It’s Kelley’s boss! The AP reports:
President Bush on Monday nominated White House counsel Harriet Miers to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on the Supreme Court, reaching into his loyal inner circle for a pick that could reshape the nation’s judiciary for years to come.“She has devoted her life to the rule of law and the cause of justice,” Bush said, announcing his choice from the Oval Office with Miers at his side. “She will be an outstanding addition to the Supreme Court of the United States.” …
Miers, who has never been a judge, … said she was humbled by the nod.
“If confirmed, I recognize I will have a tremendous responsibility to keep our judicial system strong and to help insure the court meets their obligations to strictly apply the laws and Constitution,” she said.
Democratic and Republican special interests groups were braced for a political brawl over the pick, Bush’s second. But the lack of a judicial record may make it difficult for Democrats to find ground upon which to fight her nomination.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., had urged the administration to consider Miers, two congressional officials said. There was a long list of staunchly conservative judges that Democrats were poised to fight, Miers not among them. …
“She will strictly interpret our Constitution and laws. She will not legislate from the bench,” Bush said. Conservatives apparently agreed.
“There’s every indication that she’s very similar to Judge Roberts — judicial restraint, limited role of the court, basically a judicial conservative,” said Republican consultant Greg Mueller, who works for several conservative advocacy leaders.
The conservatives at ConfirmThem.com are not impressed:
Where’s my Scalia? Where’s my Thomas?Can someone - anyone - make the case for Justice Miers on the merits? Seriously, this is the best the president could do?
And what really sticks in my craw is the president’s unwillingness to have a national debate about the proper method of interpreting the Constitution. I suppose I should have seen this coming when White House staffers freaked out over Chief Justice Roberts’s ties to the Federalist Society.
Thanks for nothing, Mr. President. You had better pray that Justice Miers is a staunch legal conservative, because if she turns out to be another O’Connor then the Republican Party is in for a world of hurt.
Un-freakin’-believable.
Oh, and if any of you RNC staffers are reading, you can take my name off the mailing list. I am not giving the national Republican Party another dime.
Update: O.k., I’ve received several calls and emails from conservative buddies telling me to chill out and reserve judgment on Miers. I suppose I should do that, but I am really furious about the president’s unwillingness to nominate an outspoken legal conservative. This nomination is not just about one person. This country needs to have a national debate about the proper method of interpreting the Constitution, and the president balks at taking on the penumbra lovers on the merits. Disgusting.
Read this, too. She gave money to the DNC and, in 1988, Al Gore. (At NRO, John Podhoretz offers one possible explanation for that.)
Also, Miers is 60. A commenter on this post writes, “there are so many more qualified and experienced candidates who are younger.”
Glenn Reynolds is “underwhelmed.” Kathryn Jean Lopez’s initial reaction was “Ugh.” (Obviously, she hates women! ;)
But at least some of the liberals at Daily Kos aren’t happy, either:
I think Miers is a sitting duck for opposition.And frankly, I look at the judicial nominations this way.
There’s no way we can stop Bush from appointing a conservative. Even a hardcore conservative.
But what we can stop him from doing is appointing a total Republican hack whose loyalties lie first and foremost with the George W Bush wing of the Republican party. Roberts didn’t necessarily fit in that category; or at least he didn’t do so obviously. Miers does. And I think it’s genuinely worrisome that someone whose only apparent qualification for the Court is that she’s a friend of W is allowed to take a lifetime position on the Supreme Court.
So you know what? If Bush comes back and appoints someone who is a fairminded hardcore conservative, someone like a Luttig, I’ll take it. I may not like it, but there’s not much I can do.
It’s the cronyism that we ought to be opposing at this point. We all know how the Busheviks operate. They’re not interested in advancing conservative principles so much as they are in consolidating power. Allowing them to have someone who is totally beholden to Bushco should not be permissible.
And frankly, I think this is something we can explain easily to the American people, and something they’ll agree with.
Maybe so, but if given a choice between 1) a “fairminded hardcore conservative” whose deeply held right-wing views are unlikely to change, and could reshape the law in this country for decades, and 2) a “total Republican hack” whose “loyalties” will become totally irrelevant the moment she’s confirmed to her lifetime position on the Court, and who isn’t a known social conservative … is the Left sure it really wants choice #1? (What’s the “hack” Justice Miers going to do? Personally issue a ruling making Bush our President-for-Life?) A preference for choice #1 might be intellectually justifiable, but is it wise? In other words, Luttig might be objectively more qualified, but isn’t the Miers nomination a potential boon for those who don’t want to see the Court packed with outspoken social conservatives?
I guess I think the Right’s ire is a bit more understandable than the Left’s, in this particular instance. I would think the problem for the Left would be more along the lines of abject confusion. So much of their worldview has been tied up in the assumption that Bush would “pack” the Supreme Court with known radical right-wing social-conservative nutjobs at every opportunity … and now he’s had two chances, with no guarantee he’ll get a third, and he’s 0-for-2 on fulfilling those expectations. Perhaps Roberts and Miers will turn out to be very conservative justices — or perhaps they won’t. There are so many people he could have nominated where that doubt would not have existed, and he could have gotten any one of them confirmed (because his party controls both houses of Congress, and could invoke the “nuclear option” if necessary to defeat a filibuster), but he made a conscious choice not to. Why? And how does his unexpected restraint fit in with the “evil Bush” mentality?
If I were a social conservative, damn straight I’d be pissed. If I were a doctrinaire liberal, I’d be relieved. As it is, I’m not sure what to think, except that I’m unimpressed with her grammar: “the court meets their obligations”? C’mon, Harriet, that should be “its.” Jeez. :)
UPDATE: There’s lots more conservative reaction at the National Review’s Bench Memos blog and at The Corner, including this from Mark R. Levin:
The president, despite a magnificent farm team from which to choose a solid nominee, chose otherwise. Miers was chosen for two reasons and two reasons alone: 1. she’s a she; 2. she’s a long-time Bush friend. Otherwise, there’s nothing to distinguish her from thousands of other lawyers.
Sounding a similar note, David Frum writes:
This is the moment for which the conservative legal movement has been waiting for two decades - two decades in which a generation of conservative legal intellects of the highest ability have moved to the most distinguished heights in the legal profession. On the nation’s appellate courts, in legal academia, in private practice, there are dozens and dozens of principled conservative jurists in their 40s and 50s unassailably qualified for the nation’s highest court. Yes, Democrats might have complained. But if Democrats had gone to war against a Michael Luttig or a Sam Alito or a Michael McConnell, they would have had to fight without weapons: the personal and intellectual excellence of these candidates would have made it obvious that the Democrats’ only real principle was a kind of legal Brezhnev doctrine: that the court’s balance must remain forever what it was in the days when Democrats had a majority of the votes in the US Senate - in other words, what we have, we hold. Not a very attractive doctrine, and not very winnable either.The Senate would have confirmed Luttig, Alito, or McConnell. It certainly would have confirmed a Senator Mitch McConnell or a Senator Jon Kyle, had the president felt even a little nervous about the ultimate vote.
There was no reason for him to choose anyone but one of these outstanding conservatives. As for the diversity argument, it just seems incredible to imagine that anybody would have criticized this president of all people for his lack of devotion to that doctrine. He has appointed minorities and women to the highest offices in the land, relied on women as his closest advisers, and staffed his administration through and through with Americans of every race, sex, faith, and national origin. He had nothing to apologize for on that score. So the question must be asked, as Admiral Rickover once demanded of Jimmy Carter: Why not the best?
