Replies

You know, I'm getting REALLY tired of reading the phony quote that the President "promised he would nominate judges like Thomas and Scalia". Since each of you have made similar comments tonight, I challenge any one of you to find when the President said that. Let me help you out...Al Gore actually said what you say Bush said, so don't use that as your reference. What the President DID promise is that he would nominate conservative judges that will not legislate from the bench. Everyone who actually knows Meirs says she will be just that kind of judge. You are accusing Bush of breaking a promise he never made, and assuming he is not keeping the promise he did make. I'm calling your bluff...either point out when he said what you claim he said, or stop repeating a lie.

Bush said: "The voters will know I’ll put competent judges on the bench, people who will strictly interpret the Constitution and will not use the bench to write social policy. I believe in strict constructionists."

How many of them are on the SCOTUS now? I count Scalia and Thomas. Wrong?

The only thing the anti-Miers crowd has succeeded at is playing the roll of the "useful idiots".

They have lured the left into believing she is a safe choice and lowered the expectations of Miers at the hearings.

Anything she does better than the low expectations that have been created about her will boost her stock and catapult her through the hearing and into the Supreme Court as the newest Justice.

I believe she is a conservative, and capable of the position she was selected to hold, but I will wait for the hearings to confirm my opinion.

President Bush will not back down, anyone who knows him knows that. If Miers is nominated, her opinions will be public knowledge by the time the next Justice steps down. By that time, if she has demonstrated a conservative view of the Constitution, then the left will be in full panic mode making the debate over Miers look like a walk in the park.

This fight over Miers is not the big fight everyone thinks it is.

From

http://www.professorbainbridge.com/2005/10/hewitt_and_mirg.html

" GOV. BUSH: The most primary issue--the most primary issue is will they strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States?

MR. RUSSERT: Will your judges and judge appointments to the Supreme Court be similar to Scalia in their temperament and judicial outlook?

GOV. BUSH: Well, I don't think you're going to find many people to be actually similar to him. He's an unusual man. He's an intellect. The reason I like him so much is I got to know him here in Austin when he came down. He's witty, he's interesting, he's firm. There's a lot of reasons why I like Judge Scalia. And I like a lot of the other judges as well. I mean, it's kind of a harsh question to ask because it now pits me--some of whom are friends of mine. I mean, it's--and so, in all due respect, Judge Thomas.

Arguably, Bush didn't explicitly promise to appoint judges in the Scalia/Thomas mold, although I think that he certainly intended people like me (and Hugh and Paul, for that matter) to draw that inference. BUT: Contrary to what Hugh claims, there is no doubt in my mind that Bush expressly stated an intent to apply a litmus test - namely whether or not the nominee was committed to what Hugh calls a "committed to a particular theory"; namely, strict construction."

Close enough.

Is Harriet Miers a strict constructionist who will not rule from the bench? I don't see any evidence of that in her work or record. Sorry, but the more I look at this business, the more I conclude that the whole business was a sorry mistake, and that the best thing for Bush, Miers, and the country would be for her to drop out.