What Was Bush Thinking? - Conservatives snubbed by the Miers nomination…

theOneRepublic Journal ^ | 10/21/05 | Ryan Walsh

[ParsifalCA]

With the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court has come great confusion and angst among conservatives.

What was Bush thinking? Circumstances have endowed him with a rare opportunity to reshape the jurisprudential mold of the Supreme Court for decades, but he has squandered it in the name of cronyism. With Roberts, we got one of the best, most intelligent appellate lawyers in the country. With Miers, we got the former head of the Texas Lottery Commission.

In effect, the President has snubbed the conservative legal movement, which has spent decades raising crops of undoubtedly well-qualified and brilliant jurists. True, getting a Judge McConnell or a Judge Brown confirmed would be an unquestionably more difficult undertaking. But Bush has never cowered in the face of a political challenge before, why would he crack now? Conservatives were armed and ready for the judicial slugfest of the century, but they were sorely disappointed.

Even worse, Miers puts the “stealth” in “stealth nominee.” Her accomplishments are few and unimpressive, and her jurisprudence is unknown. Bush said he would nominate a jurist in the mold of a Scalia or a Thomas, but can his supporters take that guarantee to the bank? Recent history suggests not. The Reagan administration assured conservatives that both Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy were dyed-in-the-wool strict constructionists, and George H.W. Bush is still kicking himself over David Souter.

So why would Bush lay down and pick someone like Miers?...[more]

[Paladin2]

IWWT.

[rawhide]

There is too much of the unknown about Meirs for me to support her with any enthusiasm. And what I do know about her judicial views from her earlier years scares me greatly that she will indeed be another Souter shame added to the bench. Sure I trust Bush, just like I trusted his dad, but look what we got from his dad--Souter? So tell me why I should not be concerned?

[PeoplesRep_of_LA]

So why would Bush lay down and pick someone like Miers?

Cronism.

That and his trusts his ability to "look into someone's heart" more then the opinions of many far more knowledgable about the topic of Supreme Court nominations and the concept of interpretting law then he is about either.

[GarySpFc]

Nonsense! We still don't know how Roberts will vote, when push comes to shove 5 and 10 years down the line.

In Miers, Bush, chose a conservative woman he knows and trusts, and believes will vote like Scalia and Thomas. Simply because a few disgruntled conservatives disagree does not take away his right to make his decision.

[Hugin]

So why would Bush lay down and pick someone like Miers?

Sometimes the simplest answer is the truth. I think since Bush knows her better than he does anyone else, she was the one he trusted most to live up to his promise and leave a legacy of judges that will follow the law and not make it up to serve an agenda.

She wouldn't have been my choice either. But she deserves a fair hearing and an up or down vote. Unless she is found to be corrupt or incompetent, she should be confirmed. I think she will be. I don't see how Pub senators who voted for Ginsberg and Breyer can now vote agaisnt Miers.

[McGavin999]

LOL! I'm a conservative, have been one for years, supporting both with my wallet and my time. I don't feel in the least bit snubbed.

[Colonial Warrior]

Old Cowboy wisdom may be appropriate here:

If lawyers are disbarred and clergymen are defrocked, shouldn't it follow that cowboys would be deranged?

If you're ridin' ahead of the herd, take a look back every now and then to make sure it's still there with ya.

[Colonial Warrior]

The myth and the logic of the Miers pick

President Aristotle Blogspot.com

W's stunnning decision to promote Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court has left a legacy of myths and mysteries swirling through a murky week of political discourse.

1. The crony question
One conservative critic wrote: [W] abandoned his principles, his party, his loyal followers all to indulge his personal favoritism. Is this really true?

How did Harriet Miers come to be considered for the US Supreme Court? Well, we know how: she deeply impressed the US Senate in her work on the Roberts nomination. Senator Harry Reid suggested to President Bush that he should not limit his search to judges--which is what W had done so far. Senator Reid told W that he should look at lawyers also; which W hadn't previously considered. Senator Reid went on to say that Miers would be an excellent choice. And consultations with both parties found the Senators impressed with her based on their experience with her during the Roberts hearings.

So Miers became a candidate, not because the president was looking to put a crony on the court but because her excellence was recognized by both parties in the United States Senate; they took the initiative in telling W she was worthy and qualified for the Supreme Court.

So this is not a case of a crony-conscious president trying to pack the court with unqualified pals. It is the exact opposite. -- Snip --

Click here

[counterpunch]

As Thomas Sowell put it in a column last week, Bush was forced to accommodate the pusillanimous Republican majority in the Senate. “When it comes to taking on a tough fight with the Senate Democrats over judicial nominations,” Sowell explained, “Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist doesn’t really have a majority to lead.”

Except that even the wimpy George H.W. Bush was able to get Clarence Thomas confirmed by a 56 seat Democrat majority Senate with the feckless Bob Dole leading the Republicans.
The last time there were more GOP seats in the Senate than today was the 71st Congress from 1929 to 1931. So anyone claiming Bush couldn't get a strict constructionist through the Senate is just making excuses for lazy Republicans.

Before Bush even named Miers for the seat, cowardly Republican senators like Arlen Specter and John Warner were already warning him to not nominate someone more conservative than O’Connor. It was a clear case of what Sowell calls “a familiar Republican strategy of pre-emptive surrender.”

Pre-emptive surrender!
So true!
I love it!