Here's a book for you to hit, Miss Miers.
Posted on 10/15/2005 11:22:42 AM PDT by gobucks
By the time Senate hearings start in late October or early November, Miers will have completed a crash course in constitutional law.
White House officials and others who are familiar with her preparations said she'd paid little attention to the furor over her nomination while concentrating on the task at hand. They dismissed speculation that she might heed calls from some conservatives for her withdrawal.
Supporters expressed confidence that Miers' appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee will quiet critics who question her qualifications for the nation's highest court. But they acknowledged that any embarrassing mistakes by the nominee could doom her chances.
"One thing that characterizes Harriet is that she is extremely diligent. She's going to be prepared," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, a committee member. "The temptation will be great for some to try to match wits with her on constitutional issues. There's some danger that senators might demonstrate not her lack of knowledge, but their own."
snip
Although Miers is still in the early stages of her preparation, plans call for her to participate in question-and-answer sessions with top constitutional lawyers after she digests the briefing books. Those informal sessions will evolve into more formal "murder boards," relentless grillings that more closely resemble confirmation hearings.
Roberts wasn't videotaped during his practice sessions, but Miers might be. Some White House officials worry that her quiet, low-key approach may need to be pumped up for television.
Snip
"A good performance by her in the hearings will seal the deal," said Washington lawyer Christopher Bartolomucci, another participant in Roberts' preparation.
By all accounts, Miers is well aware of the stakes.
"She knows the hearings are an important part of the process," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said. "She'll be ready."
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
Let's quickly zap this one from the list:
That the only reasons to have confidence in her as potentially having the same Constitutional philosophies as Justices Scalia and Thomas is the word of President Bush? TRUE.
No, false and you know it is, because the comments below have been widely and frequently posted.
"She has been a forceful advocate of conservative legal principles and judicial restraint throughout her career," said Leonard Leo, executive vice president of the Federalist Society.
``We'd be talking about somebody's background,'' said Leonard Leo, now on leave as executive vice president of the Federalist Society, the conservative group whose headlined speakers have included Supreme Court justices and Bush administration official.
``There would be a moment of silence when she was clearly thinking about what was being said and then she would challenge it, asking, 'But what specifically in those opinions strongly suggests that this is someone who ascribes to judicial restraint?''' Leo said.
And here is another widely posted comment, by someone other than Bush, who has worked with Miers:
“Once again, President Bush showed exceptional judgment in naming Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court to replace Justice O’Connor,” said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ, who argues regularly before the high court and has a pro-life protest case at the high court this term. “At a time when the high court is facing some of the most critical issues of the day – including a number of cases dealing directly with abortion and life issues – the person who replaces Justice O’Connor is critical. Harriet Miers is an excellent choice with an extraordinary record of service in the legal community and is certain to approach her work on the high court with a firm commitment to follow the Constitution and the rule of law. I have been privileged to work with her in her capacity as White House counsel. She is bright, thoughtful, and a consummate professional and I enthusiastically endorse her nomination.”
Hi. Me again.
Having to parse another part of "that promise." This part has to with the timing of learning the degree of the nominee's commitment fo conservative jurisprudence.
You would have the promise fulfilled after the nominee was seated in a lifetime appointment. Most objective people would thing that the timing of knowing that quality of the nominee is before the confirmation hearings, and certainly before the appointment.
So, I still say that President Bush has failed to deliver on his campaign promise. Does that make me a liar?
Sexist indeed
I guess Buchanan failed to notice that Roberts was originally nominated to replace O'Connor. He was moved into the Rhenquist position only when the Chief Justice died.
What does that have to do with what I posted and this recent decision by Bush? If you guess nothing, you're right.
Didn't Rove explicitly tell Dobson that the appointee "must be a woman"?
LOL.
You mean like Thomas, O'Connor and Souter? "Expert" predictions of how a judicial nominee would rule from the bench have been consistently wrong. Thomas was a judge for less than a year before being nominated to the Supreme Court. You know what he did before that? Served eight years as the Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. If you had "known" his "commitment to conservative jurisprudence" before he was confirmed, you would have been unique. Many noted conservatives figured he would be another Souter.
