Waiting for Fitzgerald

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Before this process, who, outside of Texas, had heard of her. She is not universally respected. Has she ever appeared before the SupCt.?

That was my point. She's in the "nominated for being a loyal toadie" category.

[SlaveNoMore]

taxwonk
I agree with you. I was just pointing out to Penske, in support of Gatti's post, that he was being more than a little bit hasty in condemning the choice. The woman could well be a stealth William Bennett. It wouldn't surprise me at all if she was, given her closeness to Bush.

I don't think there's anything wrong in principle with appointing a non-judge to the Court. In this particular case, though, I have a hunch she was appointed because she would support the hard right agenda, but she had no track record to object to.

From Bainbridge

Bush has nominated Harriet Miers to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the SCOTUS. I'm appalled:

She's 60. There were lots of highly qualified younger candidates out there who would have sat on the court for decades.

She has no judicial experience.

She has no public track record of proven conservative judicial values (what happened to Bush's 2000 promise to appoint people in the old of Scalia and Thomas?). How do we know she won't be another Souter? or Kennedy?

She's a Bush crony, which is an unfortunate choice for an administration that has been fairly charged with excessive cronyism (anybody remember ex-FEMA head Mike Brown?).

Her resume pales in comparison to those of some of the other leading candidates.

Why is the leader of a party that supposedly about merit and against affirmative action making an appointment that can only be explained as an affirmative action choice?

And if Bush was bound and determined to make an affirmative action choice, why not go with a more experienced and qualified woman like Edith Jones or minority like Emilio Garza?

This appointment reeks of cronyism, which along with prideful arrogance seems to be the besetting sin of the Bush presidency. At this point, I see no reason - none, nada, zilch - for conservatives who care about the courts to lift a finger to support this candidate.

[Gattigap]

Since Ty doesn't appear to be here at the moment, I'll post this. Drum has a pretty good observation on the current episode of Tourette's being experienced by the conservative blogosphere.

• Here's a thought about how blogging (and the web in general) have changed politics. In times past, everyone would have had at least a few hours to compose themselves before producing an opinion about Harriet Miers's fitness to be a Supreme Court justice. That's a few hours spent on the phone, around the water cooler, and just generally thinking about how your comments are going to sound once they become public.
  
  No longer. This time, conservative cries of dismay were littering the internet within minutes of the announcement, and there's not much doubt that these were genuine reactions. The disappointment was real, and despite the apparent efforts of at least one conservative to erase his first impression, that just won't work. Once it's up on the web, it's up forever.
  
  I have little doubt that the conservative brain trust will quickly take a deep collective breath and decide that they really ought to support George Bush's nominee. But instead of this deep breath being taken in private, it's going to have to be taken very, very publicly. All that stuff I wrote a few hours ago? I was just kidding. Hasn't everyone contributed money to Al Gore at one time or another? We shouldn't make such a big deal out of that.
  
  If nothing else, the internet is likely to usher in a golden age of backtracking. Either that or people are eventually going to learn to think for a few minutes before they blog.
  
  I'll put my money on backtracking.
  
  UPDATE: Then again, maybe not. Go scroll though The Corner and you'd almost think you were reading Democratic Underground. They're not going to have an easy time backing off some of that stuff.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Once it's up on the web, it's up forever.

This is not true. Trust me on this.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
The assholey way.

Whiff!

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
If your (future or current) wife is inheriting the money, how is that self-made?

The person bequesting it self-made. My understanding of the underpinnings of the estate tax is it is to prevent the development of an aristocracy. Too late. The Kennedys already exist and will gladly pay legions of attorneys and financial planners to skirt the tax. But the guy who slaves, 60, 70, 80 hours a week for 30 or 40 years and compiles $10-20M, gets the hit. Or spends 10-20% of it devising a plan to get around, where that 10-20% is real money to this person. I might be for the wealth tax with no exemptions, but the Ted Kennedys, and Warren Buffets and Soros and Bill Gates of the world wouldn't want that, they want the tax on the backs of the lesser wealth, to preserve their aristocracy.

The only protection at this point is the 2nd Amendment.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
You blame Democrats? What a shock.

STP, I blame Spector too. He's a Rep, right?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I also don't think peaceniks are against all forms of violence. Today, most of them are aginst the Iraq War - something many law and order types even agree is unnecessary violence for no good reason.

The Law and Order types that are against the war don't bother me. It is the people that say it was immoral for us to invade Iraq.

When people say that, it was good to get rid of Saddam Hussein, and the intentions were OK, but we were just going to make things worse and it was a waste of resources and manpower. I call this the Naive argument. It was Naive for the the US to make it better. Although I don't agree with that argument I can respect it.

I also respect the strategic argument. People that believe US foreign policy should be solely based on US interests (and it was not in our strategic interest to invade Iraq). I don't agree with it but I can understand the logic of that argument.

The arguments that seem inherintly flawed and irrational are the ones about the immorality of taking Saddam Hussein out (the war monger theory). The outrage at attacking Iraq. Like somehow taking out a man that killed 300,000 of his own people directly and million in a war with Iran is somehow an immoral act.

