Posted on 10/10/2005 10:35:47 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
Harriet Miers will be confirmed.
As the reality of the Miers nomination and the near-inevitability of her confirmation sinks in, we are left only to look for positive signs that she will pleasantly surprise us. What else is there to do? I am done complaining. (God knows, I have done my share of complaining.)
That said, I have a working theory that Miers may turn out to be a reliable conservative vote on the Supreme Court.
My reasoning goes like this:
The Three Most Critical Considerations
1. President Bush has consistently nominated top-notch conservatives to various benches. His track record is very strong, and most of us can list the names. Bush knows what kind of bona fides he wants in a judge and he has certainly conveyed those preferences to Harriet Miers who reportedly has had a hand in the vetting process of several of Bush's nominations. Miers was apparently in charge of the vetting process for the last Supreme Court nomination which ultimately went to John Roberts.
The point is, Miers knows exactly what kind of judge George W. Bush wants: "A strict constructionist in the mold of Scalia and Thomas". Miers presumably used that very clear criteria during the vetting processes which she handled.
2. Harriet Miers may be a very good lawyer (in fact, I'm sure she is) but her familiarity with constitutional law is likely very scant, especially compared to the familiarity gained by experienced appeals court judges or top trial lawyers who have argued extensively before appeals courts, state supreme courts and the United States Supreme Court.
As a result, Miers will need (and will hopefully seek without trepidation) guidance during her first year (at least) on the Supreme Court. Who will she most likely look to for clues? I believe Miers will look first to the two justices who her benefactor (President Bush) promised the nation she would emulate - - Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Certainly, smart men like Scalia and Thomas understand the benefit of grooming an ally - - they should only be too happy to lend the rookie their sound advice whenever they can.
3. Harriet Miers and George W. Bush apparently have a close relationship going back at least a decade. The President clearly trusts Miers immensely and Miers' progress from Dallas to the halls of power and unquestioned access to the Oval Office are the result of that trust. And now, George W. Bush has elevated his attorney, his confidant, his friend to the very pinnacle of the field of law - - a lifetime appointment to the United States Supreme Court. Miers has accepted the President's nomination with the clear understanding of what George W. Bush expects of her, and what the President promised the nation.
Now, can anyone imagine that Harriet Miers will take her seat at the bench and then begin siding on rulings with Souter, Breyer, Stevens, and Ginsburg? To do so would be the ultimate betrayal, the ultimate stab in the back to the man who trusted her and gave her a place in history.
It won't happen.
Harriet Miers will be what the President promised she will be.
For the reasons noted above, I believe that Harriet Miers will prove to be a "strict constructionist" who practices "judicial restraint", just like the President promised. She will be a reliable vote, joining with Scalia and Thomas on many, if not most, important rulings. In the end, President George W. Bush will have the last laugh, and a lot of us will be eating crow.
Misunderestimated again.
"We voted Republicans in control of EVERYTHING."
Don't you think that's a little unrealistic. Without a balance of powers in our gov. and society, this country would be no better than Iran.
Clinton's power came from having the mainstream media, Hollywood, the teachers' unions and professors on his side. He also rolled out graft for all to share. And Hillary had the FBI files.
That's a lot of power that Bush doesn't have.
Reagan didn't have any of that and was probably more hated than Bush at least in the media and Hollyweird and even even had a dim congress for the most part but they were scared spitless of him for the better part of six years.
And Nixon remained incredibly (to me) popular until he put the second clip in and keep shooting at his foot.
On the other hand I never got the impression that congress was the least bit concerned about Carter or Bush 1.
It would seem here that the operative force is being a "uniter". In politics there is no such thing unless you have a hankering to be road kill. You either stand up for what you believe in or you get rolled.
Bush is either a wimp, which I don't believe, or he really believes, despite overwhelming evidence that it doesn't work, that uniter not a divider thing.
Somehow I can't imagine that Reagan ran stuff through that kind of filter. He believed what he believed and he said it. Sure, it pissed some people off but they were gonna be pissed anyway.
Perhaps they sure knew where he stood and they respected it.
