Patterico's Pontifications

10/16/2005

A Couple of Liens Do Not a “Slumlord” Make

Filed under: Judiciary — Patterico @ 1:40 pm



Via Bench Memos: if this is the worst the press can find on Miers, she’ll be confirmed easily. Jonathan Adler titles his post “Harriet Miers . . . Slumlord?” That seems a bit harsh.

6 Responses to “A Couple of Liens Do Not a “Slumlord” Make”

  1. Unfortunately, it’s not the worst the press can find on Miers. There’s also her complete lack of qualifications.

    FXKLM (c87311)

  2. The LAT Editor, Baquet to appear at a Zocalo event in downtown Los Angeles on Tuesday, Nov. 1, 2005.

    David (6a1491)

  3. Gosh! I can’t believe these Newsday moron wasted the column inches on this…

    russ (8b209b)

  4. It finally occurred to me today that those of us worrying about the Miers nomination have been clueless. This nomination is a great opportunity for judicial conservatives.

    We need to get the conservative Republicans on the judiciary committee to honestly question Miers about her judicial philosophy. Here’s some thoughts to get thinks started:

    1: Do you believe the US Constitution is a “Living Document.”

    1a: If she answers “yes”: What is the practical, functional, difference between saying “the Constitution is a ‘Living Document'” and saying “the Constitution means whatever 5 members of the Supreme Court think they can get away with saying that it means”?

    1b: If she answers no: So do you believe it is inappropriate for judges to create or “find” new rights in the Constitution?

    2: Who is responsible for bringing the laws and Constitution “up to date” and in line with current social norms? Judges, or the Legislative and Executive Branches. (Ref “Lawrence v. Texas”)

    3: Does the Legislature have the right to pass”bad” laws?

    Remember, we don’t care if her answers get her in trouble with the Democrats. In fact, that’s what we want.

    So what are other questions the Republicans can ask, where refusing to answer them would justifiy Republicans voting against her, and answering them will either advance conservative ideas about the proper role of the Courts, or else justify Republicans voting against her?

    Greg D (dfbcf3)

  5. “Do you think Judges should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon in the courtroom?”

    Pilots?
    Teachers?

    Anything involving firearms drives the leftists nuts. She (IIRC) has a stated opinion of a ‘personal right’ and that an arms-bearing citizenry reduces crime.

    So, she can flip, or she can flop.

    Al (00c56b)

  6. I don’t see what the big deal is about. Everyone knows Lawyers are the biggest deadbeats around. What are you going to do, take them to court?

    Black Jack (ee9fe2)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0622 secs.