Also the focus on Bush "lying" to get us into the war. Either the war was the right move or not. What Bush used to whip up public opinion to support the war is irrelevent. It has nothing to do with whether or not the war was the right move.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
That was my point. She's in the "nominated for being a loyal toadie" category.

2. We agree. We should both stop posting for a couple of weeks and then maybe meet for drinks and bask in this warm afterglow.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Dissent.

1. Maybe I am self-interested because maybe I have married or will marry someone who stands to inherit an estate that could be taxed. And ftr, if it is my current wife, then the money would be all self-made.

2. Even though I will be dead, I want my money going to my kids and not the government. Although if the estate tax is still around, I will find a way to skirt it without engaging consultants. As it stands now I plan to renounce my citizenship and move abroad in about 20 years which will leave me about 30-40 years life expentancy which will allow me to outlive the tail applicability of the tax code.

3. What you miss about me is that I am not against the concept of some tax to fund the Feds, but I wanted focused. Get rid of the estate tax and increase the income tax and force people to look at what government is taxing you for and what it is spending it on. Unlike Delay I think there is fat to be cut and I think it is a debate that has been ongoing since Reagan addressed the little people's concern about it. The estate tax is like a stealth tax...."only the superrich pay it"......"you're dead, what do you care"....bullshit. Every tax has an oppressive cost and I want that cost out front, not hidden. Then the people can make an informed decision.

I have never missed the fact that you are in favor of some tax. I just think you are wrong about the best way to levy it. The source of tax revenue has absolutely nothing to do with the people seeing what the government is taxing and what it's spending the revenue on. If you have issues with spending, then address them through the ballot box. Once the deficit is gone (that being the real tax on our children), then we can cut taxes to reduce a govt. surplus.

The current proposals for the estate tax have the exemption level going up to as much as $20 million. The question I have for you is, what is wrong with taxing the people least in need of money (the wealthy dead) at the expense of the people least deserving (those who did not earn it)?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
The person bequesting it self-made. My understanding of the underpinnings of the estate tax is it is to prevent the development of an aristocracy. Too late. The Kennedys already exist and will gladly pay legions of attorneys and financial planners to skirt the tax. But the guy who slaves, 60, 70, 80 hours a week for 30 or 40 years and compiles $10-20M, gets the hit. Or spends 10-20% of it devising a plan to get around, where that 10-20% is real money to this person. I might be for the wealth tax with no exemptions, but the Ted Kennedys, and Warren Buffets and Soros and Bill Gates of the world wouldn't want that, they want the tax on the backs of the lesser wealth, to preserve their aristocracy.

The only protection at this point is the 2nd Amendment.

Meh. The person dying isn't being punished -- s/he is dead. It's keeping down the aristocracy before it has a chance to take root. Easier to kill the weeds when they are little. Etc.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
You blame Democrats? What a shock.

I was shocked when he blamed Bush this morning. I knew it would not last. My faith in the order of things is restored.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Since Ty doesn't appear to be here at the moment, I'll post this. Drum has a pretty good observation on the current episode of Tourette's being experienced by the conservative blogosphere.

• Here's a thought about how blogging (and the web in general) have changed politics. In times past, everyone would have had at least a few hours to compose themselves before producing an opinion about Harriet Miers's fitness to be a Supreme Court justice. That's a few hours spent on the phone, around the water cooler, and just generally thinking about how your comments are going to sound once they become public.
  
  No longer. This time, conservative cries of dismay were littering the internet within minutes of the announcement, and there's not much doubt that these were genuine reactions. The disappointment was real, and despite the apparent efforts of at least one conservative to erase his first impression, that just won't work. Once it's up on the web, it's up forever.
  
  I have little doubt that the conservative brain trust will quickly take a deep collective breath and decide that they really ought to support George Bush's nominee. But instead of this deep breath being taken in private, it's going to have to be taken very, very publicly. All that stuff I wrote a few hours ago? I was just kidding. Hasn't everyone contributed money to Al Gore at one time or another? We shouldn't make such a big deal out of that.
  
  If nothing else, the internet is likely to usher in a golden age of backtracking. Either that or people are eventually going to learn to think for a few minutes before they blog.
  
  I'll put my money on backtracking.
  
  UPDATE: Then again, maybe not. Go scroll though The Corner and you'd almost think you were reading Democratic Underground. They're not going to have an easy time backing off some of that stuff.

I don't know if any of all y'all read my blog, but I am solid in what I have written. It's a travesty. I may passionately despise her philosophy and root for her imminent demise, but I can't deny that Ginsburg was qualified and she was duly approved as such (I do think it's a sad statement that Roberts did not garner the same level of approval as she did, but I don't expect the dims to be objective in the service of our nation). This lady is not qualified, other than under the bare minimum standards, i.e. she's old enough and yet still has a pulse; a citisen, etc.

A sad sad day. Reagan must be weeping. My only comfort is that he has the babyjesuschristsuperstar to comfort him.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I don't know if any of all y'all read my blog,

You have a blog separate from what you post here?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Gattigap
You have a blog separate from what you post here?

It's a travesty.