Been Miered?

October 28, 2005

Here's an article about how "Miered" may enter our lexicon like "Borked" did. BREITBART.COM - Just The News Here's the difference:

"to get 'borked' was 'to be unscrupulously torpedoed by an opponent,' while to get 'miered' was to be 'unscrupulously torpedoed by an ally.'"

We Christians often take each other out through "friendly fire" as the Miers case show—I still do not understand the opposition to her that came from many on the religious right, since she seems to share the same core beliefs. Unfortunately, some people seemed to want a fight, but she was not going to spark one (now that’s a Christ-like attitude!)

This does not mean we should not criticize each other, but it does mean we should wait until we know all the facts and then do it in a Christ-like manner. Neither of those features was prevalent in the Miers case.

2 comments

  1. Anonymous10:41 PM

    One more. The primary criticisms of Miers were thst she was not level of a candidate one would expect for the Supreme Court, and that she was in essence a "crony" pick.

    I find it intellectually dishonest to charge that Miers was "unscrupulously torpedoed". Frequently critics of the choice commented positively on Miers as a person and in her capacity as the President's lawyer. However, it was on her qualifications for the High Court that the critics felt the need to maintain their integrity by acknowledging that she was far from the best candidate.

    As an Evangelical Christian, it grieves me to see other Evangelicals criticizing people for honestly critiquing the selection of Miers. Normally, it is a very good thing to find people within a political party who call them as they see them, regardless of political or religious affiliation. The evangelicals who supported Miers never really got beyond the defense that "she's one of us, so she'll be OK."

    That is not a sound argument for an appointment to the Supreme Court. The fact that some are blathering about Miers being torpedoed "unscrupulously" when her own supporters from the President to Evangelical leaders who supported the nomination could not muster a consistent and effective argument for her nomination, strikes me as both insincere and bitter.

    The critque of the Miers nomination was, on the other hand, detailed and fair.

    I can't think of anyone in the conservative wing of the GOP or among the evangelicals who opposed the Miers nomination who didn't wish or want for Miers to be a great pick. They opposed her nomination on principle, not on any unscrupulous and unfair attack.

    To suggest that she was somehow "Borked" especially loses it's legitimacy when you realize that one of the leading critics of the nomination was Judge Robert Bork himself.

    Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for another post (though, again, I wish you would be willing to identify yourself). You may be correct that most critics of Miers were actually concerned about her qualifications. But if that is true, then those critics were not paying attention to the facts. Consider this:

    "In All, Thirty-Eight Previous Justices Had Never Been A Judge At Any Level Before Their Appointment To The Court." (The White House, Fact Sheet, 10/3/05)

    Here are some of the notable ones (including some of the “greats”): "Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Justice William O. Douglas, Chief Justice Earl Warren, Justice Felix Frankfurter, Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone, Justice Louis Brandeis, And Even Chief Justice John Marshall All Were Appointed To The United States Supreme Court Without Prior Judicial Experience." (The White House, Fact Sheet, 10/3/05)

    NBC's Tim Russert: "It Is Also Interesting, Historically ... Of The 110 People Who Have Sat On The Supreme Court, Only Half Have Been Sitting Judges When Selected ... History Is Filled With People With Backgrounds Similar To Harriet Miers." (NBC's "Today," 10/3/05)

    Clearly, Miers was as qualified as numerous other justices. That is why I believe there was a different reason she was opposed. As I originally wrote: “Unfortunately, some people seemed to want a fight, but she was not going to spark one (now that’s a Christ-like attitude!).” Following the nomination of Alito, Gary Bauer and other Miers critics quickly told supporters that this one was going to be a fight and so urged them to send money to fight the liberals (somehow in politics, even with Christian leaders, it always seems to get down to money). I am also worried that some of the comments suggested some sexism.

    However, what is worse is that the same conservatives that were just months ago demanded up-or-down votes on judicial nominees were working hard to pressure Miers or Bush to stop the nomination without an up-or-down vote! Thus, I think that since the hearings had not yet begun, it was not “intellectually dishonest” to attack her critics. As I wrote in the original post: “This does not mean we should not criticize each other, but it does mean we should wait until we know all the facts and then do it in a Christ-like manner. Neither of those features was prevalent in the Miers case.” She was attacked almost immediately by some and was not even given a chance. Had they waited to learn more before attacking her, that would be a different issue.

    Thanks again for your post; I hope you come back to check out this response. I think it is appropriate to critique each other. If we see our brothers or sisters in Christ making mistakes, it is our duty to step in and help point that out so that we, as a community, can avoid making those mistakes again (that is one reason why I appreciate your comments, because I know I am not always right). I made the original post in hopes that we would avoid the behavior described in the article. It is possible that Miers would not have been a good choice for the Supreme Court, but I think it was too early to know—and now we never will. Regardless of opinions about Miers herself, hopefully in the future we will never treat fellow Christians in the way the article called being “Miered.”

    ReplyDelete