# 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:** 17
**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, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/321 "2005-10-10T20:21:02Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > **Hamlet** , you’re not helping your cause here. I wasn’t aware I had a cause. What, pray tell, is it? ---
**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, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/322 "2005-10-10T20:53:02Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > 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. That’s not the “spin”. I have no doubt that the Dems were against him because of his judicial philosophy. But they would have had a harder time justifying that if Bork hadn’t been such a scary, unlikeable fellow. His face alone could easily be used to scare little children into behaving. And they went after him for far more than his judicial philsosophy-- hence the etymology of the verb “to bork”, ie, to destroy a judicial nominee through a concerted attack on his character, background and philosophy. (My emphasis added). They tried to bork Thomas, but were unsuccessful. I’m not sure Thomas’ judicial philosophy is significantly different from Bork’s. Do you think it is? > [@](#): > > 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. Yes, Bork was the beginning of the need for justices without a paper trail, at least as far as Democratic votes go. But I have no doubt that if a Ruth Bader Ginsburg were nomintated by a Democratic President today, the Republicans wouldn’t stand for it. They try to bork her. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2005, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/323 "2005-10-11T00:15:16Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I don’t know if that can be called “[borking](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork)”. He’s not so much criticizing her judicial philosophy, but saying that she doesn’t have one. Her qualification to be on the SCOTUS is pretty questionable, and he’s questioning it. To bork usually means an all out assault, including character assasination. I don’t see that going on here. I disagree. In the past few years, the Right has cried “borking” in response to any strong criticism of practically any kind of a Presidential nominee. I would contend that as a result, the term means nothing like what it did 18 years ago. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2005, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/324 "2005-10-11T02:05:34Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > That’s not the “spin”…And they went after him for far more than his judicial philsosophy-- hence the etymology of the verb “to bork”, ie, to destroy a judicial nominee through a concerted attack on his character, background and philosophy. (My emphasis added). And, except for the “philosophy” part, what you emphasize _is_ the spin you say you have not bought - unless, that is, you can provide some support for your assertion that it was about character and background as well. **RTF** is right - to the GOP, and apparently to at least one self-described libertarian, “borking” means simply to oppose a nominee, nothing more. Part of the spin is to remove the actual meaning of the word from common use via strawmen about the term’s origin. Bork’s Whining Tour speeches and books have contributed mightily to that bit of Newspeak. ---
**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 11, 2005, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/325 "2005-10-11T03:13:35Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > I disagree. In the past few years, the Right has cried “borking” in response to any strong criticism of practically any kind of a Presidential nominee. > > I would contend that as a result, the term means nothing like what it did 18 years ago. Then why did you use it, and what did you mean by it back in post #292? Why did you find it ironic that Bork was “borking” Meirs if “borking” doesn’t mean what it used to mean when Bork was “borked”? (Try saying that 5 times real fast. 🙂 ) ---
**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 11, 2005, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/326 "2005-10-11T03:29:56Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > **RTF** is right - to the GOP, and apparently to at least one self-described libertarian, “borking” means simply to oppose a nominee, nothing more. Part of the spin is to remove the actual meaning of the word from common use via strawmen about the term’s origin. Bork’s Whining Tour speeches and books have contributed mightily to that bit of Newspeak. Ummm… did you actually read **RTF** ’s post and the exchange that took place afterwards? He was the one who claimed that simply opposing a nominee amounted to “borking” her, and I was the one who claimed it didn’t. If what you say is true, you should be agreeing with me and disagreeing with him. See, that’s the problem people have with you. You seem to disagree just for the sake of disagreeing, choosing sides based on the poster, not on the content of the post. How about giving this another go and see whom you actually agree with. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2005, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/327 "2005-10-11T13:10:30Z")
No, friend, I’m talking about what \*you \* have said. \*Your \* definition of “borking”. Your \*own \* statements of “fact” about the Democrats’ motivations for opposing Bork. If you can’t, or won’t, defend your own statements anymore, that’s fine. Just say so, okay? Sheesh. ---
