Posted on 10/04/2005 5:35:29 AM PDT by shortstop
Actually, we do know where she stands.
Harriet Miers.
The president’s pick for the Supreme Court. The Texas nobody.
She has a record and it tells us all we need to know about her.
During the Reagan Revolution, she was a Democrat. Until the George W. Bush star began to rise, she donated to Democratic politicians – like Al Gore and Lloyd Bentsen. She has donated directly to the Democratic National Committee. Her Republican contributions did not begin until George W. Bush became her political patron.
In a career that has spanned an era in which individual liberty has been repeatedly attacked by big government, and the judiciary has grown imbalanced and tyrannical, she hasn’t written or said a word in opposition or protest. Nor has she been any sort of pioneer for women’s rights – having spent the bulk of her legal career with a woman already sitting on the Supreme Court.
If she wasn’t the president’s friend, no one would know her name. She had a very nice legal career in Dallas, but is in no way an attorney, judge, scholar or thinker of national stature.
Further, she was specifically recommended for this position by Harry Reid, the outspoken and liberal leader of Senate Democrats.
Finally, the most telling piece of her record is the pattern of policy initiatives to come out of the White House during her tenure as the president’s top lawyer. During her year, the Bush Administration has emphasized big government at the expense of the Constitution. The recent suggestion by the president – which he undoubtedly developed with his legal counsel – that the federal government take over disaster response from the states, and put the military in charge, spits in the face of the Tenth Amendment.
And Harriet Miers signed off on it.
That tells us all we need to know about her.
She says she supports what the framers of the Constitution wanted, but as the president’s top lawyer she didn’t stop him from going against the clear intent of those same framers.
She’s a George W. Bush lackey, and that’s not good enough. We don't trust him that much anymore. And it is an incredible act of ingratitude, gall and arrogance for George W. Bush not to recognize that and take a different course.
George W. Bush is president today because he promised American conservatives that he would appoint conservatives to the Supreme Court. With a half century of uninterrupted liberal dominance, conservatives feel that the Supreme Court has been hijacked and that it has become a political arm of government, instead of a strict defender of the Constitution.
George W. Bush said he’d change that.
And history was ripe to let him.
With the Supreme Court having done a great deal of its most divisive business with 5-4 votes, and with Republican-appointed Sandra Day O’Connor being the swing vote in 75 percent of those cases, and that most typically on the liberal side, the seat George W. Bush has promised to Harriet Miers is the seat that makes all the difference.
It was the entire reason he was elected.
Conservatives wanted sanity in the courts. They elected him to put it there.
And yesterday he kicked them in the teeth.
A great many true legal scholars and true conservatives were passed over for a cipher. People whose thoughts were known, people who had not hidden away all their lives, were passed over so a seat on the Supreme Court could be given out to a close friend. The swing vote was left to twist in the wind.
It was an act of cowardice and treachery.
Because it was George W. Bush who told conservatives he would appoint “another Thomas or Scalia” if they re-elected him. And they did. The difference in his second election was the “values vote,” and that came from conservatives worried about the courts.
And this is how he has repaid them.
The lame duck has become chicken little.
Either not truly committed to the conservative cause, or afraid to make a stand against Democrats in the Senate, George W. Bush punted on the single biggest decision of his presidency.
And then he sent Dick Cheney out to promise that in 10 years we’d all be glad Harriet Miers was on the court.
What a disappointment and betrayal.
Instead of using his second term to courageously pursue the agenda he preached, the son has become the father and we’re faced with another not-quite-Republican President Bush. After all the money conservatives gave, after all the votes, after all the effort, after all the promises, he took the easy way out and left his supporters in the dust.
Conservatives gave the Republicans the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives. No other group has been as faithful to the GOP or as essential to its success. And this is how they are repaid.
The one thing they wanted is the thing they will not get.
We do know where she stands.
Right next to George W. Bush.
And given his conduct of the last two or three years, that’s reason enough for conservatives to oppose her.
I think Bob Loonsberry articles are more appropriate for the blog section...preferably the "third rate blogs" section.
Very well said.
After reading the rantings and diatribes of these so-called "conservatives" on this site, it's clear that the DU doesn't have a monopoly on crying and whining. Some people were trashing her purely because of her age and marital status. As far as I am concerned a lot of these people are no better than klansmen who spew personal attacks instead of using any sort of intelligent reasoning.
