Under the Radar (Great editorial about Harriet Miers)

The Illinois Leader ^ | 10/6/05 | Connie Lynne Carrillo

[Chena]

Steel Magnolia! What an excellent choice of words. :)

[Salvation]

**Harriet Miers came creeping in under the radar like a Stealth bomber; a modest, unassuming, hard-working, experienced lawyer with strong moral, religious and constitutional convictions. Just what the boss was looking for.**

BTTT!

[bkepley]

Every conservative legal expert is against this nomination to varying degrees,

Yeah? Who are these great legal minds? And by the way, you must not have been reading all the articles because there have been some who have come out in her favor.

[Salvation]

"Meekness" can be defined as having control in all situations............but not necessarily voicing your opinion or forging ahead with your point of view until you have heard all of the viewpoints.

[nomorelurker]

It's the Crack.

[shempy]

Apparently, Miers, while indeed speaking softly, has never had an occasion to use this "stick of dynamite" you reference.

[Blood of Tyrants]

It appears that she will breeze through the confirmation hearings simply because she gives the Dummycrats no ammo at all and if they dare to try to make an issue of her faith they will loudly be denounced as establishing an unconstitutional religious test for a public office.

I have prayed that Bush is seeking God's advice and we shall see if this choice is one that will turn a few decisions around or maintain the status quo.

[TNdandelion]

I'm fairly humored by all the political moaning over this nomination. I'm reserving judgement (for or against) until the confirmation hearings.

This issue can be summed up quickly by saying that alot of people are disappointed because the president didn't pick "their" choice.

[dk/coro]

I concur...a magnificent summary of the true mandate for any Justice.

[Treader]

quidnunc wrote- "After many years of working together, W knows that Miers agrees with him on nearly everthing." In your reference of Miers record- there is not one mention of Meirs Border/Port security "ideas," so, (by your referenced post) I can just assume her placid agreement to President GW Bush's current proactive illegal immigrant policies. Play dumb again, quidnunc...

[acapesket]

That's pure B.S.! Rush has not been incoherent..he wants the big "match" like most of us do! In some ways, I think if Harriet Miers does to the Judiciary Committee what John Roberts did to them... well there ain't gonna be much of a battle for JP Stevens seat! Which will become vacant prior to Bush's departure, if not Ms. ACLU's seat.
I am not thrilled with her either but if she stands up in the hearings, well..we'll have a different kettle of fish!
You all need to take a chill pill, what's the worst thing that can happen?
The worst thing that can happen is SHE BOMBS, SHE'S VOTED DOWN and we all LOOK like the perpetual hand wringing pansies that we are!
But guess what? Despite the fact that we are now making asses of ourselves.. We'll still be in charge

And McQueeg will be wringing his fat hands in delight over the strawberries.. THAT WILL BE A VERY UGLY THING!
Don't, for one minute think that this has not been orchestrated behind the scenes by he and Bill Krystol et all for 2008.
Why else would McQuueg introduce this senate bill to have "guidelines" on how to politely "interview" Terrorists!!
Supported by 93 poop shooter Senators!
Come on Conservatives!!
Wake up and HOLD YOUR FIRE!!

[Apogee]

Well, in the final analysis, it is what we are being asked to do. Without trying to sound like a votary (I certainly disagree with a number of his policies, though they too prove the point), I am at this point fairly confident that he is trustworthy.
His demeanor during the election fiasco impressed me. His handling of the Chinese aircraft collision made me think he was a man who would stick to his guns, which raised my respect for him up a notch.
He has carried through on the promise to go into Iraq if we were not allowed in (though I admit confusion as to why he and the party have not stuck to this simple reason for doing so), and thus far appointed the sort of justices he has promised us. As Miers was one of the people responsible for the pick of the new Chief Justice, I have no reason to think that she is a stealth liberal just yet.

I find the constant chant of the media (including the WSJ) on this issue to be rather interesting, as they are constantly talking about the need of the Republicans to try to keep the massive middle happy, so as not to lose their votes. There is no undecided middle - independents are always really decided, just not willing to say so. The people that the conservative party needs to keep happy are the ones who are more conservative, so as not to lose any of the truly faithful. (Constitution party, anyone?)

So I agree in principle with what I assume to be your complaint, that she may not be conservative enough. I certainly hope my congress critters all understand that my voting them in a decade ago will not keep me from voting them out when they have turned out no different from the people they replaced, out of some desire to appease the middle or make their enemies happy.
But in the mean time, I find no reason to decide that Miers is a bad pick, when I know nothing about her, other than that she is the pick of someone who has done what he has said so far.

[quidnunc]

Treader wrote: quidnunc wrote- "After many years of working together, W knows that Miers agrees with him on nearly everthing." In your reference of Miers record- there is not one mention of Meirs Border/Port security "ideas," so, (by your referenced post) I can just assume her placid agreement to President GW Bush's current proactive illegal immigrant policies. Play dumb again, quidnunc...

Ypou're making no sense at all.

What does SCOTUS have to do with immigration and border security?

[Politicalities]

The hardliners probably won't give this article a first or second thought, but hopefully those with more faith in God and our President will.

I gave the article all the thought it deserved... which isn't much, since it was basically: "Support Miers, because she believes in God, she's untarnished by scandal, her law school wasn't that bad, and she's a woman." If that were enough to win my support for a nominee, well, I'd be a Democrat.

Whether one has faith in God or not, God didn't pick Miers, Bush did. And Bush isn't God, he's a politician. You shouldn't "have faith" in him to the extent that you unhesitatingly decide that a choice is good simply because it was his.