I worked with Harriet Miers. She’s a lovely person: intelligent, honest, capable, loyal, discreet, dedicated … I could pile on the praise all morning. But nobody would describe her as one of the outstanding lawyers in the United States. And there is no reason at all to believe either that she is a legal conservative or - and more importantly - that she has the spine and steel necessary to resist the pressures that constantly bend the American legal system toward the left.
I am not saying that she is not a legal conservative. I am not saying that she is not steely. I am saying only that there is no good reason to believe either of these things. Not even her closest associates on the job have no good reason to believe either of these things. In other words, we are being asked by this president to take this appointment purely on trust, without any independent reason to support it. And that is not a request conservatives can safely grant.
There have just been too many instances of seeming conservatives being sent to the high court, only to succumb to the prevailing vapors up there: O’Connor, Kennedy, Souter. Given that record, it is simply reckless for any conservative president, especially one backed by a 55-seat Senate majority, to take a hazard on anything other than a known quantity.
It does seem like an odd choice, under the circumstances. Especially when you consider that Bush’s alternative choices weren’t just Luttig, Alito, or McConnell — there are several outspoken judicial conservatives he could have picked who are also women/minorities.
P.S. Right up near the top of Drudge’s homepage is this tidbit:
MIERS TURNED 60 IN AUGUST; IS SINGLE, DEVOUT CHURCHGOER, VERY CLOSE TO FAMILY…
Hmm, 60 and single, eh? Do you think Drudge is trying to imply something? Wonkette picks up the thread.
UPDATE 2: Here’s something that the Right is a bit more happy about.
UPDATE 3: Tom Goldstein of SCOTUSblog predicts that she’ll be rejected:
The President’s nomination creates a very interesting political dynamic - one that places the nomination in peril. The nomination obviously will be vigorously supported by groups created for the purpose of pressing the President’s nominees, and vigorously opposed by groups on the other side. But within the conservative wing of the Republican party, there is thus far (very early in the process) only great disappointment, not enthusiasm. They would prefer Miers to be rejected in the hope - misguided, I think - that the President would then nominate, for example, Janice Rogers Brown. Moderate Republicans have no substantial incentive to support Miers, and the President seems to have somewhat less capital to invest here. On the Democratic side, there will be inevitable - perhaps knee-jerk - opposition. Nor does Miers have a built in “fan base” of people in Washington, in contrast to the people (Democratic and Republican) who knew and respected John Roberts. Even if Democrats aren’t truly gravely concerned, they will see this as an opportunity to damage the President. The themes of the opposition will be cronyism and inexperience. Democratic questioning at the hearings will be an onslaught of questions about federal constitutional law that Miers in all likelihood won’t want to, or won’t be able to (because her jobs haven’t called on her to study the issues), answer. I have no view on whether she should be confirmed (it’s simply too early to say), but will go out on a limb and predict that she will be rejected by the Senate. In my view, Justice O’Connor will still be sitting on the Court on January 1, 2006.
I read somewhere this morning (I can’t remember where now) a comment, presumably tongue-in-cheek, suggesting that the Miers nomination is a ruse; Bush nominated Miers knowing she’ll be rejected (or eventually withdrawn after a bitter fight), and figuring he can then nominate a qualified but far-right conservative, because the public won’t have the stomach for a second consecutive Senate bloodbath, and the new nominee’s judicial credentials will look stellar compared to Miers’s.
Far-fetched, and almost certainly false, if for no other reason than that I can’t believe Bush, Mr. Loyalty, would throw a long-time confidant under a bus like that. But who knows? It might work out that way for him accidentally…
Okay, I gotta go to work now — no more updates till later.
|
Categories: Uncategorized
|
October 3rd, 2005 at 9:52:29 am
She donated to the DNC. There goes our chance to push in the direction of overruling Roe.
October 3rd, 2005 at 10:18:54 am
Does the president believe that by putting in one of his staffers to a lifetime position that will make him less of a lame duck now? I’m trying to picture a future president who would agree to share power with him.
I’m also more than a little confused by the proposition that by being a total judicial newbie makes a candidate unassailable.
And does SCOTUS stand for Supreme Court Of The United States? I thought all this time it must be one of those arcane legal terms that only Domers knew. :>
October 3rd, 2005 at 10:20:43 am
Um, and omit the word by from my previous post (second paragraph) and it will be grammatical (I hope).
October 3rd, 2005 at 10:21:35 am
Annoyed,
I understand what you’re saying but Bush has done a fairly good job of appointing reasonable conservatives so far. I’m willing to give Miers the benefit of the doubt for now.
October 3rd, 2005 at 10:21:58 am
Damn. The second by. Where is my coffee?
October 3rd, 2005 at 10:23:57 am
“There goes our chance to push in the direction of overruling Roe.”
And I thought conservatives didn’t want to legislate from the bench or push their policy preferences…
October 3rd, 2005 at 10:25:06 am
I’m also more than a little confused by the proposition that being a total judicial newbie makes a candidate unassailable.
Well, it doesn’t. It makes her unassailable on the issues, because she hasn’t had occasion to stake out positions on the issues. But you can still attack her on her credentials, of course. However, that approach may come off as “mean” and “nasty” to the public, especially since she’s a woman. Bush may be counting on this. ACKBAR, IT’S A TRAP!!! :)
More seriously, I think the question you should be asking yourself, Mom, is not, “Is it possible to oppose this nominee?” but rather, “Do I want to oppose this nominee?” Seems to me you’re looking a gift horse in the mouth here — as I said in my post, Bush has now had two opportunities to nominate a known right-winger with a clear record of hard-line conservativism, and he is 0-for-2. So much for packing the courts. Do you really want Miers defeated and replaced with Luttig or whoever?
October 3rd, 2005 at 10:27:34 am
“There goes our chance to push in the direction of overruling Roe.”
And I thought conservatives didn’t want to legislate from the bench or push their policy preferences…
Umm, conservatives believe that Roe is an example of legislating from the bench, and therefore should be overruled. Your comment might make sense if the first commenter had said “there goes our chance to save millions of unborn babies,” but as it is, he/she said, “… of overruling Roe,” which is the intellectually correct way to express that thought. Your response is therefore rather nonsensical. Is it judicial activism to support overturning a wrongly decided, judicially activist ruling? (Not saying I believe that about Roe, just saying that’s the conservative view.) That’s ridiculous.
October 3rd, 2005 at 10:35:47 am
Well, call me naive, but I thought credentials had something to do with candidacy. Does that not pertain at the highest level and/or for lifetime appointments?. It frightens me that we should be so pragmatic as to lay that aside. Even were it for dogcatcher.
October 3rd, 2005 at 10:37:06 am
She looks like a zombie.
October 3rd, 2005 at 10:40:43 am
I’m a conservative, and I’m not unhappy with the nominee.
One can assume she can at least read and understand what words mean. That being said, the SCOTUS’ only job is to interpret what the constitution says. Heck, I can do that, and I certainly don’t have any lawyering experience.
I think it will be good to get some new blood in Washington. Furthermore, she seems like a regular person to me. I don’t think that’s a bad thing at all.
October 3rd, 2005 at 10:48:06 am
Leahy? Leahy? LEAHY!!!!!!!
October 3rd, 2005 at 10:51:48 am
Well, call me naive, but I thought credentials had something to do with candidacy. Does that not pertain at the highest level and/or for lifetime appointments?. It frightens me that we should be so pragmatic as to lay that aside. Even were it for dogcatcher.
