That's good enough for me.
Posted on 10/23/2005 12:17:19 PM PDT by freespirited
Harriet Miers has filled out a Senate Questionnaire that gives more evidence that she was personally against abortion. In that same questionnaire, she also said that she opposes judicial activism.
Should that change anyone's mind? No, not one iota. Wondering why? Well, let me tell you a little story about a name that strikes terror into the heart of conservatives who care deeply about the Supreme Court: David Souter.
Souter was a stealth nominee, nominated by George Bush's father. There were some initial grumbles about his nomination, but Republicans came out of the woodwork to assure the base that David Souter would be fine and that they should trust the President. Sound familiar? It should, because in essence, conservatives were given the exact same snow job back then that they're being given today. Here's a little background on the man that many conservatives, myself included, fear that Harriet Miers will emulate when she gets on the bench:
"As New Hampshire attorney general in 1977, Souter opposed the repeal of an 1848 state law that made abortion a crime even though Roe v. Wade had made it irrelevant, predicting that if the law were repealed, New Hampshire "would become the abortion mill of the United States."
At this point the only people more opposed to abortion than Souter were still in vitro.
He filed a brief arguing that the state should not have to pay for poor women to have abortions – or, as the brief called it, "the killing of unborn children" and the "destruction of fetuses."
Also as state attorney general, Souter defended the governor's practice of lowering the flag to half-staff on Good Friday, arguing that "lowering of the flag to commemorate the death of Christ no more establishes a religious position on the part of the state or promotes a religion than the lowering of the flag for the death of Hubert Humphrey promotes the cause of the Democratic Party in New Hampshire."
Wait, seriously – who is that guy on the Supreme Court and what has he done with the real David Souter?
Souter vowed in a newspaper interview to "do everything we can to uphold the law" allowing public school children to recite the Lord's Prayer every day.
As a justice on the New Hampshire Supreme Court, Souter dismissively referred to abortion as something "necessarily permitted under Roe v. Wade" – not exactly the "fundamental right" he seems to think it is now.
In a private speech – not a brief on behalf of a client – Souter attacked affirmative action, calling it "affirmative discrimination."
Souter openly proclaimed his support for the "original intent" in interpreting the Constitution."
Note that Souter, who was also a stealth nominee, had a CONSIDERABLY more reassuring resume than Harriet Miers does. However, what Souter -- and for that matter Sandra Day O'Connor and Andrew Kennedy -- did not have, was a long track record on the bench that showed an originalist bent. Harriet Miers, who has never been a judge, also lacks that record.
You heard that old saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me?" Well, conservatives know that they have already been fooled three times with the exact same pitch. So, how gullible do we have to be to fall for it a fourth time (and maybe a 5th if Roberts turns out to be less conservative than expected)?
Keep in mind, folks, even if you don't think having a track record as an originalist is important, Miers is pro-Affirmative Action, helped set up a feminist lecture series, was a Democrat less than 20 years ago, and gave money to her company's PAC in 1999, even though she knew that PAC gave money to Democrats like Hillary Clinton. Harriet Miers may be a lot of things, but she doesn't seem to be a conservative.
Furthermore, it's great that Miers is -- today -- a pro-life, Christian, Republican, but that shouldn't allay anyone's fears. Harry Reid is pro-life. Jesse Jackson is a Christian. Lincoln Chafee is a Republican. Would you want any of them on the Supreme Court?
Folks, this nomination may turn out to be the most important domestic decision of Bush's Presidency and because of the power of the Supreme Court, the lives of every American will be affected by the judge who fills Sandra Day O'Connor's slot on the SCOTUS. This is a nomination that may have an impact on freedom of speech, freedom of religion, Affirmative Action, Kelo, Roe v. Wade, privacy, the war on terror, and on and on and on. That's why this is not the time to just roll over and allow a squishy, 4th rate crony like Harriet Miers to get a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.
We're playing for enormous stakes here and that's why conservatives should fight tooth and nail, with everything they have in the political arsenal, to stop Harriet Miers from being confirmed to the Supreme Court.
"At this point the only people more opposed to abortion than Souter were still in vitro."
Shouldn't that be 'in utero'? In vitro basically means 'in glass' / outside the body.
Someone get a proofreader - stat!
Interesting point FOR Miers. If one goes by Souter's record then he'd be reliable Conservative so this article points out how important is is to actually know the nominee personally.
Good catch. I guess in vitro could refer to those conceived by IVF, but in utero would still make a lot more sense.
These quotes from people who know her concern me.
"Miers is very reticent to ever discuss her own views and liberal on issues other than abortion." -- Bruce Packard, a former partner at Ms. Miers' law firm
"Whether she’ll move the court to the right I don’t know." -- Miers supporter Judge Nathan Hecht
"She is obviously not a Scalia or a Thomas." -- Miers supporter Senator John Cornyn
How absurd is this statement? Harry Reid is personally against abortion, just as Kennedy and Kerry are, but he doesn't oppose Roe v. Wade, Jesse Jackson practices racketeering which is not at all a Christian endeavor and Lincoln Chafee votes like a liberal Democrat.
That's good enough for me.
So...
You know her?
And you can vouch that she is a strict constructionist (along with everything else the WH PR bills her to be)?
No we don't know her, but George Bush knows her. And I have yet to find an instance when President Bush did not do what he said he would do when he ran for office.
He campaigned for the things we don't like and then got them done after he was elected. He campaigned for the things we do like and he has done is best to get them implemented as well
He said he would take the court to the right and I for one believe him. I do not believe it is possible to confirm an openly conservative justice. The right just does not have the votes.
The Democrats managed from 2000 until 2005 to not bring to a vote any judicial nominee they saw as being from the right. From 2000 to 2002 they used their majority in the Senate to refuse to bring conservative nominees to an up or down vote. From 2003 through 2004 they used the filibuster to keep conservative nominees from being confirmed.
To that Frist responded in early 2005 with threats of the nuclear option. But when the Democrats called Frist's bluff he backed down and never called for a vote on the nuclear option. Bush never got involved in working for approval for the nuclear option. That just screams that the White House could not find enough senators that would vote to enact the nuclear option. It was going down to defeat and so they never tried it. NO president will get involved in a war he can only lose. The fact that President Bush did not lead a call for the Nuclear option is real proof that he never came close to having the votes to enact it. He has less support now than the did back then. The nuclear option is dead.
So the RINOS and DINOS got together and agreed to the gang of 14 compromise. The compromise said that neither party would oppose a Bush appointee unless the appointee was an extremist. The right is in the process opposing Miers. What part of you are proving she has to be an extremist escapes you? I am sure the Rinos and Dinos were pretty certain the right would oppose any confirm-able nominee who was not an openly a right winger.
Either way Bush went the Democrats could count on an eventual win in the Senate.. The Right wing would fight any nominee who was not openly right wing so a stealth approach would fail. An no openly right winger could pass the gang of 14s extremest test. Thus Bush gets nothing and the court does not move to the right.. That is called a left wing win.
The Democrats will use the the fact that the right opposed Miers to block all conservative nominees for the next 3 years. If the right can kill a Bush nominee, then can that right be denied the left? NO way!!! Republicans are saying that Miers or anyone to the left of her is too extreme to be confirmed. Ain't that just peachy. Democrats can and will contend that any nominee to the right of Miers is too extreme to be confirmed.
That takes us back to filibuster city with no way to get the votes to enact the nuclear option.
The Democrats managed while in power and out of power in the Senate to block conservative nominees for judicial appointments for four years.
With Republicans saying it is OK to defeat Bush nominees, the Democrats can certainly block all bush nominees for 3 more years.
----------------------------------------------------
Anyone with a real brain knows most elections are won on the economy. Bill Clinton got it right when in 1992 he said :
There are several Republican senators who are betting the price of gasoline and resultant inflation will bring Democratic victories in 2006 and 2008. They have just one hope of survival. A RINO who blocks a conservative Bush appointment will not be opposed by Democrats when he runs for re-election. Take that to the bank.
The only chance Bush had to take the court to the right was a stealth nominee. That chance is shot. Now Rinos will line up to stop Bush appointments.
It was Voinovich who showed the way on the Bolton Nomination for the United nations. Any senator can put a hold on a presidential appointment.
Betcha a Snowe or Chaffee will do it for the Democrats. They won't even have to take the blame. It will be the Republicans who take the blame.
