I'm kind of thinking Utica, New York, with a summer home in Cuber.
Posted on 10/04/2005 5:35:29 AM PDT by shortstop
Actually, we do know where she stands.
Harriet Miers.
The president’s pick for the Supreme Court. The Texas nobody.
She has a record and it tells us all we need to know about her.
During the Reagan Revolution, she was a Democrat. Until the George W. Bush star began to rise, she donated to Democratic politicians – like Al Gore and Lloyd Bentsen. She has donated directly to the Democratic National Committee. Her Republican contributions did not begin until George W. Bush became her political patron.
In a career that has spanned an era in which individual liberty has been repeatedly attacked by big government, and the judiciary has grown imbalanced and tyrannical, she hasn’t written or said a word in opposition or protest. Nor has she been any sort of pioneer for women’s rights – having spent the bulk of her legal career with a woman already sitting on the Supreme Court.
If she wasn’t the president’s friend, no one would know her name. She had a very nice legal career in Dallas, but is in no way an attorney, judge, scholar or thinker of national stature.
Further, she was specifically recommended for this position by Harry Reid, the outspoken and liberal leader of Senate Democrats.
Finally, the most telling piece of her record is the pattern of policy initiatives to come out of the White House during her tenure as the president’s top lawyer. During her year, the Bush Administration has emphasized big government at the expense of the Constitution. The recent suggestion by the president – which he undoubtedly developed with his legal counsel – that the federal government take over disaster response from the states, and put the military in charge, spits in the face of the Tenth Amendment.
And Harriet Miers signed off on it.
That tells us all we need to know about her.
She says she supports what the framers of the Constitution wanted, but as the president’s top lawyer she didn’t stop him from going against the clear intent of those same framers.
She’s a George W. Bush lackey, and that’s not good enough. We don't trust him that much anymore. And it is an incredible act of ingratitude, gall and arrogance for George W. Bush not to recognize that and take a different course.
George W. Bush is president today because he promised American conservatives that he would appoint conservatives to the Supreme Court. With a half century of uninterrupted liberal dominance, conservatives feel that the Supreme Court has been hijacked and that it has become a political arm of government, instead of a strict defender of the Constitution.
George W. Bush said he’d change that.
And history was ripe to let him.
With the Supreme Court having done a great deal of its most divisive business with 5-4 votes, and with Republican-appointed Sandra Day O’Connor being the swing vote in 75 percent of those cases, and that most typically on the liberal side, the seat George W. Bush has promised to Harriet Miers is the seat that makes all the difference.
It was the entire reason he was elected.
Conservatives wanted sanity in the courts. They elected him to put it there.
And yesterday he kicked them in the teeth.
A great many true legal scholars and true conservatives were passed over for a cipher. People whose thoughts were known, people who had not hidden away all their lives, were passed over so a seat on the Supreme Court could be given out to a close friend. The swing vote was left to twist in the wind.
It was an act of cowardice and treachery.
Because it was George W. Bush who told conservatives he would appoint “another Thomas or Scalia” if they re-elected him. And they did. The difference in his second election was the “values vote,” and that came from conservatives worried about the courts.
And this is how he has repaid them.
The lame duck has become chicken little.
Either not truly committed to the conservative cause, or afraid to make a stand against Democrats in the Senate, George W. Bush punted on the single biggest decision of his presidency.
And then he sent Dick Cheney out to promise that in 10 years we’d all be glad Harriet Miers was on the court.
What a disappointment and betrayal.
Instead of using his second term to courageously pursue the agenda he preached, the son has become the father and we’re faced with another not-quite-Republican President Bush. After all the money conservatives gave, after all the votes, after all the effort, after all the promises, he took the easy way out and left his supporters in the dust.
Conservatives gave the Republicans the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives. No other group has been as faithful to the GOP or as essential to its success. And this is how they are repaid.
The one thing they wanted is the thing they will not get.
We do know where she stands.
Right next to George W. Bush.
And given his conduct of the last two or three years, that’s reason enough for conservatives to oppose her.
I realize we've beaten Harriet pretty hard in the last 24 hours, but Lonsberry has summed it up pretty well. He's worth the read.
What's up with the royal "we" and why should I care about some cantankerous blogger.
Notice not one word that Reagan appointed O'Connor.
Btw to the writer of this diatribe, ever hear of Zell Miller.
Exactly. I have to wonder if the right isn't in the process of pissing Miers off so she damn well will not feel any loyalty to the side she otherwise was going to help.
The thing that bothers me most about the Miers nomination is that she's such a nobody. Okay, maybe a bit harsh as she has been White House Counsel, but in the legal community she's not exactly a high-flier.
Lockstep pubs will make themselves known by sputtering their usual diatribes in support of anything Bush does.
I'm kind of thinking Utica, New York, with a summer home in Cuber.