That’s a perfectly fine and respectable position. But I hope you’re thinking through its full ramifications. When you say we should put principle ahead of pragmatism, you’re talking about a list of “pragmatic” concerns that includes the survival of Roe v. Wade, a case that I know you care about A LOT. Is opposing Miers sufficiently important to take the risk that Bush would replace her with someone explicitly anti-Roe? The “pragmatic” choice would be to count your blessings, take your cues from the conservatives who are pissed off about this choice, and say, “Hey, if the National Review hates her, I like her.” :) I respect that you don’t want to do that, but I’m just reminding you to consider the stakes.
Also, I do have to point out that Bush already appointed someone with impeccable “credentials” — John Roberts — and you opposed him. For different reasons, I understand that, but if you opposed Roberts on the basis of ideology, it’s almost certain that you would oppose ANY “qualified” nominee that Bush might appoint on that same basis, because it’s inconceivable that Bush would appoint someone “qualified” enough to have a “track record” that is less conservative than Roberts’s.
October 3rd, 2005 at 10:53:40 am
Swarthy, see here.
October 3rd, 2005 at 10:58:34 am
Wow, I’m almost beginning to (*gasp!*) like Bush! I was pleased with Roberts and… well, not displeased with Miers. All I ask for in the SCOTUS appointees is for them to be reasonable. Doesn’t seem like too much to ask, right?
As far as I can tell, Roberts seems like an absolutely reasonable person - I believe Meirs will be as well.
October 3rd, 2005 at 11:05:53 am
I would think the problem for the Left would be more along the lines of abject confusion. So much of their worldview has been tied up in the assumption that Bush would “pack” the Supreme Court with known radical right-wing social-conservative nutjobs at every opportunity … and now he’s had two chances, with no guarantee he’ll get a third, and he’s 0-for-2 on fulfilling those expectations.
I’m still not convinced about Roberts, but I’ll definitely agree that 1-1 looks good …
Seriously, though, I’m a bit confused. Why would a lame-duck president with a decent majority in the Senate bother with being moderate? There are three answers:
1. He’s always been a closet moderate.
2. O’Connor and Laura Bush have been pushing him to nominate a woman, he checked his rolodex, and that was the first woman’s name that came up (calm down, that’s a joke)
3. He’s actually making an attempt to reach across the aisle and nominated someone that a Democratic leader (Reid) thought might be good.
Obviously, #3 looks good right now. But why? he’s a lame-duck president. The only thing I can think of is that his poll numbers are low because of Katrina and Iraq, and he wants to appeal to people again so that (a) he can drop some bombshell on the public when his poll numbers are higher, or (b) he can have the public thinking more highly of him in time for the Midterm elections next year.
Or maybe he genuinely thinks that she’s the best person for the job out there.
Until Bush publishes his memoirs, we may not know …
October 3rd, 2005 at 11:12:08 am
I am very happy with my pick and will continue to conduct strategery.
October 3rd, 2005 at 11:12:20 am
Brendan,
Why? For the Love of all that is Holy, why? Leahy….THE Coach Leahy, blogger extraordinaire, Master of the Metaphor, friend. What is this blog now without him but a mausoleum to his genius? The halls echo with his absence. For the love of blogging, WHY?????
October 3rd, 2005 at 11:20:12 am
I’m sorry, Swarthy, I knew you’d take this the hardest. ;) Alas, I had my reasons — and, as I’ve said, it wasn’t mere “garden-variety assholishness” that provoked my action. If you want to talk about it more, feel free to e-mail me.
October 3rd, 2005 at 11:21:13 am
I don’t know Josh, I almost think it might be #1…
October 3rd, 2005 at 11:30:26 am
A person can read and write and that qualifies (her) for the highest judicial body in the land? As a parent, I will not take responsibility for nurturing reasoning like this.
These are your times and your battles. The consequences will be yours to bear. Ponder this, please.
October 3rd, 2005 at 11:31:48 am
I am PISSED!!!!!!!
Bush has caved in to the bleeding hearts.
First the National Response to Hurricane Katrina and now this.
I am not sure where to go with my brand of conservatism, but Bush has blown it. Big time. Not as bad a Leahy, but close.
October 3rd, 2005 at 11:33:02 am
Leahy BANNED!!
Hopefully this is just some sort of probation. Maybe 15-30 days or so. Of course, his comments could have been so heinous as to warrant a lifetime exclusion.
If that is the case, I shall miss him.
October 3rd, 2005 at 11:35:27 am
Brendan,
I suppose, deep down, I don’t want to know the ugly particulars. I’d rather preserve my fond memories of Leahy, the Leahy who skirted the line of propriety, but never crossed it. I just feel so sad right now, a bit empty, certainly directionless. Perhaps it was all bound to happen in the end. Something about Leahy….I had a gut feeling he wanted to go out in a blaze of glory, like the grande finale of a fireworks show, where everyone stands around, jaws agape, looking up to the heavens, over-awed.
Leahy, wherever you are….shine on you crazy diamond…..
October 3rd, 2005 at 11:49:55 am
Leanna,
I am also a parent. We American citizens are not ruled by our “betters”. We are lead by our peers.
I assume you can read the constitution and surmise what it means. It is written in very plain language. Seems to me that this ability is more important than having some elite law school education or years of judicial experience.
October 3rd, 2005 at 11:58:10 am
The loss of Coach Leahy is quite a blow indeed. Coming hard on the heels of Bush’s failure to nominate Swarthington to the SCOTUS, it’s quite devastating. It’s only Monday and the week has already been ruined.
October 3rd, 2005 at 12:06:22 pm
A person can read and write and that qualifies (her) for the highest judicial body in the land? As a parent, I will not take responsibility for nurturing reasoning like this.
Huh? I didn’t say that, Texican did.
October 3rd, 2005 at 12:20:20 pm
Actually Brendan, (not to correct you or anything like that), that’s not even what I said, it’s just what Leanna read. I guess she is one of the rare indivuduals who can READ but not COMPREHEND.
October 3rd, 2005 at 12:27:50 pm
mikey row,
That bitch….she couldn’t adjudicate her way out of paper bag. It was that damn wormtongue Chuckie Shumer. He filled Bush’s ear with his poison against me. Now I’ve lost my last best shot at being one of the supremes. Someone’s gonna pay…..
October 3rd, 2005 at 12:40:45 pm
I’m really not sure about this nomination. It smacks of cronyism, and that worries me. She is very close to Bush, and he has pledged that he wants to appoint hardline conservatives, and he certainly has known her long enough to have a very good idea about her, despite her being a almost complete unknown to the rest of the country.
Be that as it may, the best know judge to be nominated and approved in a highly politicized climate, appointed through, more or less, cronyism, who had scarcely any formal legal training and experience, and who never served as a Judge before his appointment was John Marshal.
So I’m really not sure about this… I am certainly able to withhold judgment about this until more facts are know. However, I’m not sure how many facts we are going to get on this before it goes to a vote. More importantly, what is the nature of her relationship with the President? Is she qualified? She is know for not being able to make up her mind, is she going to be capable and competent to write opinions? We can only wait and see at this point…
October 3rd, 2005 at 12:45:46 pm
More importantly, what is the nature of her relationship with the President?
From what I understand, it involves a cigar and blue cocktail dress.
Leahy?
LEAHY?
October 3rd, 2005 at 12:53:22 pm
I am relishing the use of the words “wise” and “reasonable” in this thread.
October 3rd, 2005 at 1:03:20 pm
This is funny. Bush continues to self-destruct. Hah! Let the Right have at him for a little while.
Heh, heh, heh!
October 3rd, 2005 at 1:06:15 pm
Poor Bush, he can do no right. He’s pissed off the left and the right and clings desperately to the center.
