Conservative website launches campaign against Miers nomination

For decades, the secular Left has used the Supreme Court as a means to bypass our constitutional legislative process and implement a radical left-wing agenda. Liberal special interest groups has consistently pushed for the nomination of justices who will uphold their radical positions, rather than justices who will decide whether those positions are truly justifiable under existing Constitutional law. Conservatives have fought back for years to return the Court to its rightful role as an interpreter of the Constitution (i.e. a strict constructionist body). We have finally arrived at a moment in history where this goal could now be achieved.

During his presidential election bids in 2000 and 2004, George W. Bush made a promise to the American people. He promised to appoint judges who were both conservative and believers in a strict interpretation of the Constitution. He committed to appoint Supreme Court justices in the mold of Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Millions of Americans responded by electing, then reelecting George Bush as our president. For many, these elections were all about the president's judicial nominations. Americans had witnessed how judicial tyranny was allowing unaccoutable judges to legislative from the bench, forcing a radical Left-wing agenda on our nation. People were saying "enough is enough" and voted for George Bush in the hopes he would restore the integrity of our federal courts.

So far, President Bush has largely delivered on his promise. He has appointed many strong judges to lower federal courts. However, many leading conservatives are deeply troubled by the president's nomination of Harriet Miers as the next associate justice to the Supreme Court (read conservative commentary). Most conservatives had expected the president to nominate an intellectual powerhouse, with impeccable credentials, who would be capable of steering the Court to the right. So why did President Bush choose Harriet Miers, his personal attorney, for this nomination?

Some have suggested the president is relying upon a "stealth candidate" strategy -- nominating people with little or no paper trail -- in order to more easily obtain a Senate confirmation. The irony of this argument is that Republicans have a clear majority in the Senate and could likely confirm almost any qualified candidate the president would put forward. Also consider the fact that past 'stealth candidates', such as Anthony Kennedy and David Souter, have been a huge disappointment for conservatives. Like Harriet Miers, Kennedy and Souter were both considered to be solid conservatives at the time of their nomination, but both lacked a sufficient paper trail as solid proof.

Since Harriet Miers has no documented track record, President Bush has essentially said "trust me" to the American people. During his presidential acceptance speech in 1980, Ronald Reagan had this to say about "trust me" government. "'Trust me' government asks that we concentrate our hopes and dreams on one man; that we trust him to do what's best for us. My view of government places trust not in one person or one party, but in those values that transcend persons and parties." Ronald Reagan also used a phrase in his dealings with Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev: "Trust, but verify". This same standard should be applied to President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

Harriet Miers might be a fine attorney, a faithful Christian and a trusted advisor to the president. But there is nothing in her background that suggests she is prepared to handle the formidable responsibilities of a being a Supreme Court justice. Randy Barnett of the Wall Street Journal said it well when he recently wrote, "Nothing in Harriet Miers' professional background called upon her to develop considered views on the extent of congressional powers, the separation of powers, the role of judicial precedent, the importance of states in the federal system, or the need for judges to protect both the enumerated and unenumerated rights retained by the people."

President Bush claims Harriet Miers was the most qualified person for the job. But where's the evidence that suggests she even begins to rise to the level of qualifications of candidates such as Judges Edith Jones, Janice Rogers Brown, or Priscilla Owen? Most of Ms. Miers' career has been spent on business issues, not constitutional matters. It's hard to imagine that someone who has been largely silent her entire life on the issues that are most important to conservatives will now suddenly emerge as an outspoken advocate for these issues on the Supreme Court. It's certainly possible that Ms. Miers might eventually prove to be a justice in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. But the odds are against it.

Conservatives should be highly suspect of a candidate who was recommended to the president by Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid. In addition, the Administration has tried to characterize conservative dissenters to the Harriet Miers nomination as elitist, sexist and disloyal. It certainly is not sexist or elitist to want our best and brightest on the High Court. The very fact that the Administration is resorting to these sorts of tactics only bolsters the case that Harriet Miers fails to fulfill the president's promise.

The president has a large stable of highly qualified conservative candidates from which to choose. Unlike Harriet Miers, most of these candidates have proven track records. The president has a solid Republican majority in the Senate. Why then would he resort to playing the 'stealth candidate' game by nominating Harriet Miers? Was she selected simply because she has been a longtime faithful servant to President Bush? Or could it be that Harriet Miers was selected just to fill a quota? Is it possible that the president does not feel up-to-the-task of doing battle with liberal Senators who are certain to fight a bona fide conservative candidate? Or worse, are Republican politicians simply reluctant to engage in a public debate over the conservative principles for which they supposedly stand?

Whatever the reason, now is not the time for comprise. Our nation is at a crossroads. The unyielding efforts of the secular Left have driven us towards a society that is steadily rejecting the laws of God. Babies are being aborted for convenience. Same-sex relationships are being sanctioned. Christian symbols are being systematically removed from public places. Private property is being confiscated by the government. And euthanasia is being used to kill the sick and the elderly. Our Founding Fathers who established America on Biblical principles. They would be distraught to witness what has become of their country. President Bush has a unique opportunity to change the direction of the Supreme Court for the next 20 to 30 years. Please encourage the president to stand strong and protect the future of our families and our nation. Ask the president to withdraw his nomination of Harriet Miers and nominate a candidate that fulfills his promise to the American people.

1. Sign the petition: ask President Bush to keep his promise to the American people by withdrawing the Harriet Miers nomination.

2. Contact your US Senators: ask them to withhold their confirmation of Harriet Miers.

LINK: http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/alert/?alertid=8085916&content_dir=ua_congressorg&mailid=custom

3. Send a message to Harriet Miers: the first mistake Harriet Miers made was to accept this nomination. Her second mistake has been not to withdraw. Send a message to Harriet Miers asking her to do the right thing and withdraw her name from consideration.

Done.

Perhaps the RNC will recognize the email address I used as it was the one I removed from their mailing list the morning she was announced and I got the perpostous spam that we rally around the President's choice.

Babies are being aborted for convenience. Same-sex relationships are being sanctioned. Christian symbols are being systematically removed from public places. Private property is being confiscated by the government. And euthanasia is being used to kill the sick and the elderly.

All issues which I have ZERO doubt Miers would be on the right side of. ZERO DOUBT!

President Bush has a unique opportunity to change the direction of the Supreme Court for the next 20 to 30 years.

But he will not be able to because certain well meaning but ignorant groups/people are fighting him.

nominate a candidate that fulfills his promise to the American people.

Lying sack of c***! That's what he did.

"All issues which I have ZERO doubt Miers would be on the right side of. ZERO DOUBT!"
____________________________________

Why?

I would love to believe I am wrong in thinking this nominee is a mistake.

Because of your everyday litany of rolling anti-Miers posts, you must realize that if by some remote chance Miers is not confirmed, many will hold you and the NRO personally responsible.

She may well be dubbed as the Anti-roe candidate that was burned at the stake based on pure speculation.

Ol'Sarky's "evil" one.

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.