Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

THE LAST LAUGH (Why Miers will be a very good justice)
Vanity | 11 October 05 | Lancey Howard

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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: harrietthemere; havesomekoolaid; miers; rationalization; smellslikedefeat
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-123 next last
Comments are, of course, welcome. Expected even! Thank you.
1 posted on 10/10/2005 10:35:50 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Checkers; dirtboy; dc-zoo

(( ping ))


2 posted on 10/10/2005 10:37:52 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

We voted Republicans in control of EVERYTHING. We shouldn't have to be listing hopeful reasons she'll be OK.


3 posted on 10/10/2005 10:39:28 PM PDT by DC Bound (Bono? Santorum? How did Rove do that?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
Image hosted by Photobucket.com Image hosted by Photobucket.com Image hosted by Photobucket.com
4 posted on 10/10/2005 10:40:12 PM PDT by pcottraux (It's pronounced "P. Coe-troe.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hendrix; VRWC For Truth; Clintonfatigued

(( ping ))


5 posted on 10/10/2005 10:40:12 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
You assume she will even know which way on any given question is a principled conservative position. No, she will vote with Scalia a few dozen times, then hear other opinions from squishes in the middle on the court, and try to split the differences between them. Then she will get a few gushing articles in the NYT and discover "strange new respect". It takes intellectual steel to stand up to compromising sophists year after year and issue after issue, with every blandishment of fame held out the other way, and near universal scorn the wage of virtue. There is no evidence this woman can think her way out of a paper bag, let alone that her mind is made of such steel.
6 posted on 10/10/2005 10:41:24 PM PDT by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
So we are to support a consumate mediocrity to the Supreme Court because she owes Bush her place in history?

Is she going to call Bush before each vote and find out how he would rule?

Judging by Bush's positions on federalism, affirmative action, the bankruptcy reform act, I wouldn't want a Bush clone on the Court.

7 posted on 10/10/2005 10:41:40 PM PDT by bigeasy_70118
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
Hoping she may just possibly turn out OK wasn't the fundraising campaign strategy this time last year, as I recall.

"Vote for me, and I'll nominate a crony you've never heard of, because I'm a-skeered of Jim Jeffords and Olympia Snowe!"

Nope. Don't recall that.

8 posted on 10/10/2005 10:42:00 PM PDT by Hank Rearden (Never allow anyone who could only get a government job attempt to tell you how to run your life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
OK, here's my comment. You have laid out precisely the reasons that I am willing to support her nomination, because I trust President Bush to know what he is doing, and he knows this nominee! I think we'll find out that President Bush has indeed been misunderestimated again.

You have also opened yourself up for a lot of flak, but I'm sure you already knew that! ;p

9 posted on 10/10/2005 10:42:13 PM PDT by Theresawithanh (I support President Bush, and I support our troops!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paradox; Cicero; blackie

(( ping ))


10 posted on 10/10/2005 10:42:13 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Hank Rearden

Dude, you are preaching to the choir, man.


11 posted on 10/10/2005 10:43:29 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
I wonder if the 2000 and 2004 elections would have come out different, if GWB had said, regarding SCOTUS nominations, "If I am elected, I will nominate competent people from my circle of associates to fill SCOTUS. THey will not legislate from the bench, but will interpret the Constitution as the framers indended."

Because the answer to that illuminates whether or not he can be trusted.

12 posted on 10/10/2005 10:43:49 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mo1; Howlin

(( ping ))


13 posted on 10/10/2005 10:44:42 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: pcottraux

LOL!


14 posted on 10/10/2005 10:45:17 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite ( Mike Pence for President!!! http://acuf.org/issues/issue34/050415pol.asp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple; Pukin Dog

I would be interested in your thoughts on this if you have the time.
Thanks.


15 posted on 10/10/2005 10:45:44 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard; DC Bound

I HOPE you're right...but I didn't want to HOPE. I wanted a court full of Scalias and Thomases.


16 posted on 10/10/2005 10:47:40 PM PDT by RockinRight (I am beginning to think conservatism is buried somewhere under New Orleans mud...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pcottraux

"What? Bush did something today? Well, whatever it is, I don't like it."

A classic. Thanks.


17 posted on 10/10/2005 10:48:41 PM PDT by Irish Rose (Will work for chocolate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
Politics has often been compared to sausage-making.

Purists like Ralph Nader don't like sausage BECAUSE of what's in it; I like sausage DESPITE what's in it.

The RINOs in the Senate make this appointment necessary. I don't think anyone is ecstatic about this choice, not even the ones here condemned as BushBots.

Don't like it? Hope for no more openings before next year's elections and campaign for more trustworthy Senate candidates - anything less is useless mewling.

http://www.modernvertebrate.com/elections/2006-national/
18 posted on 10/10/2005 10:51:23 PM PDT by decal (Mother Nature and Real Life are conservatives; the Progs have never figured this out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigeasy_70118
So we are to support a consumate mediocrity to the Supreme Court because she owes Bush her place in history?

Nope. I thought I was clear that this vanity is about my being done spitting venom about what a disastrous nomination this was and trying to determine what kind of justice Miers will turn out to be in the end.

You know - - it's done, so deal with it. That kind of thing.
Reality.

19 posted on 10/10/2005 10:52:02 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Theresawithanh
I trust President Bush to know what he is doing, and he knows this nominee!

Yeah, sure. Koolaid, yum.

Bush "knew" Bernard Kerik when he nominated him to be head of Homeland Security last year, remember?

How long did that one last before blowing up in his face - a week?

Trusting politicians is for the feeble-minded and Russians. Let's see some proof she's more than his crony and shoe-shine girl.

20 posted on 10/10/2005 10:52:14 PM PDT by Hank Rearden (Never allow anyone who could only get a government job attempt to tell you how to run your life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-123 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson