Fellow conservatives turn on Bush

The other day I wrote that Bush threw us a curve ball by nominating Harriet Miers to the high court. I think I was wrong, as Bush's curve ball was actually a boomerang that is headed straight back at his skull. Reaction to Miers has been swift and unkind, but It seems that most of it is coming from the right instead of the left.

Two days ago, Rush grilled VP Cheney about the nomination (I didn't hear the whole thing, but the big man was not happy) and George Will's piece on townhall.com was scathing to say the least. Although everyone seems to like Miers, there are fewer people who believe that she has the experience or judicial mind to sit on the big court.

Since nominating Harriet Miers to the high court, more criticism about Miers has come from the Republicans than the Dem's. Harriet Miers is well respected in Washington, but does she possess the qualifications and experience to be a Supreme Court Justice?

that's not the question at all. With the Republicans currently holding both Houses of Congress, why didn't Bush nominate a heavyweight conservative like Scalia. Bush wimped out, did not want to provoke Sen. Kennedy or Chucky Schumer.

a "compassionate conservative" = liberal in disguise.

...but does she possess the qualifications and experience to be a Supreme Court Justice?

More to the point, does she possess better qualifications than anyone else? Maybe so, but it needs showing.

Since the Supreme Court has a well documented history of being manned (for lack of a better term) by non-jurists, I fail to understand why one now has to be a judge to be qualified in knowing the law. It is not an exclusive club to know the law.

I am not defending the pick because obviously there are well-known jurists that could have been chosen, but one has to remember the people that the Republicans are whining over were placed on federal benches and are more effective where they are than if they were nominated for the Supreme Court. These jurist, or Justices will hear more cases around the so-called social issues than will ever get to the Supreme Court.

Harriet Miers doesn't need to be a current judge to know the law. Her only qualification (AFAIK and am concerned) is whether she will apply the constitution to the case before her.

She has come down for the individual when it comes to the right to bear arms saying that that right should not be comprimised under the guise of crime reduction. That is a HUGE statement and a firm belief in the Bill of Rights.

Am I the only one who thinks this way?

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.