October 3rd, 2005 at 1:07:49 pm
Dik, the word “wise” was never used in this thread. A simple search can tell you that. As for “reasonable” - well… what about it? Reasonable = the ability to reason, no? Sort of confused there as to what you’re getting at…
October 3rd, 2005 at 1:09:26 pm
Swarthy. The center doesn’t like him, either.
October 3rd, 2005 at 1:12:41 pm
I see a parallel between the banishment of Leahy from these back rooms and the nomination of Miers. Yeah, Miers is fine, bland, plain-looking, yada yada yada who cares?
This latest yawn-inspiring nominee clarifies what critics mean when they level the “all hat, no horse” critique at Dubya. Its not that they disagree with his ‘devil may care’, gunslingery vibe.
The critique is that the gunslingery motif itself is a fraud. Forget the spin, look at his actions: Bush makes Stuart Smalley look like an edgy, hip dude.
So, whatever may be the truth about Leahy’s level of assholishness (surely great) - try staying awake through this nomination debate - or the rest of the Dubya yawn years - without him back here.
October 3rd, 2005 at 1:12:54 pm
Angrier,
So I guess you’ve heard? Leahy has been banished from the blog. Without my number one ally, I am no match for you, Angrier. You have been a formidable nemesis, and I hereby and forthwith humbly concede defeat to you. I got no fight left.
Farewell and prosper, brother.
October 3rd, 2005 at 1:16:36 pm
It IS kind of sad to see Leahy go… sort of… kind of… Well, at times he was freakin’ hilarious. I do wonder what was said that warranted such a horrible fate.
I am reminded of when Stan was banished from South Park in the episode about voting for the school mascot.
October 3rd, 2005 at 1:27:02 pm
The loss of Coach Leahy is quite a blow indeed. Coming hard on the heels of Bush’s failure to nominate Swarthington to the SCOTUS, it’s quite devastating. It’s only Monday and the week has already been ruined
LOL!!
Regarding the other comments about Leahy… I suppose it was inevitable that by banning him, I’d make him a martyr. I can only say that I had very good reason for banning him, well beyond the sort of thing that I had criticized him (and others) for in the past… criticized, but not banned, you’ll notice. Banning anyone is not a step I take lightly (obviously, as I’ve never done it before, except to spammers). If you don’t trust me on that point — or if you’re worried about crossing the same line Leahy did, and therefore want to know just what the “line” is — I’ll offer again that you may feel free to e-mail me and I’ll fill you in on what happened. I don’t want to discuss it here because Leahy is not around to defend himself, so that doesn’t seem fair… and also, I don’t want to repeat the offending comment in this space. At the same time, I don’t want this nasty Leahy business to have a chilling effect on the dialogue here, so if you’re concerned about it, e-mail me.
Beyond that, go ahead and mourn the comment-martyr if you must. :) However, I will disagree with the notion that our debates are incapable of being funny or entertaining without Leahy. The BrendanLoy.com comment section was doing just fine before he came along, and we’ll do just fine now. Sure, we have our occasional bouts of pompous seriousness. We also have occasional bouts of hilarity.
Back on topic…
Actually Brendan, (not to correct you or anything like that), that’s not even what I said, it’s just what Leanna read. I guess she is one of the rare indivuduals who can READ but not COMPREHEND.
Texican, correcting me is always acceptable when I deserve to be corrected; there’s no need to paranthetically soften the blow. However, re-reading what you said, I’m afraid I don’t see how my mom’s interpretation is an unfair one. Granted, you didn’t literally say the precise words “a person can read and write and that qualifies (her) for the highest judicial body in the land”… but then, she didn’t quote you as such, she paraphrased you… and it seems to me that her paraphrase is a fair reading of what you said:
I’m a conservative, and I’m not unhappy with the nominee.
One can assume she can at least read and understand what words mean. That being said, the SCOTUS’ only job is to interpret what the constitution says. Heck, I can do that, and I certainly don’t have any lawyering experience.
Okay, I’ll concede the point that you didn’t say anything about writing. But with regard to reading… if you didn’t mean that “a person can read…and that qualifies (her) for the highest judicial body in the land,” what did you mean? If this is an “I didn’t imply, you inferred” problem… well… isn’t the inference obvious and proper? You say you’re happy with Miers, then go on to point out that “she can at least read and understand what words mean,” and that her “only job is to interpret what the constitution says,” and that that doesn’t require “lawyering experience,” but merely… reading comprehension skills, right? Isn’t that what you’re saying? Please tell me how I’m being unfair, or how Leanna (who FYI is my mom) was being unfair… I honestly don’t see it.
October 3rd, 2005 at 1:29:14 pm
I can read but not comprehend. Whew! I sure didn’t want that judicial opening. But I was talking about your generation, Brendan, not you personally.
I presume, Texican, that your offspring are in their twenties now. Of reproductive age, and not averse to traveling to New York State to get abortions, if need be.
I’m glad to hear how simple the Constitution is. Those commas in the Second Amendment made me think otherwise.
October 3rd, 2005 at 1:31:56 pm
I’m going to echo the concerns of cronyism and lack of experience.
October 3rd, 2005 at 1:32:20 pm
O Captain! My Captain!
We’re not talking “chilling effect” here, we’re talking a goddamn Ice Age……
October 3rd, 2005 at 1:33:23 pm
Oh, and Brendan, regarding Bush not rewarding his buddy’s, you might want to ask Brownie about that.
October 3rd, 2005 at 1:37:13 pm
One more thing on Leahy. Regarding my comment that “I don’t want to discuss it here because Leahy is not around to defend himself, so that doesn’t seem fair” … the obvious rebuttal is, “Well then, why did you bring it up in the first place?” And the answer is, I knew people would notice that he was gone, and when that started to happen, I figured I owed y’all at least a basic explanation. It wouldn’t be right for me to ban him and then pretend he just went away… at least, I wouldn’t feel right about it.
October 3rd, 2005 at 1:39:17 pm
Oh, and Brendan, regarding Bush not rewarding his buddy’s, you might want to ask Brownie about that.
Where did I say that Bush doesn’t reward his buddies? Are you referring to the comment where I said he wouldn’t throw Miers under a bus? Well, the Brownie thing is quite different — Brown had become a political liability for Bush; he had richly earned his bus-throwing expedition. On the other hand, if Miers were really a decoy nominee, he’d be throwing him to the wolves for pure political advantage, not because of anything she’d done.
On the other hand, if you’re implying the opposite, that I don’t think Miers and Brown are cronies… umm… you might want to check my archives to read some of the nasty things I said about Brown last month…
October 3rd, 2005 at 1:39:20 pm
What is this blog now without him
Vastly improved since we are able to discuss the issue rather than worry about someone constally calling in to question our intelligence and/or parentage :)
October 3rd, 2005 at 1:40:21 pm
P.S. Wait, are you the regular David, or a different David? If you’re the regular David, disregard the second paragraph, I know you read my earlier posts… :)
October 3rd, 2005 at 1:45:20 pm
I presume, Texican, that your offspring are in their twenties now. Of reproductive age, and not averse to traveling to New York State to get abortions, if need be.
Leanna, what does this comment mean? Are you hinting at your concern over Roe v Wade being overturned? I am a little confused here. Thanks :)
October 3rd, 2005 at 1:56:33 pm
Bea’s confused. Alert the media.
October 3rd, 2005 at 2:01:31 pm
Bea,
I haven’t heard one peep out of you regarding the banning of Leahy. After all you two have been through together. I know I speak for more than just myself when I say it would be comforting to hear you say some final parting words about our dear coach.