That should be more than enough to elect Bill and Hillary in 2008.
Hmm...Is Attorney General of New Hampshire an elected or an appointed position? Nowadays in most states it is an elected position...
As I recall, the governor of New Hampshire in 1976 was Meldrim (?) Thompson, who endorsed Reagan over Ford in the presidential primary. If AG was appointed, Souter may have merely been trying to please his boss. If it was
Souter speaking on his own, then obviously he has had a large change of heart.
Why is that important? I don't get a vote. I would think that the person doing the appointing would be the one who should know her but that's just me.
LMAO
In a private speech – not a brief on behalf of a client – Souter attacked affirmative action, calling it "affirmative discrimination."Considerably to the Right of Harriet Miers's record of supporting affirmative action, proportional representation, and set-asides for protected classes.
How absurd is this statement? Harry Reid is personally against abortion, just as Kennedy and Kerry are, but he doesn't oppose Roe v. Wade, Jesse Jackson practices racketeering which is not at all a Christian endeavor and Lincoln Chafee votes like a liberal Democrat.Very good. That's exactly the point. So it looks like you caught on and didn't even know it.
We know with absolute certainty that Harriet Miers supports affirmative action. In fact, her view could only be characterized as "extremist."
What about when he said, "We've got to protect our borders!"?
Is the extension of the fence in San Diego enough to compensate for the surfeit of illegal alien border crossings that have increased with the knowledge that many immigration laws are rarely enforced?
On an unrelated note, if Democrat Senators vote for Miers, they'll look awfully stupid for approving someone to such a high position who is apparently less qualified than many past nominees to lower courts whom the Democrats refused to confirm.
No, the point is that we wouldn't want any of those people in because we know exactly where they stand, despite what they claim to be. I have yet to hear Ms. Miers speak for herself. We don't know Ms. Miers as well as we'd like, but Pres. Bush does and his judicial nominations have been consistent. I await the hearings. If she doesn't do well answering the questions, the process will have done what it's supposed to do and the Senate will do what it's supposed to do.
Bush promised to protect our borders from terrorists. He did not promise to keep cheap mexican labor out of our nation. Bush even proposed ways to let more mexicans in legally. To say he proposed keeping mexicans out is just a huge far right wing lie. The problem is the far right is not even good at lying.
The bigest problem with far right wingers is they only lie to themselves. They tell themselves that fools like Pat Buchanan and the Libertarians have a shot at winning something other than the booby prize.
Just how many terrrorists have gotten through our borders to do an attack on the American people since Bush said he would protect our borders? Or are you saying we need protection from people who attack us by preparing Big Macs at McDonalds and washing our cars at the car wash? Some even attack us by cleaning our homes and changing our babies diapers. I don't need protection from cheap labor that does menial jobs no American will do. We certainly don't need protection from those who are working on the dirty and dangerous job of cleaning New Orleans.. Jobs that neither blacks nor whites will do but browns are waiting in line to take.
If our borders are not safe then why aren't the terrorists killing those of those us in America like they are killing Americans in Iraq? The truth is Bush has made our borders safe.
On an unrelated note, if Democrat Senators vote for Miers, they'll look awfully stupid for approving someone to such a high position who is apparently less qualified than many past nominees to lower courts whom the Democrats refused to confirm.
Is Miers less qualified than Justice Goldberg appointed by John F. Kennedy. Goldbergs entire experience in the law was as an employee of the AFL/CIO. His primary duty for the AFL/CIO union was to raise money for Democratic Candidates for national office. Goldberg's main qualification that attracted Kennedy was he found "legal" ways to give millions of dollars of Union members dues to Kennedy for his 1960 campaign. Kennedy of course hat to pay back the union and he did so by appointing Goldberg to be secretary of labor and then a year later Kennedy appointed Goldberg to the supreme court. Do you think selling a supremec court position to a Union lawyer Embarrassed Teddy or Jack Kennedy? Get a Clue!!!!
If you think Democrats were embarrassed by appointing a man whose only qualification for the Supreme court was getting millions for the Kennedy Presidential campaign, you are a lot dumber than I think you are.
Don't try to feed me garbage about embarrassed Democrats. Only people as ignorant of the past and Democrats as you are, would believe you.
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.