and ingnorance all rolled into one. 🙂 > [@](#): > > Don’t take meanings at their surface only. It isn’t really a \*judicial \* philosophy that Bork and other righties think she should have and apply, but a political one, as you’ve just hinted at. In short, for the folks we hear using it, “conservative judicial philosophy” is code - they (except perhaps Dobson) don’t know for sure that she’d vote to reverse Roe, on whatever basis can be found. That’s Issue Number One - methods of interpretation are really relevant to them only in regard to their effectiveness at getting rid of abortion. That’s all find and good, except the post that triggered your original response in this little side topic was about Bork. I don’t think Bork fits into the ignorant and hypocritic camp. So, I still don’t understand what you were getting at in the context of **RTF** ’s post about Bork. That’s all I was getting at-- it’s not a big deal. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2005, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/305 "2005-10-10T16:24:30Z")
He’s not ignorant, no, that’s your contribution. But he’s as hypocritical as any of 'em - and certainly as capable of using code words. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2005, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/306 "2005-10-10T18:21:45Z")
Interesting insight over at _Daily Kos_ He suggest that whats kind the Super-Tighty Rightys all in a lather is not Ms. Meier’s position, they are pretty sure GeeDub ain’t gonna send down some moderate. They can read the “code” and know what he’s saying…“Gooble gabble, one of us!”… What pisses them off is the idea that “code” is necessary: they think they should be able to ram a radical righty down the liberal’s throats and gloat while they do it. This is thier payoff and they want it, they want it bad, and they want it NOW! Interesting… ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2005, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/307 "2005-10-10T18:24:08Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Bush’s promised veto of the defense appropriations bill containing that rider exhibits that. If being blatantly pro-torture isn’t enough to get people outraged, what the hell is enough? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2005, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/308 "2005-10-10T18:29:19Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Interesting insight over at _Daily Kos_ > > He suggest that whats kind the Super-Tighty Rightys all in a lather is not Ms. Meier’s position, they are pretty sure GeeDub ain’t gonna send down some moderate. They can read the “code” and know what he’s saying…“Gooble gabble, one of us!”… > > What pisses them off is the idea that “code” is necessary: they think they should be able to ram a radical righty down the liberal’s throats and gloat while they do it. This is thier payoff and they want it, they want it bad, and they want it NOW! > > Interesting… Actually, it’s both, depending on whom you’re talking about. But the folks like Bork, Will and Krauthammer have been making the 2nd argument. Was there any question about that? They’re just not protesting outside the WH chanting: What do we want? _Another Scalia._ When do we want it? _NOW!!_ ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2005, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/309 "2005-10-10T18:38:45Z")
Actually, **luc** , they have got it wrong over on Kos, at least for the folks like Will. They don’t trust Bush and the don’t accept the “code words” (assuming that even exist): > [@](#): > > [Senate shouldn’t defer to Bush this time By George F. Will](http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/12841179.htm) > > He [Bush] has neither the inclination nor the ability to make sophisticated judgments about competing approaches to construing the Constitution. Few presidents acquire such abilities in the course of their pre-presidential careers, and this president, particularly, is not disposed to such reflections. > > \ > > In addition, the president has forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution. The forfeiture occurred March 27, 2002, when, in a private act betokening an uneasy conscience, he signed the McCain-Feingold law expanding government regulation of the timing, quantity and content of political speech. The day before the 2000 Iowa caucuses he was asked – to ensure a considered response from him, he had been told in advance he would be asked – whether McCain-Feingold’s core purposes are unconstitutional. He unhesitatingly said, `I agree.'' Asked if he thought presidents have a duty, pursuant to their oath to defend the Constitution, to make an independent judgment about the constitutionality of bills and to veto those he thinks unconstitutional, he briskly said, `I do.’’ ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2005, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/310 "2005-10-10T18:40:55Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > He’s not ignorant, no, that’s your contribution. But he’s as hypocritical as any of 'em - and certainly as capable of using code words. Can we have a cite of Bork advocating judicial activism? He’d have to have done that for his comments to be hypocritical. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2005, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/311 "2005-10-10T18:58:44Z")
Eye of the beholder, my good man, eye of the beholder - except when it’s used by someone who wants to overturn much of society itself, for whom it becomes unreasonable to think that the courts should not be one of the instruments of that radicalism. Why else would he be upset that Miers doesn’t have a clear agenda? [Slouching Towards Gomorrah](http://btobsearch.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=O9t13kAb8C&btob=Y&isbn=0060573112&itm=1) by Robert H. Bork. Review: > [@](#): > > Publishers Weekly > Controversial former federal court judge Bork (The Tempting of America) has produced a wide-ranging but turgid jeremiad, citing mostly familiar, conservative explanations for American decline. Thus he attacks multiculturalism, racial and sexual politics, the Supreme Court and the criminal justice and welfare systems, among others, often relying on the work of critics such as Charles Murray, Thomas Sowell, Richard Bernstein and Christopher Lasch. Bork’s tone can be overwrought: “[M]odern liberalism… is what fascism looks like when it has captured significant institutions, most notably the universities.” He also offers a knee-jerk condemnation of rock and rap. Despite such verbiage, Bork does strike a chord with his criticisms that individualism and egalitarianism have loosened social ties and weakened America, and with his warnings that recent decisions on assisted suicide may have broad, Roe v. Wade-like implications. Several arguments should spur debate. Bork disagrees with those who call for greater economic equality"it is not that America is odd compared to Sweden, but that Sweden is odd compared to us." He believes that constitutional legitimacy can only be reclaimed if we pass a constitutional amendment allowing Congress to override federal and state court decisions. He also supports censorship of “the most violent and sexually explicit material,” though he doesn’t suggest how it might be implemented. Bork finds some hope in the rise of religious conservatism, and proposes a multiple-front strategy to reclaim American institutions. [A Country I Do Not Recognize: The Legal Assault on American Values](http://btobsearch.