Advertisement
You have heard of CAFTA. This is CYAF. Cover Your A** Fast. Bush has nominated someone in his lame duck soon to be scandalized second term whom he thinks will Cover his tail if all his misdeeds regarding torture, unlawful detention, violation of international law and Geneva Conventions, election fraud, and other heinous high crimes comes home to roost in a big constitutional way before the Supreme Court. Half the country hopes like hell it will.
I don't think that the Supreme Court nominee should be someone who is so little qualified and mainly only qualified for her CYAF features and women's intuition.
I don't find that the women is objectionable because she is a woman attorney -- a (cry me a river) hard luck story (as if thousands of others of us didn't have to deal with an ill parent and the financial pressures of a law school education) and a "first" - in a series of breakthroughs for women in ONE CITY in Texas. One City. Dallas. I applaud her for it. However, The greater the victim the better the Supreme Court Justice does not make.
Fifteen years ago I had the distinction of being the First woman Chair of the Philadelphia Bar Association International Law Committee. It didn't have anything to do with merit. It had to do with a penchant for liking French movies, travel overseas and more free time than my colleagues who had kids and a husband to tend to which allowed me to go to Committee meetings rather than soccer practices, baseball games and PTA meetings. If anyone would have suggested that this was a notch on the peg post for Supreme Court qualification I would have laughed at them. To be the Chair of the Philadelphia Bar Assn I would have had to give a lot more money to a lot more campaigns of the right side, and be far wealthier. I haven't heard anything particularly "pioneering" yet on Harriet- there are women over 60 who have had far greater achievement in the law, but I am listening. Dean Judith Areen of Georgetown Law School is someone of the same age who far outdoes Ms. Harriet as do a lot of other academics or female law school Deans in terms of publications and achievements in the law.
Harriet, who as a woman attorney in the White House is to be applauded for where she got after 60 years. Clinton had a cadre of women who made it much younger. But look at the coat tails on which she rides. Most of us wouldn't get in miles of its flapping in the breeze, for fear of being blood splattered, and she finds it rewarding and exhilarating.
I confess I am a Democrat and not a turncoat. The big Republican mandate didn't sweep me up silly. It didn't persuade me that the Republican philosophy of government that rules that whatever is good for the job-creating wealth creators must trickle down to goodness for the poor plebian slobs, is a superior philosophy, it was just richer for those it rewarded, who were not those who needed it most. I am a Government Major at Cornell University and I don't buy it. Not then, not now. She is a turncoat apparently who covers all bases and CYAs for herself nicely. That is why she was so appealing a selection to George whose friendship outshines her lack of superior intellect. No one in this White House has a superior intellect or they would not be there.
But does the rest of the country deserve her?
Here are the questions that the Senate has to ask and get non-evasive answers to (I dare her to say that the issue might come before the Court):
1. Where were you when Lyndie England was indicted?
Did you counsel that her superiors also take the heat or did you just want to damage control by sticking it to the low ranks- a lowly pregnant woman private a long way from home? Do you see any culpability at all on the part of the people who hired and supervised her actions? Did you counsel on this at all?
2. Where were you when Bush was deliberating on releasing pictures of flag draped coffins?
3. Where were you when Bush was deliberating on authorization of the Pentagon to release photos of torture done by people under his employ and command?
4. How do you define torture?
5. What's a Geneva Convention and are we subscribers?
6. What are the exceptions to adhering to its rules if any?
7. Where were you when Katrina hit and what did you do for four days? Were you at Ferragamos with Condi?
8. What was the last item of clothing you gave to the Salvation Army?
9. When was the last time you donated blood to the Red Cross?
10. What is your view of procurement rules regarding competitive bidding for defense contracts?
11. When was the last time you spoke to Rumsfeld and about what exactly did you speak about? ...to name a few.
I don't care what she thinks at this point of someone else's pregnancy being terminated prematurely. I am tired of red herrings and diversionary dogfights when the world is on fire. She is less qualified to render an opinion on abortion policy than Roberts who actually has children. I care what her opinion is regarding the abominable conduct of her Boss while he was looking to her for advice- apparently since at least 2001.
I wouldn't vote for her. I don't need to know what she has to say. My only question would be "Why didn't you quit."
