Harriet Miers, Constitutionalist: Can We Ask for More?

The National Ledger ^ | October 10, 2005 | Lee Ellis

[rodguy911]

All of that is fine and dandy. Now explain how you will get any of those nominees through a rat/rino infested Senate.It ain't gonna happen and GW knew that long before you posted the list.You have to consider who he has to deal with, and it's not a pretty sight.

[ez]

Bush didn't follow my wishes, but I'm not willing to split the party over it. I will now defend his decision.

We differ over the meaning of the Sowell quote. I posted it on this thread. "If Bush is right about Miers, perhaps she is the best choice he could make." or whatever. I assume Bush is right about Miers, and therefore, she is the best choice.

[ez]

If the President is right about Harriet Miers, she may be the best choice he could make under the circumstances.

Here's the quote that I view as Sowell supporting Miers.

[bray]

Bottom line, you don't trust Bush and we do. We didn't vote for you or your opinion so it makes no matter what you think. Your chrystal ball is no better than ours. Perhaps you'll give her the benefit of the doubt in the hearings or are you looking for a pound of flesh?

Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters

[Cboldt]

The President could have held off on naming a nominee too. He could have expressed that his goal to set constructionist judges was made unreasnably difficult by the Senate. He could ask the Senate to perform its advice and consent function on Myers (9th Circuit), Boyle, Haynes, Kavanaugh and Saad. And after they are done with that, I will send a SCOTUS nomination, but not until.

He could apologize to Sandra Day O'Connor, but explain the problem is with the Senate, not with the Executive.

Otherwise if we were to induce "the good fight" as so many are dying to do, it could easily backfire turning to a prolonged disaster with ramifications all the way into 06 and possibly beyond.

This nomination has potentially set the "prolonged disaster" wheels in motion.

[rodguy911]

While it may have done what you say, the odds of a prolonged battle and Miers not being confirmed are short. She probably will be confirmed and GW will win another battle.
Was it pretty? No. Did he(we) win, yes.

[Mr. Silverback]

One of two things is true. Either Harriet Miers really is a constitutionalist in the John Roberts mode, or she isn't. If she is, I don't care about a paper trail. If she isn't, I wouldn't want her teaching a law class, much less being on the Supreme Court.

The problem is that we have no idea which of these things is true. I feel the people bashing the President should back off. I feel the people pushing Miers should back off. Wait until we know more, and then call your Senator.

[A.Hun]

Great letter!

A lot of pundits have hurt their standing in the eye's of the conservatives that count... the ones that put George Bush in the White House to start with!

[sanemom]

"Bottom line, you don't trust Bush and we do."

Trust, but verify.
-Ronald Reagan

But seriously, since when does trusting someone mean blindly accepting their every decision without questioning?

[bray]

When he's your President. It's called Loyalty, something many Conservatives know nothing about. They didn't get their pick and now they call her a Souter.

When has he picked a bad Justice?? When has he picked a bad person??

Pray for W and Harriet Miers

[Cboldt]

While it may have done what you say, the odds of a prolonged battle and Miers not being confirmed are short. She probably will be confirmed and GW will win another battle.

He will have put Harriet Miers on SCOTUS. My point is that there is another, related battle, or two or three, or more.

Some people are unhappy with this pick for strategic reasons, even if Harriet Miers works out fine on the Court. Maybe they are paranoid - but there is no question they are disappointed.

I think George Bush has let down the Office of the Presidency by avoiding telling the people and the Senate that the gang-of-14 is an abomination - an unacceptable intrusion on Presidential preogative. It bugs me that he averse to having that confrontation. I think the GOP is weak, and I think the timidity of the nomination is a weakening move.

Yes. He'll win the seating of the nominee. But it comes with a cost. I hope it's worth it.

[msnimje]

...not a SINGLE LIBERAL in the bunch...

Justice Consuelo Callahan, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals - nominated by George W. Bush.
Fienstien's approval of Callahan

Patrick Leahy's statement on Callahan

Edward C. Prado In 2003, President George W. Bush nominated Judge Prado for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Talk Left supports Ed Prado for Scotus

Draft Ed Prado


Others:

Richard Clifton Appointed by George W. Bush to the 9th circuit Court of Appeals is generally regarded by Conservatives as a liberal disaster and a classic example of a Judge turning left after being confirmed.

Roger Gregory, 4th Circuit Initially appointed by Clinton in 2000 in a recess appointment and then became one of George W. Bush's first judicial picks. Of course, he could have appointed a Republican or a Conservative, but chose not to.

[unsycophant]

About the only thing we haven't see yet is Ann Coulter on a bridge in DC crying because Miers got the nomination.

[sanemom]

"When he's your President. It's called Loyalty, something many Conservatives know nothing about."

I'm loyal to my husband, doesn't mean I never question any decision he makes. Loyalty doesn't mean one can never disagree-is this America or Nazi Germany?

[Cboldt]

Paraphrasing your logic ...

I [ez] hold that the statement, "She may be the best choice he could make under the circumstances" represents Sowell supporting Miers.

You may indeed find that connection, but not many readers will. In the spirit of constructive criticism, it's damaging to one's credibility to misrepresent someone else's position (in this case, Sowell's) to "win" an argument. The "win" is an illusion, and one's reputation is involved in the cost.

[sinkspur]

LOL!! How come you weren't squealing like a scalded dog when these people were approved by the Senate?

As I recall, I didn't hear a peep out of you.

Besides, you gave me no indication that any of them, except for Gregory, is a liberal. You just gave me quotes from people who supported them.

23 Democrat Senators supported John Roberts. Does that mean he's a liberal, too?

Sorry, no sale.

[KosmicKitty]

Babyish, desperate ad-hominem attacks aside... none of these are actual arguments. It reads more like a Letterman top 10 list of jokes. It's not a serious defense of Miers, in fact I don't think I've seen one of those yet. Hmm....

"I'm rubber, you're glue - everything you say bounces of me and sticks to you!"

Sorry, but I've been seeing alot of tantrums and "desperate ad-hominem attacks" from the bushbasher side as well.

And, I see a lot of complaints from children who didn't get their way, but I still haven't seen a cohert argument from your side either.

[KosmicKitty]

But seriously, since when does trusting someone mean blindly accepting their every decision without questioning?

It's called loyalty And from the hystronics and nastiness here in the last few days, I'd say most people are going far beyond questioning

[GarySpFc]

Because, in addition to other reasons, George H.W. Bush appointed David Souter... Why didn't George W. Bush learn this? Conservatives care most about the Supreme Court, because it is an institution that affects the entire country for decades at a time. If anything else, he should not have appointed an unknown for this position.

And I presume you are going to bring a curse down on Ronald Reagan's soul for his appointment gone bad. I have worked in conservative politics and the pro-life movement for over 30 years, and I cannot believe the emotional venom being spewed against Miers without giving her a chance to speak. To my mind these individuals are rejecting every bit of integrity our movements stood for in the past. I would ask a simple what would Jesus do, but will settle for what would Ronald Reagan do?

[msnimje]

LOL!! How come you weren't squealing like a scalded dog when these people were approved by the Senate?

This is about the lamest retort I have heard on Free Republic and that is quite an astounding achievement.

You have no idea my response to these nominations.

It is very telling that I responded to your ill-informed, knee-jerk, mean spirited statement with actual facts and you came back with a false and inept personal attack on me.

I am sorry you can't handle the truth but that does not make it less true.
.