**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 11, 2005, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/328 "2005-10-11T15:10:00Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > No, friend, I’m talking about what \*you \* have said. \*Your \* definition of “borking”. Your \*own \* statements of “fact” about the Democrats’ motivations for opposing Bork. If you can’t, or won’t, defend your own statements anymore, that’s fine. Just say so, okay? Sheesh. Now I’m going to ask you to retract your misrepresentation of my post. How do you get (in your post #324, my epmphasis): > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > …to the GOP, and apparently to at least one self-described libertarian, “borking” means simply to oppose a nominee… when my post #298 clearly states that it’s more than simply “opposing” a candidate: > [@John Mace in post #298](#): > > To bork usually means an all out assault, including character assasination. Are you now going to claim that the “one self-described libertarian” wasn’t a reference to me? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2005, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/329 "2005-10-11T15:49:27Z")
Sure, that meant you, but you’re not getting why. The definition of “borking” you’re using, one straight from the GOP Stylebook, describes something _that didn’t actually happen_. Have you overlooked the challenge to back up your flat statement that it was character assassination, as your claimed definition would have it? No? Then would you care to reconsider? No, as the current GOP/Mace definition is _in practice_, it is indeed used as code for “simply opposing a nominee”, as I said. The connotations that the motivations for it are tawdry and partisan rather than statesmanlike are part of the GOP usage. The \*facts \* in examples that the term is applied to, however, include \*all \* oppositions for \*whatever \* reason, allowing any opposition to be tainted as tawdry and partisan while dismissing any possibility of their arising from concern for country. I’m surprised that an explanation is necessary. Now let’s see you back up your assertions about the Democrats’ reasons for opposing Bork. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2005, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/330 "2005-10-11T16:00:32Z")
Now, **Elvish** , ease up on **John-Boy** a bit, he means well, and besides, his Bork is worse than his…no, I can’t. I just can’t. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2005, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/331 "2005-10-11T16:16:11Z")
But seriously, folks… What are we to make of these revelations by the _Times_? > **[Documents Show Supreme CourtNominee's Close Ties to Bush (Published 2005)](https://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/11/politics/politicsspecial1/documents-show-supreme-courtnominees-close-ties.html)** > > ''You are the best governor ever -- deserving of great respect,'' Harriet E. Miers wrote to George W. Bush days after his 51st birthday in July 1997. She also found him ''cool,'' said he and his wife, Laura, were ''the greatest!'' and told him:... > [@](#): > > “You are the best governor ever - deserving of great respect,” Harriet E. Miers wrote to George W. Bush days after his 51st birthday in July 1997. She also found him “cool,” said he and his wife, Laura, were “the greatest!” and told him: “Keep up the great work. Texas is blessed”… However much you may admire GeeDubya, Shirley you can see that this is quite, quite over the top. Especially if, as I, you don’t much admire GeeDubya at all, in which case you see this as totally batshit. So what insight can we gain from this? Is the pig in the poke wearing lipstick, or no? Does Ms. Meiers truly hold GeeDubya in such awe, that he is a collossus that bestrides the world? Or is she a world class suck-up, who spends more time on her knees that a penitent nun? ---