"So, I still say that President Bush has failed to deliver on his campaign promise. Does that make me a liar?"
No. It makes you ignorant. But at least you are no longer saying "The President promised to appoint judges in the mold of Thomans and Scalia." Then you would be a liar.
So? How about a appointing a tax code lawyer,divorce lawyer, trial lawyer, estate lawyer. I'm not a lawyer, but maybe someone can tell me how many specialties are there?
IMO most is a senseless pyramid that privileges one group over another. It's supposed to be based on the constitution but is not, and that's a problem. We need someone who believes in what the founding fathers wrote into the constitution, and will stipulate it at the hearings.
I can't believe the stupid remarks coming from the WH. Then to coach the 1st lady on how to take the heat by repeating sexist allegations makes me sick. Talk about running for the high grass, yikes!!
Here's a book for you to hit, Miss Miers.
Considering the source, it's a badge of honor I wear with pride. Another layer of asbestos for my underwear. Flame away, I am immune to your insults.
Here's another book for you to hit, Harriet.
Check the yellow pages under Attorney. That'll get you the common ones. Then there is Admiralty/Maritime, and a few other speciaties. And within many of the specialties, there will be transactional, litigation and appellate specialties. All in all, a very diverse field.
How do we know what Rove told Dobson, and what does that have to do with anything? Perhaps they noticed that women make up 50% of the population and yet there was only one woman on the USSC. If it was "affirmative action" then Roberts would have been a woman and the next 3 would be women. Or would you prefer to alienate 50% of the population?
Thank you for sanity!
I am sick of people calling the critics names.
There is simply no way I will support this nomination, end of story. Many conservatives feel the same way.
Supporters want us to wait until the hearings. Wow! That will be big help. What did we learn about Ginsberg at her hearings?
Names?
I know JRB, Clement, and Jones.
Tell me about it. She has always been a nicey nice person that gets along with anyone. Dallas City Council, Liber Voters Group, Al Gore, Bush, Dingy Harry etc....
1. Prof. Mary Ann Glendon
2. Judge Janice Rodgers-Brown
3. Judge Diane Sykes
4. Judge Karen Williams
5. Judge Edith Jones
Even then I would not, nor do I care to now use such a harsh term as it is not necessary. The term is your expression.
If you will read my post you will see where Miers is concerned I said "if".
The only place you will see that I indicated any knowledge of my own that President Bush was untruthful was that he did not keep his campaign promise to move our embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
At the end of his first term it was still where it was under Bill Clinton. That is a fact.
Bush received international attention during the presidential campaign when he told a conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee that one of the first acts of his presidency would be to move the embassy, as mandated by Congress.
"As soon as I take office, I will begin the process of moving the United States ambassador to the city Israel has chosen as its capital," Bush said in the speech. Campaign officials later clarified that the embassy, not just the ambassador, would be moved." [May,2000].
Bush Again Delays Move Of US Embassy to Jerusalem
By Julie Stahl CNSNews.com Jerusalem Bureau Chief June 16, 2004
Jerusalem (CNSNews.com) - Invoking a national security clause, President Bush has suspended the 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Act and delayed for another six months the move of the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
Congress overwhelmingly approved the Jerusalem Embassy Act in 1995, mandating that the U.S. Embassy be moved to Jerusalem by May 1999.
As for Meirs neither you or I know how she turn out because we have nothing to go on except " just trust me" which is the problem and one that wasn't necessary at this time.
You owe me no apology. I, as others here, have made suggestions that this or the other was fact when it was pointed out that it was not.
The new addition [castle doctrine] to the Florida gun laws come to mind. In that discussion I stated something to the effect that tourists need not worry as it only pertained to ones home or business.
I took what I had heard on a Fox News discussion to be fact, and it was not. I should have known better.
Like you, I ate crow. Tastes terrible and I hope to not eat it in the future. ;)
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.