Harriet Miers, Constitutionalist: Can We Ask for More?

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

[dangus]

>>wvobiwan wrote: Yes. In fact we can DEMAND more. We're owed.

>>You sound like a Democrat-voting welfare recipient.

Welfare recipients don't earn their payouts. We worked damned hard to get a conservative in the White House.

[GarySpFc]

Do you know who is considered by almost all to be the greatest justice to ever serve on SCOTUS? Did you realize this person had only briefly studied law? Did you know he did not have any judicial experience when he was appointed chief justice, and yet he is considered the person who had the most influence on Constitutional Law? Have you ever heard of John Marshall? His single greatest attribute, which has been lacking in many of the recent justices to SCOTUS was character.

John Marshall-Biography

Experience: No prior judicial experience. Marshall held many political offices at the state and national levels.

John Marshall was born in a log cabin on the Virginia frontier, the first of fifteen children. He was a participant in the Revolutionary War as a member of the 3d Virginia Regiment. He studied law briefly in 1780, and was admitted to practice the same year. He quickly established a successful career defending individuals against their pre-War British creditors.

Marshall served in Virginia's House of Delegates. He also participated in the state ratifying convention and spoke forcefully on behalf of the new constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation.

Marshall contemplated several offers to serve in the Washington and Adams administrations. He declined service as attorney general for Washington; he declined positions on the Supreme Court and as secretary of war under Adams. At Washington's direction, Marshall ran successfully for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives but his tenure there was brief. Adams offered Marshall the position of secretary of state, which Marshall accepted. When Ellsworth resigned as chief justice in 1800, Adams turned to the first chief justice, John Jay, who declined. Federalists urged Adams to promote associate justice William Paterson to the spot; Adams opted for Marshall.

Marshall's impact on American constitutional law is peerless. He served for more than 34 years (a record that few others have broken), he participated in more than 1000 decisions and authored over 500 opinions. As the single most important figure on constitutional law, Marshall's imprint can still be fathomed in the great issues of contemporary America. Other justices will surpass his single accomplishments, but no one will replace him as the Babe Ruth of the Supreme Court!

http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/legal_entity/13/overview

[nonliberal]

their backgrounds

I don't think Teddy or Biden would want to go there with a nominee like Brown, who would fight back.

[nonliberal]

I don't really have a problem with state lotteries. I am all for them until someone can come up with a better way to get money out of the great unwashed.

[nonliberal]

Ronald Reagan was once a democrate.

Apples and oranges. Reagan had a history of anticommunism going back to his days as head of SAG. His "A Time for Choosing" speech in 1964 placed him firmly in the Goldwater camp and he continued to preach conservatism wherever he went. Miers has done no such thing.

[nonliberal]

Now explain how you will get any of those nominees through a rat/rino infested Senate.

Reagan got Scalia confirmed 98-0.

[nonliberal]

ingrained for 25 years

Let's see, she contributed to Dukakis and the DNC in 1988. 2005-1988=17

[nonliberal]

We worked damned hard to get a conservative in the White House.

Wrong. We worked damned hard to get Bush in the White House. He isn't a conservative.

[nonliberal]

I wish Miers' defenders would start comparing apples to apples.

Marshall had a record as a Federalist. He was a popular and good attorney before running for office. He spoke for Federalism, voted for Federalists, contributed to Federalists and was rewarded.

Miers has no record as a conservative. Her tenure on the school board was pro-diversity and she brought Gloria Steinem to SMU.

Again, I am not going after her on "qualifications." The constitution articulates no specific qualifications for SCOTUS so I think it is a non-issue.

The issue here (as I have said on earlier posts on this thread) is that conservatives have been burned too many times on SCOTUS nominees to back someone with a questionable philosophy.

[SunStar]

Bush knows her. You forget this.

No, I didn't forget this. She is unknown to us.

[SunStar]

I think is has been more than well established that Meirs is no Souter.

It's been well-suggested and well-assumed. Not well established. My point is that we would know for certain, if the pick was Luttig, Owen, or Alito.

[SunStar]

Bush could make the argument that he knows her and her judicial philosophy much better than he would know the philosophy even of someone we think would be very reliable, like Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owens, etc...

Yes, he could do so, and I would welcome such a dialogue. As of yet, he's said nothing of the sort.

[SunStar]

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 agree that some of the conservative response has been venomous. I have not engaged in such behavior. I do understand the feeling of disappointment, as President Bush talked during the campaign about Antonin Scalia being his model for a Supreme Court Justice. But then, with this nomination, he did not follow-through, which is not like President Bush. He usually does what he says he will.

[Agrarian]

I agree. I really can't figure him out on all of this. I am bitterly disappointed in him. My wife predicted that he would cave on this nomination because of the pounding he has taken on Iraq and Katrina, and I at the time feared that she was right -- but on the other hand, it just didn't sound like him.

Up until now, he has, on every core issue that got him elected, stubbornly stuck to his guns and surprised his opponents by not giving an inch, even when "conventional wisdom" (i.e. the liberal elite and the MSM) said that this time he simply "had to" compromise. I hoped that his stubborn streak would prevail and that he would nominate a Brown, a Luttig, or (to really tick them off) someone they had blocked for a lower court appointment, like Miguel Estrada.

Unlike his father, he has not until now alienated the conservative base -- something daddybush did practically within months of being elected. Again, I am surprised that he did it.

A part of me wants to believe that he and Rove have something up their sleeves, but mostly, I think the Bush genes finally came through and he caved.

Another speculation is that a large part of the Republican party doesn't want Roe v Wade overturned, worrying that it would hurt them at the polls were that to happen. By this theory, Bush was under pressure to find people who look conservative, but that would ultimately keep the status quo (i.e. more O'Connors and Kennedys). Wouldn't surprise me, especially with the rising influence of folks like McCain and Guiliani.

[JasonC]

She didn't ratify the constitution. Get a grip. The only thing she has in common with Marshall is neither were judges. You might as well compare her hat size to that of Brandeis.

What we have learned since - and could have guessed - is that Bush first decided it had to be a woman, for affirmative action and ease of confirmation reasons - and that the most qualified in that deliberately limited pool of the less than best turned it down as not worth the political circus involved in a confirmation fight. Leaving us with the most experienced female lawyer friend of the President who is willing to have spitballs thrown at her - a stellar recommendation, isn't it?

Naturally, some of the blame for that state of affairs belongs on other shoulders. Those who inventing "Borking", those who have appeased affirmative action nonsense for decades, those unwilling to put up with personal attacks for a greater good for their country, etc. But it is a profile in the opposite of courage, any way you slice it.

[GarySpFc]

The only point I was making in comparing Miers to Marshall was the lack of judicial experience should not be a deciding factor. You might want to try drinking your hate instead of spewing it.