October 3rd, 2005 at 2:03:37 pm
Since Swarthington’s still around, I guess that means that the amateur P.I.s on the board were wrong when they surmised that he and the good Coach were one in the same.
October 3rd, 2005 at 2:07:01 pm
Bea, Texican indicated s/he was a parent. I had to presume that s/he had an offspring approximately *your* age in order for that response to be pertinent. The subject originally went back to Roe, yes. I am a pre-Roe person, so I know what a non-Roe world was like. I was just hoping that Texican’s offspring are ready for a non-Roe world, in the event that comes to be.
Is that any clearer?
October 3rd, 2005 at 2:07:21 pm
I am not at all surprised Coach crossed the line. Knowing what led Brendan to ban him, all I have to say is I fully support Brendan’s decision to ban Coach from this blog. I will not miss him at all. I have no further comment.
October 3rd, 2005 at 2:08:59 pm
I only mention this because you asked, Swarth, to prevent any further inquiries into how I feel about Coach being banned.
October 3rd, 2005 at 2:10:57 pm
Et tu, Bea? Has frosty Andrew iced over your once warm heart? I hang around this blog like a ghost and I hardly recognize anyone anymore. My chains rattle uselessly and I long for what once was and what can never be again….
October 3rd, 2005 at 2:11:31 pm
Thanks for the clarification.
October 3rd, 2005 at 2:11:47 pm
Why is one ban in three and a half years an Ice Age? I call that a pretty magnanimous application of policy overall.
October 3rd, 2005 at 2:13:08 pm
Without wading into a full-on debate over Roe, I would just like to point out, as I have in the past, Mom, that the post-Roe world, if it comes to pass, will look quite a bit different from the pre-Roe world. Abortion will remain legal in an awful lot more places than it used to be. Although legalized abortion was established by judicial fiat, not a democratic vote, nevertheless the public consensus has also shifted since the 1970’s. If you make a “red” and “blue” map of states with legal abortions and states without legal abortions, it will look significantly different than it used to. You’ll be surprised how many Republican state legislators will end up voting for some sort of compromise that will keep abortion legal — or lose their seats if they resist. You’ll be surprised at how many moderate Republicans, especially women, will desert the party if it takes a hard line on the issue. Anyway, my point is, don’t assume that the reversal of Roe means we simply turn the clock back to 1973. You can only put the genie PARTWAY back the bottle.
October 3rd, 2005 at 2:13:59 pm
Leanna,
Magnanimous if happen to be on the right end of the steel-toed boot…..
October 3rd, 2005 at 2:15:16 pm
It seems entirely possible to me that the Coach was ready to retire, and thus chose the easiest method for a quick and fiery exit.
October 3rd, 2005 at 2:17:51 pm
Leahy’s gone? What? Did he lie on his resume again?
October 3rd, 2005 at 2:21:07 pm
P.S. To put a slightly finer point on it… I strongly suspect that every single state bordering New York (Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania — all blue states) would have legalized abortions, at least in the first trimester, and probably in the second as well, though there might be somewhat stricter regulations on that. So I don’t think “traveling to New York State to get abortions” would be an issue. Now, travelling to Nevada (from Utah)? Yeah. Or to Florida (from other states in the Deep South)? Yeah. Maybe even to Michigan or Illinois (from Indiana). But it wouldn’t just a handful of scattered, extremely liberal states that have legal abortions, IMHO.
That’s not an argument for overturning Roe, it’s just an attempt at a reality check with regard to the argument “I remember what it was like before Roe.”
October 3rd, 2005 at 2:25:16 pm
OK OK….Stop dogpiling me…I give.
My children are not of reproductive age. One is very close though. However, they have been raised to view reproductive rights from the viewpoint of the unborn child, so I hope the New York sojourn of which you speak will never have to take place.
Also, my criticism of of non-comprehension is like this. My statement (tongue in cheek though it was) dealt with reading and comprehension. Leanna’s rebuttal dealt reading and writing. They are seperate things. My 7 year old daughter can read and write, but she is sometimes shaky on comprehension. The US Constitution is not a complicated document. It is written in plain english. All the supreme court justices have to do is apply what it says to cases that come before them. They are not there to make up law, use foreign law, etc… as a basis for their judgement. No matter how it’s dressed up, it will (or should) come down to what is written on that document.
Where in the constitution is the basis for Roe v. Wade? I haven’t been able to find it. What about affirmative action? That’s the kind of stuff I am talking about. Making up laws that expressly defy the constitution (affirmative action) or creating rights out of thin air (Roe v. Wade)is not the role of the Supreme Court.
Therefore, my statement that if someone can read and UNDERSTAND the constitution, they should be qualified to serve as a SC justice.
October 3rd, 2005 at 2:26:08 pm
Angrier,
You won, dude. Sweet Victory is yours at last. The wicked witch is dead. Good has triumphed over evil and the ring of power has been destroyed in the fires of Mt. Doom.
Pop open the bubbly.
October 3rd, 2005 at 2:28:01 pm
A&A,
Yes, Coach Leahy has been banned. If you want more info on his specific offense, email Brendan. I believe that it had something to do with Brendan’s upcoming nuptials…
On a lighter note, some on the Right are starting to think that abortion isn’t so bad after all, at least under certain circumstances. Just ask Bill Bennett.
October 3rd, 2005 at 2:30:09 pm
This is a big reason why I like your blog, Brendan. You understand the sides to a controversy, and can have a civilized discussion even with someone who disagrees with you. Sadly, that seems to be a scarce commodity, becoming rarer each day as polarities increasingly inhabit echo(location?) chambers.
I’m one of the people who thinks it’s possible that this is a ‘throwaway’ nomination; that Miers will be quite happy to continue in her present job at the White House after smoking out the hard-core “Evil Bushitlerburtonrove Appointee!” crowd. And not a scratch on her.
I’m not certain by any means, just willing to consider the possibility that there’s a strategic reason to appoint someone that you don’t expect to be confirmed.
October 3rd, 2005 at 2:33:03 pm
michael row - Ha! Sad, but Ha!
As for overturning Roe and what it might mean for state-by-state abortions, what do you think the rationale will be for over-turning it? If the reasoning isn’t about privacy, but that it is about murder, what makes anyone think New York, California or any other state will be able to do it?
October 3rd, 2005 at 2:35:16 pm
Swarthy-
Now is your time to shine.
Let not the banning of an ill wind deter you from your greatness.
This blog needs to fill the void left by the Coach’s departure. And I have to admit that you, Swarthy, are quicker with the wit and pun than the Coach.
Are you going to run with ball or just sit there and shit yourself?
See you on the Dark Side of the Moon, Coach….
October 3rd, 2005 at 2:41:42 pm
Full Disclosure
In 1965,had abortion been widely available and not require parental approval, one 16 year old mother would not have brought a bouncy baby Texican into the world!!
October 3rd, 2005 at 2:46:00 pm
Texican,
And this supports your argument how?
October 3rd, 2005 at 2:57:40 pm
Sorry Brendan, i thought you had made a comment about Bush rewarding his friends, i guess i remembered wrong, thats what I get for trying to post during a meeting…
October 3rd, 2005 at 3:05:25 pm
In 1965,had abortion been widely available and not require parental approval, one 16 year old mother would not have brought a bouncy baby Texican into the world!!
And she told you that? Wow, that’s fucked up.
October 3rd, 2005 at 3:15:10 pm
Full Disclosure
In 1965,had abortion been widely available and not require parental approval, one 16 year old mother would not have brought a bouncy baby Texican into the world!!
…Can she still get a late-term abortion?