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=O9t13kAb8C&btob=Y&isbn=0817946020&itm=3) by Robert H. Bork. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2005, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/312 "2005-10-10T19:00:54Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > If being blatantly pro-torture isn’t enough to get people outraged, what the hell is enough? Blowjobs. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2005, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/313 "2005-10-10T19:26:07Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Blowjobs. Lying under oath. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2005, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/314 "2005-10-10T19:34:13Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Eye of the beholder, my good man, eye of the beholder - except when it’s used by someone who wants to overturn much of society itself, for whom it becomes unreasonable to think that the courts should not be one of the instruments of that radicalism. Why else would he be upset that Miers doesn’t have a clear agenda? He’s not upset over her lack of agenda, he’s upset over her lack of philosophy. Why else would he be upset, you ask? Well, it would seem that to find that answer one need only look at the reason he’s given, which is that a lack of philosophy means no one knows what process she will use to reach her rulings. Bork doesn’t want to know what her rulings will be, just how she’s going to go about reaching them. Again, that seems like an extremely reasonable concern to have about her. But let’s not get into the rathole of a debate about judicial activism. Few, if any, judges are self-describe judicial activists. So, if as you say, it’s in the eye of the beholder, then we’ll just agree to disagree. I don’t see it. I’m going to leave it at that. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2005, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/315 "2005-10-10T19:45:04Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > He’s not upset over her lack of agenda, he’s upset over her lack of philosophy. Now \*that \* is some fancy parsing. What is a philosophy if it doesn’t entail an agenda? > [@](#): > > Bork doesn’t want to know what her rulings will be, just how she’s going to go about reaching them. I don’t think that’s a reasonable reading of the man, not that his opinions matter to me anyway. > [@](#): > > But let’s not get into the rathole of a debate about judicial activism. If you mean let’s get \*out \* of it, I’m with you. But yes, I’m sure few if any judges would ever admit it, because it just wouldn’t occur to them that they might be anything other than neutral arbiters. One’s prejudices are clear to almost anyone but oneself - if you become aware of it, it either ceases to be a prejudice or it can be compartmentalized. Why, btw, are there still so many people who think Bork should have been on the Court? ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2005, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/316 "2005-10-10T19:45:57Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Lying under oath. Does lying before Congress about Iraqi WMDs count? No? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2005, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/317 "2005-10-10T19:47:34Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Lying under oath. No, that’s the rationalization for a failed effort to get someone for something. The topic here is what it takes to become outraged. Are you? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2005, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/318 "2005-10-10T19:53:45Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Why, btw, are there still so many people who think Bork should have been on the Court? I can only speak for myself: because he had the requisite qualifications. Had he been a more regular looking human being with a far less prickly manner, he probbaly would’ve been confirmed. Also, had he been able to take advantage of what we now know about the confirmation process (evade, evade, evade), that would’ve helped. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2005, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/319 "2005-10-10T20:03:24Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > Does lying before Congress about Iraqi WMDs count? No? To get me outraged? It sure does. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > No, that’s the rationalization for a failed effort to get someone for something. The topic here is what it takes to become outraged. Are you? Am I what it takes to become outraged? On my bad days, sure. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2005, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/320 "2005-10-10T20:16:08Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Had he been a more regular looking human being with a far less prickly manner, he probbaly would’ve been confirmed. Have you really bought into that spin, that the reasons the Dems went against him were superficial and partisan and spiteful? I asked that rhetorical question because I had thought he had made it clear enough in subsequent years that he really is a dangerous radical with regard only for his own vision and not for history and precedent, as the Dems at the time of his hearings already understood. > [@](#): > > Also, had he been able to take advantage of what we now know about the confirmation process (evade, evade, evade), that would’ve helped. Not enough, because he had an extensive written record already. The strategy of getting holders of a desired agenda through the hearings (even if they stray from it later) first requires a nominee not to have any record that can be considered independently of their own (lack of) public statements. **Hamlet** , you’re not helping your cause here. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556.md?page=17)