Miers?
- Thread starter delta58
- Start date
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Conservative? Based on what?
Rich
Rich Lucibella
Staff
I've always expected SCOTUS Justices to be towering intellects. Certainly Renquist was; even for the other side, you'd have to give Ginsberg her due for intelligence.
But Miers? Where's she been these past 6 decades? Her greatest claim to fame is as the President's attorney....this is an operational position only. May require a good manager, but certainly not a brilliant thinker.
What a disappointment at this pivotal point in our history. The Left has to be laughing all the way to the voting chamber.
Rich
But Miers? Where's she been these past 6 decades? Her greatest claim to fame is as the President's attorney....this is an operational position only. May require a good manager, but certainly not a brilliant thinker.
What a disappointment at this pivotal point in our history. The Left has to be laughing all the way to the voting chamber.
Rich
Rich,
Sometimes those of towering intellects are worse than those of lower than average intelligence.
Both may get to the point that they think they know what is best for those that are not of their intellect and thus feel that they know best, as we've seen with our politicians of late (especially those of lower than average intelligence).
Me personally, I would rather have people in charge of average or slightly above average intelligence, they are more in line in thinking as your average American and so are more likely to make decisions based on such.
Then again, I may be wrong, wouldn't be the first or last time
.
Wayne
Sometimes those of towering intellects are worse than those of lower than average intelligence.
Both may get to the point that they think they know what is best for those that are not of their intellect and thus feel that they know best, as we've seen with our politicians of late (especially those of lower than average intelligence).
Me personally, I would rather have people in charge of average or slightly above average intelligence, they are more in line in thinking as your average American and so are more likely to make decisions based on such.
Then again, I may be wrong, wouldn't be the first or last time
.Wayne
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Wayne-
My point is that she has never publicly wrestled with or debated any major Constitutional dilemma; her major accomplishments have been in engineering the soaringly expansive powers of the Executive.
Brilliant or average makes little difference, I agree. However, true interpretation of the Constitution requires a superior intellect; only social engineering and Bench Legislation benefits from Justices that "are more in line in thinking as your average American". The Average American couldn't care less what the Constitution says....just look at any poll dealing with the subject. I don't want our SCOTUS Justices to be that kind of "average".....it's how we got Souter.
Rich
My point is that she has never publicly wrestled with or debated any major Constitutional dilemma; her major accomplishments have been in engineering the soaringly expansive powers of the Executive.
Brilliant or average makes little difference, I agree. However, true interpretation of the Constitution requires a superior intellect; only social engineering and Bench Legislation benefits from Justices that "are more in line in thinking as your average American". The Average American couldn't care less what the Constitution says....just look at any poll dealing with the subject. I don't want our SCOTUS Justices to be that kind of "average".....it's how we got Souter.
Rich
Rich,
This may sound "elitist" on my end but I don't consider most American's to be of average intelligence. Mostly lower than average.
Intelligence, as defined by the government, is measured by a simplistic test, which in real life really means nothing. I've met brilliant thinkers and problem solvers, which don't have the intelligence, based on this test to even join MENSA but are levels above most of their members.
I've also found (seen) that many of those of superior intellect seem to tackle a problem in a complex manner instead of a more simplistic one that would actually solve the problem instead of creating another.
Also, if the decisions of the courts were written so that there were NO questions on their intent, then we wouldn't have such fiascos as we do with the rulings, Miller comes to mind as an example. Both sides point to it as proof of our Rights or Non-Rights when it comes to firearms, but the court, was wrong in how they ruled.
And they were considered superior intellects of their time. Your average farmer would have understood that a short-barreled shotgun was indeed useful and would have rules as such.
But, I will admit that I look at things with a more simplistic manner than most.
Wayne
This may sound "elitist" on my end but I don't consider most American's to be of average intelligence. Mostly lower than average.