Finally, the most telling piece of her record is the pattern of policy initiatives to come out of the White House during her tenure as the president’s top lawyer. During her year, the Bush Administration has emphasized big government at the expense of the Constitution. The recent suggestion by the president – which he undoubtedly developed with his legal counsel – that the federal government take over disaster response from the states, and put the military in charge, spits in the face of the Tenth Amendment.
And Harriet Miers signed off on it.
That tells us all we need to know about her.
She says she supports what the framers of the Constitution wanted, but as the president’s top lawyer she didn’t stop him from going against the clear intent of those same framers.
Outstanding article BUMP! The excerpts above tell me all I need to know regarding this lady. The President just gave all conservatives a huge slap in the face for our tireless work to see him reelected. He just had his "read my lips" moment as far as I am concerned.
The only thing worse than reading an amateur piece of writing where the author believes he is generating a higher quality than he is capable of producing, is reading it on FR where others also believe it's a quality piece.
Bob who? And why should I take the word of this nobody when all the major Conservative groups are sending me email after email telling me what a great choice she is? Sorry still waiting to be told WHY she is a bad choice. So far all I have heard is the foaming at the mouth Bush rage we usualy hear from the Moveon.org "conservatives". Guess most of you don't know Ronald Reagan WAS A DEMOCRAT at first huh? So make the case WHY she is a bad choice. All this childish ranting and whining is get tiresome.
My friend made the same comment. If anything is going to turn a decades loyal Bush trooper into a Souter, it's the venom being heaped on her by loud mouths like this guy. She's more coservative than O'Connor at the least. Get a grip.
So was Zell Miller.
The best you flaming nut jobs can dish out is every half assed blog on the net?
Thank god you people are confined to typing in your pajamas and not making decisions such as this.
True, but isn't it funny that even the liberals noted how distinguished Judge Roberts was, but they were bothered that he didn't have enough "real world" experience (or whatever they called it). I think he was a real "high flier" but then that was a problem, too. Remember those ridiculous comments about wanting to know his heart as well as his head, or his need to answer as a father, a brother, blah blah? Just goes to show there will always be worries: distinguished but not enough "real world," or too much practical experience but not distinguished enough, etc. I remain worried about this nomination, but I'm not giving in to despair yet. I am reserving my right to be bitter later, however!
Let the process work. She hasn't been confirmed yet.
She is at least more conserative than SDO!
Let this go to the committee and then to the Senate. Who knows what surprises there might be.
Bush ran from the fight,
he ran from his prior public announcements,
he surrendered an entire decade in the future culture wars and burdened the cohort of Young Republicans with taking up the fight,
he inexplicably wasted a 55 Senate seat majority, AND made it much harder for Republicans to maintain that majority, if the even deserve such political fortunes
he has encouraged current Justices to remain on until his term ends
he selected a woman because she's a woman,
he nominated to the Supreme Court a lawyer who helped him in a legal problem with his country cottage 20 years ago, stinking of cronyism
he gave Sen. Reid a stronger position in deciding his nomination than the public voices of his voter base,
he denied his base the core promise he made to them,
he has revealed he used switch and bait tactics mouthed through his media pontificators when the WH through them demanded us to suck it up and "compromise" during debates over RX plans, immigration reform, Campaign Finance Reform, the absence of a veto pen to stop the outrageous bloating of the Federal budget and Appropriations Bills, CAFTA, and others by using the promise of Supreme Court Justices as the payoff for all of the sacrifices,
he used the payoff of a Conservative Constructionist Supreme Court as a bludgeon to stifle all dissenting debate within the party and the Republican/conservative/libertarian national debate, proving right those who were labeled too far to the right by our common political adversaries on the other side of the aisle
I can never support her.
So was I.
One should keep in mind, that working as a trial lawyer in a large firm is a bastion of democrats. It is the largest special interest in the democrat party. While my wife and I are registered republicans, she has donated money to democrats. She works for a large law firm controlled by big money trial lawyers and the pressure they apply to their employees to give is very strong. She only does it to stay in the good graces of the powerful partners. They keep track of who gives and who does not. Giving money is one thing, but casting your vote in private is another. Needless to say we voted for Bush 1, Dole, and Bush 2, twice. Please keep this in mind. It's the same thing for unions. They give 90% of their money to democrats, yet their members vote over 40% republican.
I think Lonsberry is not a political realist.
If Rehnquist was a conservative 9 and O'Connor was a 4.5, then we need to move the court to the right....something more than 13.5
If Roberts is a Rehnquist disciple, then we can judge him to be an 8. We need a 6 or higher to move to the right -- and just a SMALL AMOUNT of difference would have made a world of difference on all of those 5-4 Scotus rulings.
After reading about her pro-life, conservative Christian, anti-activist views, I'm sure that she's to the right of O'Connor.
I'm guessing that Bush gave us a 6 or 6+ because he knew that the Rino Republicans (the McCain 14) would desert him on any effort to put another 8 or 9 on the bench. (Thomas might be the only 10 on the bench.)
Pray for another vacancy before the next election. I'd far rather have moderate conservatives than moderate liberals like O'Connor.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.