October 3rd, 2005 at 3:24:39 pm
Sorry all…too late. I’m here to stay (only for awhile though).
And no, she didn’t tell me that. My no account father did (also 16)
My point is, I wouldn’t be here today to irritate and offend if that had happened. Maybe some of the rest of you wouldn’t either.
It is a reason I am anti-abortion though. Frankly, I find it hard to believe that ANY parent would be pro-abortion. That really blows my mind.
October 3rd, 2005 at 3:32:00 pm
Tex,
We’re just yankin your chain, dude. You are a valued member of the community here. The loss of Leahy reminds me just how precious every commenter is. Here one minute, gone the next.
October 3rd, 2005 at 3:42:11 pm
There’s’ a difference between being pro-choice and being pro-abortion. While I find abortion to be barbaric and reprehensible when used as birth control, in certain cases (life of the mother, rape, incest) I think that it’s the best option. I am also a realist and know that outlawing abortion would not stop it from happening, it would just send it back to the backrooms and alleys where many women were scarred for life and some died. Yes, I find legalized abortion preferable to that. I’m also well aware that the world is overpopulated and find the concept of forcing women to have babies that they don’t want and can’t care for ridiculous. The conservative agenda that is both pro-life and pro-death-penalty, anti-welfare state and anti-non-abstinence based sex education, seems rather confused and contradictory to me — We won’t teach you about birth control, but we will force you to have a baby that you can’t take care of, however, don’t expect any support from us with that baby. I think that each pro-lifer should be required to adopt one unwanted child, instead of just getting on their soap boxes and proclaiming how much respect they have for life.
October 3rd, 2005 at 3:48:10 pm
Poor Leahy! I just can’t help beating myself up over the whole stinking mess. The guy was a giver, day in, day out, no ifs ands or buts. Sure, people took him the wrong way, but that’s certainly understandable. He loved the repartee, the crazy swashbuckler.
And how was the poor guy supposed to know where the ‘getting banned’ line was if he never crossed it? I mean, it’s not like the guy never pushed the envelope before. He was a risk-taker, addicted to danger. If he were to jump out of an airplane, he’d want there to be a significant chance his chute wouldn’t open. But that was just Leahy.
What really chaps my ass is about the whole incident is that his motivation was to look after the best interests of Brendan as crazy as that might sound. He wasn’t being abusive and disruptive as an end in itself, although he certainly was capable of such. I really think he liked Brendan. O the bitter, cruel irony.
If only there were something I could say to make things right again….but, alas, is it possible he’s really gone for good? The thought chills be bitterly……
October 3rd, 2005 at 4:03:27 pm
It smacks of cronyism
Well, duh. When have political appointments not “smacked of cronyism”?
October 3rd, 2005 at 4:06:48 pm
I’m just worried now that Brendan, much like a hockey referee, might be looking to even things up and send somebody on our team to the penalty box.
October 3rd, 2005 at 4:13:00 pm
It smacks of cronyism
Much like the banning of the venerable Coach Leahy.
October 3rd, 2005 at 4:15:26 pm
Perhaps now that Brendan has tasted warm blood, he will go on a frenzy of banning. Who among is safe? I know I’m being extra careful in my speech. Everything I say comes out a little too calculated, a little chilly.
Unless of course, Brendan could find it in his heart to let Leahy post again….even the Dark Ages yielded to the Renaissance at long last. Am I hoping against hope? At the very least, in memoriam for all the effort, heart and spirit Leahy poured into this blog, perhaps, Brendan, you could have an entire post dedicated to his memory. It would be a small gesture, but one those of us who admired Leahy would greatly treasure.
October 3rd, 2005 at 4:15:34 pm
Not sure where to start … (grin) … t’s my own fault for having a Life outside reading blogs and occasionally responding …
David - there are still some of us who will continue to question your intelligence, and some of us who have *no* doubt whatsoever about it, based on your writings … (innocent smile) …
Your parentage, however, has not been relevant up until now, nor do I see a reason why it might become so …
Part of me *REALLY* *STRONGLY* dislikes bans, even of Mr Leahy … yet is *is* Brendan’s blog, for all that he kindly invites us to share it … and there will always be certain Things That One Just Should Not Do in a sandbox, dontcha think ?
Ms Loomer - welcome to the world of reality, wherein, occasionally one must accept one’s fallibility … (grin) … my own technique for such things has tended to be the “Scots dialect variant” - mostly cuz it’s difficult to disprove … (not-so-innocent grin) … every such moment, however, can be a Teaching or Learning Moment, if one wishes …
October 3rd, 2005 at 4:26:30 pm
You Leahy defenders have no idea what he may or may not have said to Brendan. The problem with blogs like these are total strangers get it in their heads that they are the blogger’s best friend. Next thing you know, they are saying inappropriate things about very personal issues and getting themselves into the middle of situations they have no business getting into.
Cut Brendan some slack.
October 3rd, 2005 at 4:27:08 pm
I don’t think that anyone crosses the line into “boring git” half so often as Alasdair. Can we ban him too?
October 3rd, 2005 at 4:28:37 pm
A&A,
No need to cut any slack, as I haven’t criticized Brendan over the banning, merely mourned the passing of a great blogger.
October 3rd, 2005 at 4:32:03 pm
Angrier,
Perhaps Leahy crossed a line he should not have crossed. Perhaps he realizes this and at least now he knows where the uncrossable line is. But to banish him as a leper and an untouchable seems just a tad too harsh. Especially considering the admirable, long-held free speech tradition of this blog. Slap on the wrist, certainly. But lifetime ban? I say give the guy one more chance. At least then if he screws up he knows what he’s doing and what the repercussions are. Let’s be reasonable.
October 3rd, 2005 at 4:37:55 pm
Alasdair,
Surely you, as a tree ent, can appreciate the intrinsic value of free speech. What about your own thousand year tradition of the entmoot?
October 3rd, 2005 at 5:00:43 pm
Leave it to Alasdair to ruin the brief moment of ad-hominem free commenting.
You can question my intelligence all you want Alasdair, and infer all that you want from what I write here, but you will as always be wrong, for two reasons. First you are too blindly partisan to see beyond your view of what you want people to have written and what they actually do write. Second, you assume that I spend all my time and energy crafting the deepest and most intelligent arguments I can think of here, rather than, oh I don’t know, merely discussing my opinions in a relaxed manner. Get a clue, this isn’t the Supreme Court, you don’t have to write a masters thesis in every post you write.
October 3rd, 2005 at 5:08:29 pm
Man…
She is ugly.
October 3rd, 2005 at 5:14:26 pm
David,
Without Coach Leahy to jock, what are you going to do with all of your free time?
October 3rd, 2005 at 5:15:43 pm
She sure is. Bush wants diversity on the Supreme Court. Roberts represents good-looking people.
October 3rd, 2005 at 5:17:59 pm
Alasdair, a Language is a Dialect with an Army. :) Yet ‘ere the sword / Cool in its sheath / Charlie will come again. :>
October 3rd, 2005 at 5:20:57 pm
She is, DUP, but if you should happen to be the Leader of the DUP, maybe you shouldn’t Throw Stones. :)
October 3rd, 2005 at 5:34:02 pm
For the record, Bea and I had nothing to do with the banning of Leahy. In fact, Bea and I were AWOL from the blog for a good 36 hours and were thus completely perplexed at how events developed, until we got the full story from Brendan. Leahy crossed the line a couple times before the comment that led him to being banned by Brendan, and I believe some of those comments still exist on a HaloScan thread somewhere, albeit not on this particular blog….