Intelligence, as defined by the government, is measured by a simplistic test, which in real life really means nothing. I've met brilliant thinkers and problem solvers, which don't have the intelligence, based on this test to even join MENSA but are levels above most of their members.
I've also found (seen) that many of those of superior intellect seem to tackle a problem in a complex manner instead of a more simplistic one that would actually solve the problem instead of creating another.
Also, if the decisions of the courts were written so that there were NO questions on their intent, then we wouldn't have such fiascos as we do with the rulings, Miller comes to mind as an example. Both sides point to it as proof of our Rights or Non-Rights when it comes to firearms, but the court, was wrong in how they ruled.
And they were considered superior intellects of their time. Your average farmer would have understood that a short-barreled shotgun was indeed useful and would have rules as such.
But, I will admit that I look at things with a more simplistic manner than most.
Wayne
combine the two and ya got something.The problem isn't whether the Avg American "cares" it's that he's been mislead into thinking that the ONLY rights he has are those "given" to him in the Constitution.
Remember the famous quote: "The Constitution isn't a suicide pact"? Some famous judge/atty/person wrote that in the early 1900's.
He was wrong and most americans are just as wrong. The Constitution WAS INTENDED TO BE a "suicide pact". It limits the powers of the government to act against the people. Failing to abide by those limitation means that that the Constitution requires that the goverment be disbanded and reformed. Thus, the framers intended that the gov't obey or be dissolved. If that ain't governmental suicide I dunno what is.
Most americans have been brainwashed into thinking that the BOR's is all they have in the way of rights. Except, the BOR wasn't aimed at the citizenry, It was aimed at the gov't and was intended to be a check on them not us. The citizens (as expressly stated) have at least those rights and others not specifically enumerated. It is the unenumerated rigths that the gov't has to power to curtail - not those in the BOR.
Thus ALL gun control legislation is unconstitutional. Even state gun laws because of the operation of the 14th. As are all laws regulating speech (even commercial speech).
Our new justice needs to be someone who understands that the Constitution isn't a document of our rights but is a document against governmental interference of our rights. I do not believe that Miers is that person since she hasn't shown the thinking or reasoning ability necessary.
Unfortunately the debate won't be about that. It'll be about abortion, gun control, moral values and religion. None of which means squat or has any relationship to the appointment of a SCOTUS associate justice.
Only the question of "Do you think the Constitution applies to the people" has any meaning. Everything else is just window dressing designed to make politicians look good.
Towering intellects often get so immersed in minutiae that they ignore general constitutional principles or invent new "tests" -- that compromise constitutional principles -- as monuments to themselves.
I don't want vegetables on the Supreme Court either, but putting towering intellects there reinforces the elitism that dominates the legal system.
"Suicide Pact" phrase history: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20030107_fletcher.html
I don't want vegetables on the Supreme Court either, but putting towering intellects there reinforces the elitism that dominates the legal system.
"Suicide Pact" phrase history: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20030107_fletcher.html
TheBluesMan
Moderator Emeritus
By definition, half the population has above average intelligence and the other 60% has lower than average intelligence.USP45usp said:
...guess ya know where I fall... TBM, don't confuse average with median. 
They're only the same on a bell curve, and USP didn't say IQ -- he said intelligence.
The IQ system is just an arbitrary mapping of intelligence onto the real number line. You could easily define another that coincides with Wayne's views, as follows: 60% of the population might be deemed "not intelligent" and given an IQ of 0. The remaining 40% are given IQs reasonably distributed over the range (0, 100). The average would be above zero, but the majority (over 60%) would be below average.
They're only the same on a bell curve, and USP didn't say IQ -- he said intelligence.The IQ system is just an arbitrary mapping of intelligence onto the real number line. You could easily define another that coincides with Wayne's views, as follows: 60% of the population might be deemed "not intelligent" and given an IQ of 0. The remaining 40% are given IQs reasonably distributed over the range (0, 100). The average would be above zero, but the majority (over 60%) would be below average.