If George trusts her to do CYAF, we can't trust her to be the neutral independent interpreter of the rights of the people of the United States. Case closed. Once more, the over -his-head Senator Harry Reid got it wrong. I am a female and I don't mind saying so.
I don't think that the Supreme Court nominee should be someone who is so little qualified and mainly only qualified for her CYAF features and women's intuition.
I don't find that the women is objectionable because she is a woman attorney -- a (cry me a river) hard luck story (as if thousands of others of us didn't have to deal with an ill parent and the financial pressures of a law school education) and a "first" - in a series of breakthroughs for women in ONE CITY in Texas. One City. Dallas. I applaud her for it. However, The greater the victim the better the Supreme Court Justice does not make.
Fifteen years ago I had the distinction of being the First woman Chair of the Philadelphia Bar Association International Law Committee. It didn't have anything to do with merit. It had to do with a penchant for liking French movies, travel overseas and more free time than my colleagues who had kids and a husband to tend to which allowed me to go to Committee meetings rather than soccer practices, baseball games and PTA meetings. If anyone would have suggested that this was a notch on the peg post for Supreme Court qualification I would have laughed at them. To be the Chair of the Philadelphia Bar Assn I would have had to give a lot more money to a lot more campaigns of the right side, and be far wealthier. I haven't heard anything particularly "pioneering" yet on Harriet- there are women over 60 who have had far greater achievement in the law, but I am listening. Dean Judith Areen of Georgetown Law School is someone of the same age who far outdoes Ms. Harriet as do a lot of other academics or female law school Deans in terms of publications and achievements in the law.
Harriet, who as a woman attorney in the White House is to be applauded for where she got after 60 years. Clinton had a cadre of women who made it much younger. But look at the coat tails on which she rides. Most of us wouldn't get in miles of its flapping in the breeze, for fear of being blood splattered, and she finds it rewarding and exhilarating.
I confess I am a Democrat and not a turncoat. The big Republican mandate didn't sweep me up silly. It didn't persuade me that the Republican philosophy of government that rules that whatever is good for the job-creating wealth creators must trickle down to goodness for the poor plebian slobs, is a superior philosophy, it was just richer for those it rewarded, who were not those who needed it most. I am a Government Major at Cornell University and I don't buy it. Not then, not now. She is a turncoat apparently who covers all bases and CYAs for herself nicely. That is why she was so appealing a selection to George whose friendship outshines her lack of superior intellect. No one in this White House has a superior intellect or they would not be there.
But does the rest of the country deserve her?
Here are the questions that the Senate has to ask and get non-evasive answers to (I dare her to say that the issue might come before the Court):
1. Where were you when Lyndie England was indicted?
Did you counsel that her superiors also take the heat or did you just want to damage control by sticking it to the low ranks- a lowly pregnant woman private a long way from home? Do you see any culpability at all on the part of the people who hired and supervised her actions? Did you counsel on this at all?
2. Where were you when Bush was deliberating on releasing pictures of flag draped coffins?
3. Where were you when Bush was deliberating on authorization of the Pentagon to release photos of torture done by people under his employ and command?
4. How do you define torture?
5. What's a Geneva Convention and are we subscribers?
6. What are the exceptions to adhering to its rules if any?
7. Where were you when Katrina hit and what did you do for four days? Were you at Ferragamos with Condi?
8. What was the last item of clothing you gave to the Salvation Army?
9. When was the last time you donated blood to the Red Cross?
10. What is your view of procurement rules regarding competitive bidding for defense contracts?
11. When was the last time you spoke to Rumsfeld and about what exactly did you speak about? ...to name a few.
I don't care what she thinks at this point of someone else's pregnancy being terminated prematurely. I am tired of red herrings and diversionary dogfights when the world is on fire. She is less qualified to render an opinion on abortion policy than Roberts who actually has children. I care what her opinion is regarding the abominable conduct of her Boss while he was looking to her for advice- apparently since at least 2001.
I wouldn't vote for her. I don't need to know what she has to say. My only question would be "Why didn't you quit."
If George trusts her to do CYAF, we can't trust her to be the neutral independent interpreter of the rights of the people of the United States. Case closed. Once more, the over -his-head Senator Harry Reid got it wrong. I am a female and I don't mind saying so.