Or maybe not, but I sure can't remember him ever saying "well, I think this bill is unconstitutional, but that oath thing is so quaint, I'm gonna sign it anyway and let the SCOTUS fix it for me because I don't want to divide the country or make congress angry with me".
Humm, on second thought maybe I'm wrong about that wimp thing.
I have felt good about the Miers nomination ever since I heard she was one of us: a Christian Conservative.
"We voted Republicans in control of EVERYTHING. We shouldn't have to be listing hopeful reasons she'll be OK."
I also believe Miers will be a good justice. We need someone on the bench who understands business law and shares the core beliefs of a constructionist.
More than ever, the ACLU is going to try to destroy the moral fabric of our country. PC in the workplace ruined many businesses because of the costs for sensitivity programs and lawsuits.
Miers will be the justice who understands this best and working with the likes of a Scalia and Thomas give us the best legal interpretation.
This isn't only about abortion and gay marriage.
"We voted Republicans in control of EVERYTHING. We shouldn't have to be listing hopeful reasons she'll be OK."
You are right. We need more justices like Ginsburg on the court. Someone with a firm belief in something. /sarcasm
So, you're positive of that, huh?
Suspicious....
Right now, the court is six commies, two good guys and one unknown.
If she is a closet lib, the Republic is finished.
You are betting your own future and the future of everyone, on this unknown woman.
Gee. I do truly hope you are right. But I fear you are tragically wrong.
GWB gets to choose the nominee ~ he chose Harriet Miers ~ that's good enough for me.
Let The Good Time Roll! ;)
Beer is much better than Kool-Aid.
Yes. The standard has to be the same or we would be guilty of the same hypocrisy as the Democrats. However, you wouldn't see this type of criticism on the Democrat side. They tend to follow the same strategy as the Bushbots and agree in lockstep.
I hope so. But we should be able to do more than hope.
Conservative Senators should stand up and demand a lot more from this nominee than we've gotten, to demonstrate conclusively that she's a constitutionalist. If she can't demonstrate it conclusively, our conservative leaders should vote no. No more supporting the nominee because she's a Republcian President's nominee. That is what got us Stevens, Souter, O'Conor, Kennedy,adn others who have done real damage to Constitutional government.
And Congress needs to rein in the courts, but that is another matter.
Who was winning elections while all that was going on? The simple fact is that Dems were reacting and were off balance and looked hysterical and were exposed as being idiots during all those examples you cite. Do they ever score political points? Sure. But it hasn't been enough to derail the Republicans. Keeping them off balance by acting on principle is the best way to win political fights against Dems, because they are exposed as being a cult of hate and anti americanism. You can't appease aggressors. If we treated terrorists like you wanted to treat democrats, we'd lose the war.
What is a little unrealistic? Republicans control the Senate and the White House, where the decisions on nominees are made. In addition, just to show the government we truly want conservatism practiced (not just pandered to) we put Republicans in charge of the House of Reps, most governors mansions, and most state houses. There are more republican dog catchers in this country because Americans want conservative government.
What are you saying about balance of powers? Do you mean in the context of Locke or Montesquieu--because the Constitution fails to mention parties.
Actually, I'm expecting that Miers will be more like William Rehnquest than Antonin Scalia & Clarence Thomas, conservative with an element of libertarianism.
We're in the same boat, I find it disgusting as well. You'd of thought they didn't learn the lesson of the republican revolution and the contract with American. They have the a memory of the 90's like a stoner has of the 60's.
But the Senate has always been the weak sister for the republicans. Maybe it's because a congressman has a very focused district and doesn't have to run state wide but you'd think with a six year run Senators would have a bit more spine.
I'm sure I'm ignorant on How Things Really Work but were it me I'd grab 'em by the arm like LBJ would and say "hey, you want that bride to nowhere? Fine, I'll not veto it but I've got your pecker in my pocket and if you cross me you can forget about another dollar of pork AND I'll make sure you never get another dime from the RNC. And if I'm having a bad day I'll make sure you die in the primaries."
Politics ain't bean bag.
Precisely.
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.