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.
"Pray for another vacancy before the next election. I'd far rather have moderate conservatives than moderate liberals like O'Connor."
I'd like to think, after the obvious disappointment in the base over this, that he would try to make up for it next time and give us the conservative we want.
But, as Lonsberry says, I (for one) don't trust him that much anymore, and would no longer be surprised if he rang up Uncle Teddy and asked him who he'd be comfortable with.
There is no 55 seat majority. Get real. President Bush can't live in la la land, like the one who you said you are a breath away from being like.
Thank You!
Bob Who?
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.
Um, howsabout I don't waste my time with you!
Such hate and vitriol. IMO, such are beneath us all.
Precisely.
The McCain 7 torpedoed Frist's attempt to change the filibuster precisely so they could control judgeships.
They will not tolerate a hardline conservative. They've said as much.
The question becomes: would you rather pout and have no pie, or would you rather buck up and settle for a smaller piece than you'd hoped for?
Let's move the court a little more to the right each time. We can call it fabian conservatism.
Not a but harsh...but embarrassingly elitist. There are an awfully lot brilliant "nobodies" in this world...and a lot of idiot "somebodies." So I don't buy that line of reasoning. Remember, the there was a huge number that said Thomas was not qualified.
Yesterday, I felt like my legs had been kicked out from under me. I was stunned and angry. Then Reid came out and threw gasoline on the conservative fire and I had to ask myself...why, on the face of the earth, would he do that knowing full well it might hurt him with his own uberliberal base?
From the reaction of the press, and the reaction of Reid...I am beginning to believe they knew that peeling of "uberconservatives" was the only way to torpedo a conservative nominee.
The more I watch, the more I read...the more I am beginning to see something a foot. Just wait. This is one of those things where it was either the worst decision President Bush has ever made...or the most brilliant.
I am not sure which, yet. But, I am sure as heck not going to let a little punk like Reid, and the idiots at the site that shall remain nameless out-strategerize me. So I am holding my fire...until I know what I am firing at.
Miers helped fund the early hit ads on Dukakis. Gore is the one who opened up the can of Willie Horton whup ass on Dukakis. Bush followed up after the Dem convention.
What is wrong with her? She's been a successful attorney for many years, led her state bar, and has been counsel to the President of the United States. She is likely pro-life and is a strict constructionist. I believe she is qualified and a good candidate. Not flashy. But I believe she is qualified.
Lonsberry is a radio host in Salt Lake City. Very conservative kind of guy.
I'm sorry to say, but none of us really believes this is a Scalia Thomas mold as we were promised while we were walking precincts for Bush/Cheney.
I believe there are literally hundreds of more qualified and abler conservative jurist out there that would serrve better. I want to see some one with more of a track record on big jobs.
No she doesn't. She was on a Texas Bar committee where she signed a memo to it's members for "debate".
You knew that but still spread that lie.
I guess you didnt read the article. It clearly states WHY she is a bad choice and I know you dont know who Lonsberry is. He is a radio show host in Salt Lake City and he is FAR from being anything liberal. Dont throw the word because isnt sucking up to GW.
The less notoriety, the better. I like a modest person.
Again, how do you know what I know? The NRO did not portray it as you suggest.
That's kinda how I feel about it this morning. I was furious yesterday when I first heard the news, but after spending some time trying to learn more about Ms Miers I feel somewhat more hopeful today.
I found this (below) on the website of her home church in Dallas where she attended and taught Sunday school before coming to Washington with Bush, If this statement of belief reflects her own personal beliefs I am willing to wait and see what else turns up before I make any more asinine statements such as the 2 or 3 that I posted yesterday morning.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What We Believe at VVCC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our beliefs are not innovative. Anyone familiar with historical Christian teaching will find these statements fall well within the boundaries of evangelical theology. (Evangelical means theology derived from the evangel , or the Gospel. In other words, it's biblical theology rather than speculative theology or theology rooted in tradition.)
We try not to be dogmatic about matters on which believers hold divergent views. Our core beliefs are centered in Christ and His message as supported by Scripture. More obscure doctrine, as well as controversial issues about which the Bible is silent, are left to believers to sort out on their own. On these issues we take no official/dogmatic position. What follows is a summary of what we believe.
We believe the Bible to be the only infallible, inspired, authoritative Word of God. As such it is our final authority for all matters of faith and Christian practice.( 2 Timothy 3:14-16 )
We believe that there is one God eternally existing in three persons- Father, Son and Holy Spirit. He is the Creator of all things. ( Genesis 1:1; John 1:1; Matthew 3:16-17; 2 Corinthians 13:14)
We believe in Jesus Christ , God in human flesh, who came to this world to die for our sins and who was bodily raised from the dead. ( 1 Corinthians 15:1-8 )
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of the Living God, who draws people to Christ and who lives in every person who has received Christ. ( John 16:8-9; Acts 2:38; Ephesians 1:13-14)
We believe that man, created by God, willfully sinned and as a result is lost and without hope apart from receiving Jesus Christ. ( Romans 3:23;6:23; Acts 4:12)
We believe that salvation -forgiveness of sins -is available only by the grace of God through the blood of Jesus Christ. This free gift of forgiveness is offered to all who receive Christ as Lord and Savior. ( Ephesians 2:8-9; Colossians 2:6; John 3:16)
We believe the Bible clearly teaches the pattern to receive Christ is to believe in Jesus as God's Son and Savior of the world, repent of personal sin, confess Christ publicly, and be baptized. ( Romans 10:9; Acts 2: 36-38; Mark 16:16 )
We believe that full immersion under water is the prescribed mode of baptism as indicated by Jesus' own example and command, and best depicts our union in His death, burial, and resurrection. ( Mark 1:9-10; Matthew 28:19; Romans 6:4 )
We believe that the Church is the body and bride of Christ on earth, founded on the day of Pentecost, consisting of all Christians everywhere. ( Matthew 16:13-18 )
We believe that death seals the eternity of each person ( Hebrews 9:27 ). Those who are forgiven will spend eternity with God in heaven, those not forgiven will be eternally separated from God in hell .( John 5:28-29; Daniel 12:2; 2 Corinthians 4:14; Acts 17:31)
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.