Ms. Harriet Miers, Why Become A Public Figure?
Ken Hughes
October 15, 2005
Why would anyone want to become a public figure? All the warts, even those their spouse doesn’t know about are exposed. Why does anyone go trough the grilling it takes to become a government appointee or an elected official. Why do people want to become part of the government process and suffer the indignities that go along with getting the job?
A few years ago I had a brilliant idea, [I thought it was brilliant.] Before a congressmen, reporter, or supervisor could question an applicant, or any interested party, a personal question about their past, the person making inquires must first admit to at least three indiscretions they’re guilty of. As you see it didn’t go very far.
I doubt the founding fathers ever anticipated the government we have today. A liberal Supreme Court has stripped many of the rights the founding fathers guaranteed in the constitution. What they couldn’t do using the constitution they did using the interstate commerce clause. This certainly is a breach of ethics if not a breach of the constitution. Conservative have been waiting years for an opportunity to upset the balance of what they perceive a liberal Supreme Court. Finally the days arrives, Conservatives are elated, two vacancies at one time, their in Hog-heaven,
Not so fast, John Roberts was acceptable to nearly everyone. Harriet Miers isn’t being accepted by the presidents own party. The lady hasn’t opened her mouth and we’re being told what she isn’t, and what she’s not likely do. They wanted a hard-core constitutional scholar, that isn’t a qualification to be appointed to the court. There are no written qualifications for an appointment. The president could conceivably appoint his dog. That’s where the senates comes in. with their consent. Granted there have been a few dogs on the court, however they were cleverly disguised as real persons.
I’m a conservative, I don’t always agree with my conservative collogues on ever issue. In the case of Ms. Miers I would like to see what she has to say when she’s interrogated by the senate. To date she hasn’t made many public statements that alone is one qualifying factor. Let the senate find the worm in the apple if there is one. The president makes decisions slowly, He isn’t one to react to media or pundit pressure. So far, the majority of his decisions have proven to be good choices. Why are the pundits questioning him on the decision to nominate Ms. Miers? Perhaps it’s because she doesn’t appear to be pit-bullish enough.
Leading conservatives who analyze news and give opinions on events seem to have made up their minds Ms Mires isn’t qualified because of anything she’s done or said, rather what she hasn’t said. Given the opportunity to explain her judicial philosophy to the senate unencumbered by media hype and pundit pressures, I’m confident she’ll display many qualifications. No one ever reached her station in life by not making any decisions along the way. Their looking in the bottom of the barrel where all the crap settles, maybe they should look at the top where the good stuff floats.
As much as I’d like the court returned to review and advice, and not making laws from the bench. It can’t happen overnight, nor should it. Evolution is Gods law, even earthquakes and hurricanes take time to come to fruition, nothing happen instantly.
Lets let’s Ms. Miers have her day at the lectern before we judge her for what we don’t know. As far as I’m concerned I trust my presidents judgment more than I trust all the speculation being spread around. It wasn’t that long ago conservatives were chastising liberals for the same speculation regarding other judicial nominees of the president. You can’t have it both way boys and girls. Chose one from column A] or one from column B] not half of both.
A few years ago I had a brilliant idea, [I thought it was brilliant.] Before a congressmen, reporter, or supervisor could question an applicant, or any interested party, a personal question about their past, the person making inquires must first admit to at least three indiscretions they’re guilty of. As you see it didn’t go very far.
I doubt the founding fathers ever anticipated the government we have today. A liberal Supreme Court has stripped many of the rights the founding fathers guaranteed in the constitution. What they couldn’t do using the constitution they did using the interstate commerce clause. This certainly is a breach of ethics if not a breach of the constitution. Conservative have been waiting years for an opportunity to upset the balance of what they perceive a liberal Supreme Court. Finally the days arrives, Conservatives are elated, two vacancies at one time, their in Hog-heaven,
Not so fast, John Roberts was acceptable to nearly everyone. Harriet Miers isn’t being accepted by the presidents own party. The lady hasn’t opened her mouth and we’re being told what she isn’t, and what she’s not likely do. They wanted a hard-core constitutional scholar, that isn’t a qualification to be appointed to the court. There are no written qualifications for an appointment. The president could conceivably appoint his dog. That’s where the senates comes in. with their consent. Granted there have been a few dogs on the court, however they were cleverly disguised as real persons.
I’m a conservative, I don’t always agree with my conservative collogues on ever issue. In the case of Ms. Miers I would like to see what she has to say when she’s interrogated by the senate. To date she hasn’t made many public statements that alone is one qualifying factor. Let the senate find the worm in the apple if there is one. The president makes decisions slowly, He isn’t one to react to media or pundit pressure. So far, the majority of his decisions have proven to be good choices. Why are the pundits questioning him on the decision to nominate Ms. Miers? Perhaps it’s because she doesn’t appear to be pit-bullish enough.
Leading conservatives who analyze news and give opinions on events seem to have made up their minds Ms Mires isn’t qualified because of anything she’s done or said, rather what she hasn’t said. Given the opportunity to explain her judicial philosophy to the senate unencumbered by media hype and pundit pressures, I’m confident she’ll display many qualifications. No one ever reached her station in life by not making any decisions along the way. Their looking in the bottom of the barrel where all the crap settles, maybe they should look at the top where the good stuff floats.
As much as I’d like the court returned to review and advice, and not making laws from the bench. It can’t happen overnight, nor should it. Evolution is Gods law, even earthquakes and hurricanes take time to come to fruition, nothing happen instantly.
Lets let’s Ms. Miers have her day at the lectern before we judge her for what we don’t know. As far as I’m concerned I trust my presidents judgment more than I trust all the speculation being spread around. It wasn’t that long ago conservatives were chastising liberals for the same speculation regarding other judicial nominees of the president. You can’t have it both way boys and girls. Chose one from column A] or one from column B] not half of both.
Print
Email