I don't think it's a "rationalization", but it definitely is "rational".

See above. The arguments made by this article: she believes in God, she doesn't have any scandals that we know of, and she's female should not suffice to convince a "rational" person that "the Court will be in the best hands possible".

"Let's give her a chance. Bombs away." Excellent choice in phrase, to say the least.

Yeah. In this case, "give her a chance" is synonymous with "jump off a cliff". There's no going back; if "giving her a chance" turns out to be the wrong move, we're stuck with the consequences for decades.

The elites are insisting bench time is a requirement!

Thanks for the straw man. I've stated my reasons for opposition, and her lack of experience on the bench is not one of them.

We'll put you down as yet another pretend writer who the president didn't consult before he nominated somebody.

Nope, he didn't consult with me. But he did make me a promise. And I am not convinced he has kept it. And yes, I do tend to be a little bitter when people break their promises to me.

One of the things that President Bush has said about why he chose her, was that he believes, no doubt, that she will be faithful to be a strict Constitutionalist.

Yes, which once again brings us back to the main argument used by the Miers supporters: "Trust Bush!"

Bush nominated someone who #1 passes the pro-life litmus test many on FR seem to hold dear

Not me. I'd dearly love to see Roe tossed in the garbage where it belongs, but I'm much less interested in having a Justice who will vote to overturn it than I am in why she would vote to overturn it. If she would overturn Roe just because she opposes abortion, that's bad. Roe should be overturned because it's extraconstitutional, not because abortion is bad. My litmus test isn't "pro-life", but "pro-Constitution", and the two are not necessarily equivalent.

and #2 can be confirmed for reasons mentioned here and on other threads.

Lots of people could be confirmed. With 55 GOP Senators, there are probably a lot more potential nominees that would be confirmed than would be rejected. Whether she can be confirmed or not has no bearing on whether Miers would make a good Justice or not... and if she wouldn't, easy confirmation is a negative.

Anytime a group of lawyers, "legal experts", liberals and politicians come out against something, don't you begin to wonder if perhaps that "something" may be a good thing? LOL

What a great argument. I think I'll use that to claim that since most lawyers, legal experts, liberals, and politicians are against random beatings, they must be a good thing. LOL.

trust the preisdent....be a good little bot how dare you question the man, you ingrate fringer you

Very well said.

Why cant we get another candidate like Roberts through...dont we have any others like him?

Yup, we have lots, and that's why I'm so ticked. Whether Miers is good or not is to some degree beside the point... there were potential nominees who are indisputably awesome, who we wouldn't have to wonder about. Again, my personal favorite is Alex Kozinski, who so richly deserves a seat on the Supreme Court it's not even funny. I wish Bush had left Roberts in O'Connor's seat; Kozinski would have made an incredible Chief.

[WOSG]

"Bored, comatose Protestant mainliners and robotic, zombie-like cultural Catholics need not apply for this personal distinction "

No religious stereotyping and bigotry here .... (/sarcasm).

Let's not become members of the "Jesus loves me, but he can't stand you" church.

[RasterMaster]

The only issue most of you are concerned about is what Miers thinks about abortion (which is typical qualifier from the DUmocrats). Not once do the doubting Thomas's ask about STRICT CONSTITUTIONAL interpretation - NOT ONCE!

I think many of the media pundits are just peeved because President Bush didn't get entangled in an over-extended battle over a nomination of Brown or Luttig (my choice), which would leave O'Connor on the court indefinately. The President has an agenda yet to be accomplished over the next three years, but some would allow this to drag on and on like during the Daschle years.

Look at last night's vote on giving terrorists rights that they don't qualify for under Geneva convention. How many of your senators voted along with McCain on that? Do you think that the political pressure of the left is going to allow a Brown or Luttig through the nomination process with that kind of voting behavior? GOP needs to stop funding the senators who voted for the amendment and the voters in each state should be well informed about their senators.

Gang of 14 pretty much sqashed any hopes of getting a well-known conservative, so a "stealth" conservative is nominated, just as CJ Roberts. Also, I think it's a smart move on the President's part. Have you heard of MOOSEMUSS?

http://mysandmen.blogspot.com/2005/10/applying-principles-of-war-to-harriet.html

It's past time to purge the party of the RINOs like McCain, Snowe, Chafee, etc. as well as pick up some additional seats next year.

Doubters of Miers qualifications should view the replay of the National Republican Lawyers Association she spoke at last spring. The video is available on C-Span.

Stevens and/or Ginsburg will provide another vacancy soon enough, and the judges who you wanted Bush to nominate are needed where they are at and picking from that pool of qualified judges would create another nomination, another confirmation hearing and another opportunity for the has-been media and the DUmocrats to empower their base.

[Blessed]

>I don't care squat about her being 'born again' - so am I, and I have no business on the Supreme Court. <

Assuming you are you might want to rephrase that statement.

[Lancey Howard]

After many years of working together, W knows that Miers agrees with him on nearly everything.

I have been reading variations of this for days and it just doesn't pass the smell test. Bush is the PRESIDENT, and many people are going to be a little bashful about disagreeing with the PRESIDENT. I mean, I think somebody like Miers knows where her bread is buttered. Sorry, but "no sale" on this. Maybe Miers is just an amiable, brown-nosing "yes man" (woman).

[infidel29]

It's the Crack

I was afraid of that...:)

[Treader]

You don't think that border security issues will reach SCOTUS, in the next year or that as a White House counsel, she has never discussed this issue with POTUS? Outstanding! Thank you for your time.