As far as states and abortion policy, if I recollect correctly, there are ~15-20 states that have emergency provisions that go into effect and keep abortion legal should Roe v. Wade be suddenly overturned.
Last time this topic came up, Brendan, I believe you said you had not ever read Roe v. Wade. Is that still the case? Brendan not reading Roe is like an American English teacher having never read Huckleberry Fin. Given some of your comments here, I strongly suspect you have read Roe by now and have come to believe it was a poorly-written opinion, though you may still struggle with the idea of overturning it or not….
October 3rd, 2005 at 5:37:37 pm
Swarthy, when a person starts making inflammatory and slanderous accusations against the character, morality and basic goodness of my fiancee — the love of my life — and starts making direct appeals for “interventions” to members of my family through the blog, as if he knows my personal life better than I do, that person does not deserve a warning or a second chance. Insulting a man’s fiancee in the manner that Leahy insulted mine is the sort of thing where it’s intrinsically obvious that you’ve “crossed a line.” It’s the sort of thing that could get Leahy punched in the face in a different setting, and justifiably so. Bottom line, I will not allow my blog to be polluted by the sort of unadulterated crap that Leahy was spewing about Becky. I allow you guys almost unlimited discretion to comment as you wish, but ultimately, this is MY blog and I absolutely WILL NOT tolerate ridiculously abusive comments about my fiancee. Nor should I be expected to. Criticism, even harsh criticism, is fine, but if you even find yourself tempted to start railing about how Becky is fundamentally a bad person… don’t.
I’m sorry it upsets you that Leahy is gone, but he’s gone. I think you’re funnier than him anyway, and less mean.
October 3rd, 2005 at 5:44:14 pm
I think you’re funnier than him anyway, and less mean.
You’ve obviously never seen him drunk. He’s a mean, mean drunk.
October 3rd, 2005 at 5:45:44 pm
Quotes from earlier in this thread:
“Actually Brendan, (not to correct you or anything like that), that’s not even what I said, it’s just what Leanna read. I guess she is one of the rare indivuduals who can READ but not COMPREHEND.”
“Bea’s confused. Alert the media.”
Were these part of the moment of ad-hominem free commenting, David? I think it’s just possible that you’re different tuned to attacks from Alasdair than from others.
In other matters, I think it’s kind of odd that the speculation about Leahy continues. Brendan’s already let you know that you can e-mail him to ask him about what happened, but that he’s not going to discuss the exact details in the comments. And, quite frankly, I don’t blame him at all, given what Leahy did to get himself banned. It went way beyond merely being a jerk–to be honest, if being a jerk was enough to get you banned, there would be very few commenters to last more than a few months. It takes a whole other level of transgression to get banned here; one that I highly doubt a time-out could correct. As much as I like to tease Brendan about his oft-repeated rant from college (”Words have meanings!”), it should be pointed out that the second line of that rant was “Actions have consequences!”
October 3rd, 2005 at 5:46:22 pm
Brendan,
So your saying there’s a chance….
October 3rd, 2005 at 6:12:57 pm
Mike, sometimes you are almost as bad as Alasdair. Of course I didn’t mean that to be taken literally, I meant it merely as a commentary on the situation. Words do have meanings but its not always their denoted one that matters.
October 3rd, 2005 at 6:14:47 pm
It’s the sort of thing that could get Leahy punched in the face in a different setting…
Or shot. I know Dane is a big fan of duals, I’m sure we could have set one up. Of course Brendan rejected my, ninja/pirate/cowoby trifecta assassination squad idea…killjoy…
October 3rd, 2005 at 6:16:39 pm
BTW, I found the comment i was referencing before Brendan,
if for no other reason than that I can’t believe Bush, Mr. Loyalty, would throw a long-time confidant under a bus like that
As I said, tell that to Brownie :)
October 3rd, 2005 at 6:30:02 pm
I can’t help but notice that the general level of tough guyism has gone up now that Leahy’s not around.
October 3rd, 2005 at 6:32:18 pm
tough guyism? what is that?
October 3rd, 2005 at 6:35:59 pm
tough guyism? what is that?
All of a sudden the instances of references to physical violence have increased. Far from civilizing the discussion, it seems to have had some sort of atavistic effect on some of the posters.
October 3rd, 2005 at 6:43:37 pm
“…to be honest, if [merely] being a jerk was enough to get you banned, there would be very few commenters to last more than a few months.”
Waw haw haw! Ain’t it da Troot? :) I think there’d be approximately One, Perfesser Mike. :) MSNBC Crawl: “Renowned ‘Weather Nerd’ blogger bans parents, fiancÈe, self, others…famous evolutionary biologist maintains lonely conversation with himself on comment threads…more news from the Blogosphere at msnbc.com…” ;>
October 3rd, 2005 at 7:08:43 pm
michael I think you are taking this way too seriously, i mean honestly, I talked about pirates, ninjas, and cowboys
October 3rd, 2005 at 7:30:13 pm
Michael, do you know why Coach was banned? Brendan I am sure can fill you in. Clearly the comments about someone getting their ass kicked for talking shit on someone else’ fiancee make sense in that context.
October 3rd, 2005 at 7:32:45 pm
Yeah — and as for me, Michael, I was merely using the “punch in the face” line to illustrate the obviously over-the-line nature of insults against the character of a man’s girlfriend/fiancee/wife, not to suggest that I would actually punch Leahy if I had the chance. (I wouldn’t.) Note my wording: “the sort of thing,” “in a different setting,” etc.
I really don’t want to attack Leahy here when he can’t defend himself. However, it’s important that y’all understand why I banned him, so that you’ll know that I’m not just going to snap one day and say, “Ah, Swarthy’s a jerk, he’s gone too,” or whatever. It takes A LOT to make me want to ban you.
October 3rd, 2005 at 8:00:15 pm
Do you ever feel weirded out by having your life exposed on this blog for anyone in the world you do or do not know to peruse?
October 3rd, 2005 at 8:01:25 pm
David - “Leave it to Alasdair to ruin the brief moment of ad-hominem free commenting.” … actually, the commenting on here continues to be free, and, mostly, spiced with a not-unreasonable amount of ‘ad hominem’ content … mostly done not-untastefully even if not especially kindly a lot of the time …
At the risk of giving David a compliment, and admitting that I do not know David’s orientation, he *does* make an excellent straight-man !
For example …
“I know Dane is a big fan of duals” - I thought Dane was a big fan of jewels … silly me !
“… not always their denoted one that matters.” - true, the connoted meanings can matter, too … still, for the purposes of communications, it helps to know if the word “con” means with (and is polite) or means “vulgar reference to female anatomy” (and just flat-out ain’t polite) …
Oh - and it’s “it’s”, not “its” - which is its other same sound different meaning word …
October 3rd, 2005 at 8:02:36 pm
OOPS …
… if the word “con” means “with” …
October 3rd, 2005 at 8:11:33 pm
Alasdair, you can pick on my grammar and spelling all you want, I have never done so for others (unless it was in good natured fun) because I really don’t put all that much time into my spelling/grammar for a blog comment. So long as my C# is syntactically correct I’m ok.
October 3rd, 2005 at 10:03:23 pm
I rather like duals myself. / Now duels, I could dew without. ;> And here I always thought a Con was either (a) an incarcerated individual, (b) a kind of Man who gains people’s trust and then Cheats them, or (c) the helm of a vessel, as in, “Mr. Data, please accompany me to the engine room. Number One, you have the con.” [Romulan grin, cloaked…]
October 3rd, 2005 at 10:30:21 pm
The helm of a vessel, Joe, is the conn. In the Star Trek universe, it’s the station next to the helm, and the one at which Data typically sat. And since the only one to refer to Riker as Number One on the ship was Picard, Riker would be given the bridge in the above quotation, as he would be the highest ranking officer present and not in the process of leaving. Someone else would’ve taken the conn. :)
October 4th, 2005 at 12:08:37 am
Wow, when one goes off to worship, a tsunami of comments results.
