Hugh Hewitt is back from vacation, and his latest post is a brilliant (and long) analysis of the Harriet Miers nomination, the anti-Miers crowd and their reasoning, as well as the anti-anti-Miers crowd and their reasoning too. For me, the best part of Hugh's analysis is his survey of the political landscape if she is confirmed and also if her nomination is withdrawn.
As Republicans, Hugh says, we need to understand that "any political event with the capacity to significantly degrade the political strength of the president or the Congressional majorities has to be thought through very carefully indeed." And Hugh thinks it through very carefully and very thoroughly. Be sure to read the whole post.
****
Mark Steyn has another column, this one in Sunday's Chicago Sun-Times, that touches on the Global War on Terror. But it's in the context of a UNICEF anti-war Smurf cartoon that's at its heart an anti-American Smurf cartoon. Steyn skewers the film, UNICEF, and the UN's warm embrace of oppressive, totalitarian dictators.
Saddam's Iraq, Steyn says, "is gone now -- not because of UNICEF and the other transnational institutions that confer respectability on dictatorships, but because America, Britain, Australia and a few others were prepared to go to war."
Read the whole column--it's Mark Steyn, so of course you must read it.
***
Finally, here's an article from WorldNetDaily's October 10 edition, on the possibility of building a border fence. There are companies that are already building sound barriers along freeways, and their building methods are both feasible and affordable.
Lee Plank, executive vice president and chief operating officer of Diamond Manufacturing Company in Wyoming, Pa., says his company has not been approached about border security fences, but, he said, they would be a good idea.
"I think they'd have to be about 10 feet high," he told WND, and would cost "about $636,000 a mile" to build. That's about $1.27 billion for 2,000 miles of border fence, similar to the government's figures.
I like the idea of a complete fence along both borders, especially if we have roads built to run alongside the fences, so the Border Patrol can actually patrol our entire borders. We have immigration laws in place but lack enforcement. A fence might slow down the tide and allow our enforcement personnel more time to perform their enforcement duties.
3 comments:
SkyePuppy, over in your "Undecided No More On Harriet Miers" thread, you asked me some questions about my statement that Miers Supports Affirmative Action. I answered your questions. You did not respond to my answers.
Your new post on "Miers, Terror, and Border Fences" indicates you still support the Miers Nomination.
You might want to check what Captains's Quarters and Powerline are now saying about it (they've come to disaaprove the nomination.
Regarding Hewitt's new post, Southern Appeal has replied better than I could. So I will quote it here. Southern Appeal's post (at http://southernappeal.blogspot.com) is titled "Professor Bainbridge, Professor Hewitt, and the Miers Nomination, and Hewitt's Weird Defense of Mier's Support of Affirmative Action."
- begin quote -
"After reading George Will's Sunday column, treat yourself to Hugh Hewitt's analysis of the column and then Steve Bainbridge's response. Hewitt, however, offers this howler in defense of Mier's support of strong of affirmative action while she was in the leadership of the Texas Bar, a branch of Texas government AND NOT A PRIVATE ORGANIZATION [all-caps emphasis by Observer]:
I see many on the web are exercised about Harriet Miers' support for affirmative action in the private setting of support for resolutions of the Texas Bar urging quotas in hiring at private law firms. It is not a policy with which I would agree either, but it also not a matter of constitutional law, unless under Brentwood the action of the Texas Bar in urging private firms to set strict goals has converted into a state action. Don't know what Brentwood is? Or the state action doctrine? Not many people do. But those that don't ought not to be confusing ConLaw with the private decisions of private firms while arguing that this policy makes Miers suspect on Bollinger. Now, if she supported a soft line on the Bollinger cases, that would be a legitimate area of concern, but not the Texas Bar resolutions.
Aside from the fact that he is factually wrong about the non-private status of the Texas Bar, Hewitt seems to be saying that private discrimination based on race and gender is not "a matter of constitutional law." Really? I was under the impression that the civil rights act of 1964 banned private discrimination for businesses engaged in interstate commerce, which would include virtually every law firm in Texas. So, theoretically a firm that employs in its hiring practices racial quotes for minorities or women could be sued by a white male plaintiff who relies on the 1964 act, and theoretically the firm could defend itself by arguing that it does not engage in interstate commerce and thus the commerce clause cannot be employed to extend the power of Congress to forbid private discrimination. That sounds like a matter of constitutional law to me."
- end quoting -
Regards,
Observer
I must post a self-correction. It is Instapundit and Captain's Quarters who now disapprove the Miers Nomination and say it should be voted down. Powerline's proprietors (Paul & John) agree that the Miers Nomination is "disappointing and a mistake" (thus indicating their personal disapproval of it) ...but they then say senators should vote to approve Miers anyway - because of the Principle that a U.S. president's judicial nominations should be approved.
Regards,
Observer
Observer,
I am still against the withdrawal of the Miers nomination and in favor of letting the confirmation process continue.
Her encouragement to the Texas Bar toward affirmative action/set-asides is a concern. But then, we accept them as a given when it comes to all-black colleges (though all-white is bad), or women-only schools (men-only is also bad). Private organizations are allowed greater leeway in their decisions on who to hire or admit than government institutions have. But we allow plenty of government programs to have racial preferences, such as encouraging minority-owned business to bid on construction projects.
I'm not an attorney, ConLaw or otherwise, so I can't argue in great detail on all the legal points, which is why I look to Hugh Hewitt and Laura Ingraham for the deeper analysis, but on this question they disagree.
I'm approaching the Miers nomination from the perspective of a "normal" person (though truly normal people don't really pay much attention to politics and judicial nominations) trying to wade through the details--both legal and political--and come up with an informed position. Unfortunately, on Miers that's a tough call.
Hugh's long, long post not only discussed the legal issues (I'm chalking up the private/govt Bar issue to his jetlag), but he also discussed what he sees as the political ramifications to the GOP if Miers is confirmed and especially if her name is withdrawn. Where will all the screaming pundits calling for her withdrawal go, and what will they say, if she's withdrawn and replaced by Alberto Gonzales for O'Connor's seat by an ever-more-stubborn Bush? And will the GOP split over this? And will this lead to victory and restored power for the Dems?
I have no idea, but Hugh's arguments on the political implications of a Miers withdrawal are worth examining. And they're enough to keep me in the Don't-Withdraw-Miers camp for now.
Post a Comment