My God, these people act like they are still in their terrible twos! My prayer is that most of them are just DUers in disguise trying to trash this woman.
In 1992, Miller endorsed then-Gov. Bill Clinton of Arkansas for U.S. President. That year, Miller over keynoted the Democratic National Convention at Madison Square Garden in New York City. In two oft-recalled lines, Miller said that then-U.S. Pres. George H.W. Bush "just doesn't get it", and of Dan Quayle, "Not all of us can be born rich, handsome, and lucky, and that's why we have a Democratic Party."
The DNC concubines* are having a hay day reporting all the attacks by the right wing on Miers.
*(i.e., the liberal media)I was disappointed at first that someone more notoriously right-leaning wasn't nominated by Bush. But Bush knows more than I do.
Is that good enough for you?
I would expect some compromise, but this is just to far for me. I can not nor will not support someone for such an important post I feel is so blatantly unqualified.
You people need to get a grip. Take a deep breath and calm down. The hysterics over Bush nominating Harriet Miers has reached a fever pitch. Consider for a moment:
No one can predict with CERTAINTY the kind of justice Miers or any nominee will be, but she is our President's choice. I know him to be a man of faith and he has known Harriet Miers for many years and knows her VERY well. He knows her much better than any of the other potential nominees and for that, we should probably be grateful, given the fact that many nominees have been a disappointment once on the court.
In the end, EVERY pick comes down to trust and with so much at stake, I'm sure Bush is confident in her philosophy, ability and loyalty. This evening, after hearing Focus on the Family's Dr. James Dobson confirm his support for Harriet Miers, it made my heart sing. Dobson has gotten confirmation that Miers is indeed a conservative AND an evangelical Christian.
Bush HAD to have considered the affect this pick will have on the country, thus his legacy. I would imagine the sting of his father's fatal Souter appointment has made a HUGE impression on him.
I trust that Bush learned from the sins of his father and has selected someone he KNOWS will be loyal to the Constitution since that's what he's promised us all along.
Bush has to realize the fate of our country, his legacy and the GOP's future will essentially lie in Harriet Miers hands. If HE'S comfortable with that, then I think the rest of us should at least give him the benefit of the doubt and keep our powder dry. It is HIS choice to make and he made it.
Next question!
Does typing in all caps make it more true? If so I will need to remember that, it will come in useful when I am short on facts.
The best candidate is one who can be confirmed without wasting all the political capital required for the rest of Bushes term and who will follow the Constitution.
BUMP!
Um, howsabout critiquing his argument, rather than himself personally? I mean, you can always explain how the fact that we know nothing about the woman is really part of Bush's cunning plan, that she's really a strict constructionist in the spirit of Jefferson, and that you know it because you spoke with Jefferson through a medium...
I have a feeling the first two letters of your handle got there by mistake.
I can never support her.
I'm supporting Bush and her. I'm trying to keep the faith, but I'm a breath away from being where you are...
and the brain dead Bush-Bots will be here in droves to defend the indefensible.
Everytime one of them opens their ignorant mouth it proves to me that the man is not what Conservatives thought they were getting.
That's ok koolaid drinkers. You're party is going to take a severe whipping at the ballot box, because a great many of those who did vote for and support this President are not going to be there on Election day. You can thank both him and your own fat mouths for that.
OR. . .'you teach best; what you most need(ed) to learn'; nothing like an ex-smoker to lead one away from tobacco temptations/etc. . .
And just perhaps; Harriet Miers will be to the Democrats; what Souter was to the Repubs. . .an unexpected disappointment.
Don't worry, you're not fooling anyone...except yourself.
(/sarcasm)
Anything about the substantive points raised by the poster?
Cheers!
you know, I am almost (ALMOST) glad he nominated her. The meltdowns I am seeing are classic.
its funny.
One thing that doesn't bother me is that she is not a judge. There is nothing in the Constitution demanding that. The document itself is straightforward enough for the 'farmers and ranchers' whom Ginsberg despises to understand it.
As such, I'd like to see an economist and a business person on the Supreme Court.
What bothers me is her spotty record as an attorney wrt conservative causes.
I wish I could keep the faith, GW is likable. And there are thing he has done that are laudable. But as of late it has been disappointing to say the least. I would have hoped he would have picked a more experienced conservative jurist. One with a clear history for us to look at instead we get the good ol' boy (ok girl in this case) network.
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.