Texican, look: I grew up in the kind of mindset you and your family seem to have. I was raised in the heartland and so were my college friends. But as undergraduates, the hat was regularly passed to help some young couple out of an awful situation. One of the girls actually did become pregnant the very first time she had sex. You guys who don’t like abortions are ready to go into shotgun weddings, right? No matter whom you knock up, you’ll marry them? Good. And at last: a genuine solution to date rape.
Yes, Brendan, we’ve had this conversation before. But why should a Utahn be penalized for her place of birth? The next state over was pretty damned inconvenient in 1970-72 in Illinois. That’s enough for me.
Since I was specifically asked about something being in the Constitution, I want to know where the right to (comma) bear arms (comma) shows up (comma) outside of service (comma) in a militia.
I guess that does it for me for now. Now to have some delicious eggs and beans, courtesy of Joe Loy :)
October 4th, 2005 at 12:17:52 am
So I’m ok with you as long as I oppose abortion and support gun control :D
October 4th, 2005 at 12:35:36 am
why should a Utahn be penalized for her place of birth? The next state over was pretty damned inconvenient in 1970-72 in Illinois. That’s enough for me.
I’m not saying that a Utahn should or shouldn’t be penalized. I’m simply saying that the problems you describe would exist to a substantially different degree in a post-Roe world than in the pre-Roe world — just a factual point, not a normative one.
October 4th, 2005 at 12:36:01 am
Or I guess I should say “descriptive,” not “factual.” I suppose it’s not really “factual” until it actually happens. :)
October 4th, 2005 at 12:55:00 am
Not really, Brendan. Going from one state to another state for medical care is still what it was 30+ years ago: It’s going from one state to another for medical care. And with a 70% Mormon majority in Utah, there will be no legal abortions in any trimester there, whether a young woman is Mormon or not, if she needs to get an abortion.
October 4th, 2005 at 1:01:35 am
But, Leanna, what Brendan is arguing is that the reality will be different for most young women in the country. Not all, certainly, but for the aggregate whole. And on that point, he’s right. You’re correct that for young women in Utah it might not be much different, but as most young women in the country don’t live in Utah, things will be different for most of them.
October 4th, 2005 at 1:11:47 am
Exactly, Mike.
I realize, Mom, that in your mind, abortion is absolutely a fundamental right, and therefore, one woman who has to, as you put it, “go from one state to another state for medical care” is one woman too many. However, you have to admit that there is a significant difference between, say, the entire female population of 40 states having to do that if they want/need to get an abortion, and the entire female population of 20 states having to do that if they want/need to get an abortion. (I’m pulling those numbers out of my ass, but you see my point.) Again, this is not a normative argument, it’s a descriptive one, but it’s important. The national situation would be quite different than it was in the early 70s, though for some (significantly smaller number of) individuals, it would be much the same, and that to you is unacceptable — fine. But that doesn’t make my point invalid or irrelevant.
October 4th, 2005 at 1:15:05 am
P.S. Be warned, this comment discussion is mostly flying under the radar so far, but if some of my blog’s more staunch Catholic/conservative Notre Dame readers catch on, it’ll be fierce. I don’t recall if you’ve had an abortion debate with them yet, but, well, let’s just say they feel just as passionately and deeply about their side as you feel about yours. So just prepare yourself for the possibility of a knock-out, drag-down, potentially unpleasant debate, if you keep commenting around these parts about the plight of women who “need to get an abortion.”
October 4th, 2005 at 1:15:48 am
P.P.S. Not trying to chill your speech or bring on an Ice Age, of course :), just warning you what you might be getting into…
October 4th, 2005 at 1:37:39 am
Heh, Brendan’s warning right before I decide to comment, maybe I’ll hold off of the full brunt, but remember Leanna, as much as you feel strongly about the womans rights, there are people like me who feel strongly about the babys rights. I’m not saying you have to give in and give up what you believe, just keep in mind that we are fighting what we believe to be a big injustice too.
October 4th, 2005 at 1:40:13 am
And then there are the infuriating nitpickers like me, who like to point out that by definition it’s not a baby until it’s born. :)
October 4th, 2005 at 2:43:46 am
yes it is
October 4th, 2005 at 2:46:20 am
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=baby
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861695283/baby.html
of course that assumes that the only way a word can mean something is if its in a dictionary…
October 4th, 2005 at 2:53:35 am
Babier? Babiest?
October 4th, 2005 at 2:57:41 am
I tend to go with a medical, rather than general purpose, dictionary in this case, such as this one, wherein infant is from birth to 2 years, preschool child is 2 to 5 years, and child (unspecified) is 6 to 12 years, and baby is the union of infant and young child.
October 4th, 2005 at 4:44:28 am
yes because obviously the scientific defintion can fully encompass the whole issue. sorry mike but as much as you’d like to, you can’t reduce everything to definitions and logic, life just doesn’t work that way
October 4th, 2005 at 5:39:55 am
Yes, David and Mike, and it IS (for you) because your belief systems strongly support that view. My Jewish view (which supports choice for obvious reasons) is that personhood begins at birth.
I was fortunate to study Roe the year after it was decided, as case law at the University of Connecticut Law School. It reflected medical technology of 30 years ago, so obviously the Roe that we studied would not pertain today exactly as is. Third trimester applications would be different, in particular. But Roe has been changed in the intervening decades, for good and for ill.
October 4th, 2005 at 5:42:03 am
Oops, sorry, Mike. I should have directed the previous to David alone. 5 A.M. blog comments are not my forte.
October 4th, 2005 at 5:49:19 am
And, Brendan, I know a little bit about the Domers’ intensity of belief on this issue. If you recall, St. Thomas the Apostle (gentle readers: the Loy family parish) was particularly known in the archdiocese for organizing Pro-Life bus rallies from the pulpit. For 8 or so years, I heard them (for several years, from the choir loft) weekly.
October 4th, 2005 at 7:30:26 am
Brendan and Mike,
I will concede that nothing reverts to exactly what it once was. (Someone might point that out to a few politicians that come to mind.) So reproductive choices will continue to be more accessible, whether Roe stands or falls. I hope it does not. Whereas I finally came around to the resolution — toward the end of my reproductive years — not to myself seek an abortion should that decision need to be considered, I will NOT impose that conclusion on anyone else. That’s why we have doctor-patient relationships, that’s why we have freedom of religion, and that’s why we have individual responsibility.
October 4th, 2005 at 11:44:25 am
So, David, how many unwanted children are you planning to adopt? Put your money where your mouth is and take some responsibility for some of the unwanted children of the world who have actually been born. Or does your interest only extend until birth? If you are only interested in them being born and not what happens afer, then please kindly STFU.
October 4th, 2005 at 12:07:26 pm
Champion, the tone in your comment to David is a little unwarranted. Have you ever even had an abortion discussion with David? What if David IS planning to adopt unwanted children? Your accusatory tone is unnecessary, really, until David expands on his views on abortion. Many people who dislike abortions do care deeply about the welafre of the child after birth. I often sound off the same complaint you did here, that those people protesting abortion clinics should be volunteering at an orphanage or being a big brother or big sister to an at-risk youth. Andrew and I have talked about possibly adopting a child one day, and we both dislike abortions (although I do