**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 11, 2005, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/332 "2005-10-11T17:32:00Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Sure, that meant you, but you’re not getting why. The definition of “borking” you’re using, one straight from the GOP Stylebook, describes something _that didn’t actually happen_. Have you overlooked the challenge to back up your flat statement that it was character assassination, as your claimed definition would have it? No? Then would you care to reconsider? > > No, as the current GOP/Mace definition is _in practice_, it is indeed used as code for “simply opposing a nominee”, as I said. Once again, I will ask you to re-read my post #298, wherein I establish that I was using the definion given by the New York Times. So now you have 2 things to retract. > [@](#): > > The connotations that the motivations for it are tawdry and partisan rather than statesmanlike are part of the GOP usage. The \*facts \* in examples that the term is applied to, however, include \*all \* oppositions for \*whatever \* reason, allowing any opposition to be tainted as tawdry and partisan while dismissing any possibility of their arising from concern for country. I’m surprised that an explanation is necessary. > > Now let’s see you back up your assertions about the Democrats’ reasons for opposing Bork. That is entirely besides the point. We’re talking about Bork’s opposition to Miers. If you want to sidetrack this into a discussion of Bork, start another thread. I won’t continue that hijack here. At this point, I’m simply trying to set the record straight in light of the mischaracterizations you’ve made of my posts. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2005, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/333 "2005-10-11T18:17:45Z")
At the risk of distracting due attention to the endlessly fascinating “John N’ Elvis Show”… The following tidbit by way of _Think Progress_ [http://thinkprogress.org/](http://thinkprogress.org/), titled “Bush Circular Logic on Meiers” > [@](#): > > During an interview this morning on “The Today Show,” President Bush touted Harriet Miers’ credentials: > > I would remind those, one, that Harriet is an extraordinarily accomplished woman who’s done a lot. As a matter of fact, she’s consistently ranked as one of the top 50 women lawyers in the United States. > > Actually, The National Law Journal ranked Miers among “The Fifty Most Influential Women Lawyers.” The specific designation is significant, because National Law Journal selected her as one of the “most influential” because of Miers’ close, personal relationship with Bush. From the National Law Journal… ---
**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 11, 2005, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/334 "2005-10-11T18:30:22Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > At the risk of distracting due attention to the endlessly fascinating “John N’ Elvis Show”… The following tidbit by way of _Think Progress_ Hey, he’s your guy-- you talk some sense into him. 🙂 > [@](#): > > [http://thinkprogress.org/](http://thinkprogress.org/), titled “Bush Circular Logic on Meiers” Looks like a mutual admiration society-- she claims he’s the smartest person she knows, and he claims she’s one of the top 50 female lawyers (due to his having picked her). I suspect that she’ll be confirmed. I’m not thrilled with the choice, but I haven’t found a legitimate (ie, nonpolitical) reason to oppose her. Let’s see how the hearings play out… ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2005, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/335 "2005-10-11T18:45:15Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I suspect that she’ll be confirmed. I’m not thrilled with the choice, but I haven’t found a legitimate (ie, nonpolitical) reason to oppose her. Let’s see how the hearings play out… :dubious: Why do you assume political reasons would not be legitimate ones in this context? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2005, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/336 "2005-10-11T18:52:36Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Once again, I will ask you to re-read my post #298, wherein I establish that I was using the definion given by the New York Times. So now you have 2 things to retract. Do I? It should be easy to find the original NYT citation, then, so that the verity and context can be established. Yet somehow it fails to turn up when Googling, although there are other sources who say it was from them. A bit suspicious, wouldn’t you say? Might it be that the NYT cite, even if it exists, in context actually describes how the _GOP Stylebook_ defines the term, as I’ve said? Would it be the first misrepresentation you ever got caught up by? > [@](#): > > That is entirely besides the point. We’re talking about Bork’s opposition to Miers. So you _can’t_ support your statements about “borking”, made in a number of posts that you’ve now declared besides the point. Would it really be that painful to say so? :rolleyes: If you’re looking for a reason to oppose her, btw, there’s precedent for using mediocrity alone as a sufficient one. That’s been pointed out previously. ---
**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 11, 2005, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/337 "2005-10-11T19:08:00Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > :dubious: Why do you assume political reasons would not be legitimate ones in this context? That’s my own particular philosophy concerning SC appointees, based on my reading of the constitution. I realize most other people don’t apply that same standard. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2005, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/338 "2005-10-11T19:50:09Z")
The Constituion is a wondrous document, much like Holy Scripture. Mr. Bork gazes upon it, and discovers to his happy assurance that it reflects his political philosophy with luminous clarity! As, apparently, do you. How marvelous that our forefathers prediscovered libertarian political thought before it was even aborning! We progressives remain darkly suspicious. We suspect that Mr. Bork has carried his philosophy to the meeting of minds, like the committee of blind men examining an elephant, he feels the trunk and declares it a snake. Hence, he is justified, in his own mind, with declaring that he knows the “original” intent of the Framers and browbeating those who stray from that “original” intent. May I offer my own deeply scholarly analysis? Thank you, I shall. The Constitution was framed by brilliant men who didn’t trust one other any further than they could throw each other. This is the fundamental source of the “checks and balances” we so rightly admire. The fortunate result of all this (or unfortunate, depending) is a multitude of perfectly plausible interpretations of “original intent”. (One can only hope that Mr. Bork has no intention of justifying the “3/5 of a person” rule…) Hence, the use of the concept “originalist” is nothing more than an attempt to drape the legitimacy and honor of the Founding Fuckups around one’s own personal agenda. It is nonsense if I were to do it, and its nonsense when anyone else does it. The Devil quotes Scripture, when it suits his purpose. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2005, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/339 "2005-10-11T20:13:04Z")
Yea, verily. Add to that the simple fact that the Supreme Court is a political body, just like the other 2 branches. Making law (not simply interpreting it, that’s what lower courts do, and cases that simple don’t make it that far up the ladder) is what they do. They’re guided but not bound by precedent and case law. They decide cases in very large part based on their own experiences and philosophies of life, their own feelings about fairness and rights, and that requires a representative range of those things. They talk them over and learn from each other. At least it’s supposed to work that way. That’s another part of the checks ‘n’ balances system that we simply require. But there’s still only 9 seats available, and the mainstream requires the bulk of them. There need not be a quota for ideologues and other cranks and there shouldn’t be one. To insist, as Bork and Scalia do, that their own particular views, however out of the mainstream, are the only correct ones and that any others should be dismissed makes them unqualified for the job. However brilliant they may be technically, those attitudes belong in lower courts at most, where they won’t do real harm to real people. It’s okay for Judge Bork to insist there is no Constitutionally-protected right to privacy, as he did in his hearings, if it never comes into play in his cases, but it was entirely appropriate to act in the nation’s interest and keep that view off the Court. Yet the “borkers” were engaging in “character assassination”, say his fellow ideologues, unable to comprehend that others may disagree and be at least as right. ---
**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 11, 2005, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/340 "2005-10-11T21:12:10Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > The Constitution was framed by brilliant men who didn’t trust one other any further than they could throw each other. This is the fundamental source of the “checks and balances” we so rightly admire. The fortunate result of all this (or unfortunate, depending) is a multitude of perfectly plausible interpretations of “original intent”. (One can only hope that Mr. Bork has no intention of justifying the “3/5 of a person” rule…) Strawman. Or, rather, strawmen. No one claims that originalists always come to the same conclusion, and no one would consider the 3/5 rule to be part of the constitution, since slavery is explicitly banned by an amendment (can’t remember which one now). That was a rather weak attempt at scaremongering on your part, **luc** … > [@](#): > > Hence, the use of the concept “originalist” is nothing more than an attempt to drape the legitimacy and honor of the Founding Fuckups around one’s own personal agenda. It is nonsense if I were to do it, and its nonsense when anyone else does it. Except that I, among others on this board, ascribe to a similar philosophy\* often argue the constiutionality of things contrary to our own political agendas. As you know, I am an atheist who leans libertarian. I favor a complete seperation of church and state as well as SSM. But I wouldn’t argue that the constittion requires either one of those things. If you want to comnpletly politicize the SC nomination process, be my guest. Your political side will lose that contest 9 times out of 10. \*I don’t claim to understand Bork’s philososophy, nor do I claim to see things his way. But it’s close enough for government work, or this debate. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556.md?page=18)