Overreaction over Miers (Vanity for all those who are breaking down)

10/03/2005 | Me

[Ultra Sonic 007]

Earlier this morning, I woke up to the news that President George W. Bush had revealed his second Supreme Court nomination. This was coming off the heels of the appointment of Judge John Roberts to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

I, along with other people, were mostly in the dark about this woman. I, for one, had never heard of her. So, like usual, I came to Free Republic. I have come to see this place as an excellent filter for the news today; in other words, it sifts through the crap, and it does it well.

So I was a bit surprised and shocked when I saw initial reactions from people. I saw posts detailing everything from one end of the 'OH MY GOD DID HE JUST DO THAT?!' spectrum. From 'oh man, why didn't he pick Luttig or Janice Brown?' to 'I HATE YOU BUSH!' I'm not kidding. I was utterly astonished that George Bush's second nominee - Harriet Miers - resulted in such complete, incomprehensible vitriol from the Freepers. For a bit, I was wondering if I had accidentally stumbled into the Democratic Underground by mistake. However, I saw the much more organized layout, and remembered I was in Free Republic.

It had me thinking: did President Bush screw up THIS badly?

So I waited.

As it turns out, things didn't turn out to be so bad.

One of the first things I heard was that Miers was pro-choice. I immediately thought: Whoa; this doesn't sound like a nominee of Bush. Granted, Bush isn't a fiscal conservative, and he needs work on some things...but from a moral standpoint, it makes NO sense for a Christian man to appoint a pro-choice nominee.

I decided to wait a little while longer. It turned out that she's a Christian woman who IS pro-life. It's just that she's never been married, which is why feminist activists were so initially cheery of her (as evidenced this morning). After all, she's a working woman, not bound by the chains of a man at home! Or the chains of a child! Or whatever the feminist rhetoric is these days. Can't bother paying attention long enough. But in any case, the whole 'pro-choice' thing was debunked.

It also came out that Miers had also donated money (1,000 dollars) in 1987 to Senator Lloyd Benson, a Democrat. In the following year, 1988, she donated 1,000 dollars to Al 'I invented the Internet' Gore, who was running on the Democratic ticket for President in that year. Now, I can understand this; it would be quite apparent that anyone who donated money to Gore would raise immediate warning flags.

However, as it later dawned, this whole donation was taken out of context (sort of like Bennet's 'abort black babies' comment was SEVERELY taken out of context to the point where it was labelled 'hate speech' by the MSM). Remember; Al Gore was once considered an okay guy. He was once pro-life (or claimed to be, at any rate). Democrats were once okay guys (before the Leftists overtook them). And let's not forget that all of Miers' subsequent donations were to Republicans. So this argument was also debunked.

THEN there was the AP story with the headline 'Miers Backed Gay Rights'. Now, homosexuality is a big deal. A pro-homosexual person would just be unacceptable. HOWEVER, it turned out that our fears were unfounded. From the article:

"Miers answered "Yes" to the survey question, "Do you believe that gay men and lesbians should have the same civil rights as non-gay men and women?"

It's very easy to misinterpret this question. Considering Miers stance on the Texas anti-sodomy laws (read: she supported them, and she still does), it's clear she isn't a pro-homosexual advocate (remember Roberts? The exact same thing happened, except it was a court case instead of an interview). She merely believes that homosexuals are entitled to the same civil rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution. Nothing wrong with that. However, it's very easy for this be read as 'OMG SHE GONNA GO FOR GAY MARRIAGE OMGOMGZ SHE BAD BUSH SUCKS!'

You get the picture.

Here's some quotes from near the beginning of the day, when people were basically chanting 'DOOM DOOM DOOM'.

I am so pissed off and disappointed. My support of the GOP has just waned a lot. What's the use in voting for them? GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

BUSH, AGAIN, HAS CHOSEN A FRIEND OH HIS RICH FAMILY. SHE WILL BE VERY SIMILAR TO GONZALES.

Cronyism on freaking parade, people. Bush had a chance to go down in history with J. Michael Luttig or Karen Williams and he picked a female version of Abe Fortas.

One of the legal analysts on CNN stated Harriet Meirs is pro-choice. I AM SO DISSAPOINTED AND PISSED OFF!!!!!! (Catch the CNN bit? That's a big tipoff as to the validity of the statement.)

That's it, I'm done with Bush.

And from a Caption THIS! thread showcasing a pic of Bush and Miers:

That's the top of the hole that we've dug ourselves into.

All those Christian conservatives that voted for me can just jump off that cliff as far as I'm concerned.

That tree on the far left looks like Al Gore. Hey, didn't you send him money once?

See? And this from FR. Not DU.

But as the day went on, reports came out showing that things were NOT as bad as people hoped. Numerous interviews came out showcasing people who knows Miers personally. She is an avid Christian woman who has been involved in the judicial practice for the better part of 30 years.

The American Center of Law and Justic (ACLJ) - sort of like an anti-ACLU - has given her the thumbs-up, describing her as 'an excellent choice who represents the conservative mainstream of judicial philosophy of interpreting the Constitution, not re-writing it.' According to Texas Supreme Court Justic Nathan Hecht (a conservative pro-lifer, FYI), her biblical views, social views, and legal views are all in line with the original intent of the original writers.

Of course, you all have a right to be concerned when people like Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid give her their approval. But here's the thing; think about this. What if they merely said this in order to split apart Bush's conservative base? If that was their intent, it worked like a charm. And let's not forget that Roberts charmed a few Democrats before working his magic in the hearings.

Think what you will about President Bush. Sure, some of his policies are questionable (rebuilding New Orleans under sea level?). Some of his policies are outright treasonous (CLOSE THE BORDERS!). But Bush is a good, Christian man at heart who has gone through a lot during his Administration...and with three years left, to boot.

Let's not forget the Democratic mindset; they WILL NOT ACCEPT ANYONE WHO IS OUTRIGHT CONSERVATIVE A LA LUTTIG OR BROWN. They would've raised such a horrendous FUSS. However...Roberts and Miers completely bewildered people on both sides of the aisle. The two nominees don't have a very outspoken profile in terms of their philosophy and dealings. As such, both sides are confused.

However as time goes, it's becoming more and more like the Roberts' case. In my humble opinion, Bush has shown himself to be a downright genius with these nominees. Instead of picking outright conservatives that would inflame the Left, he picked 'conservatives-in-disguise'.

After all, Ginsburg (former ACLU watchdog and overall purveyor of Leftist filth) is getting on in years. After this, she may decide to throw in the towel, thinking that Bush isn't nominating the hard-ball Conservatives like she (and most everyone else) thought (had it been otherwise, she would've hung on, refusing to let her seat be taken by an 'evil conservative caveman'). She retires. BAM: bring out Janice Rogers Brown.

We still have to wait and see. No one knows how Roberts or Miers will serve on the Supreme Court of the United States. However, committing suicide and destroying ourselves from within (a la the Democratic Party) does no good whatsoever.

I shall leave off with one last quote from earlier that fits perfectly:

She has attended and served at a conservative evangelical church for more that 10 years. She tithes from her income. She is supported by a pro-life Christian justice who says that she holds the standard evangelical view on abortion. She fought to have the pro-abortion plank removed from the American Bar Association. She was the president of the Texas Bar and voted one of the top 50 most influential lawyers.

Wait. Wrong one (although it does help one feel better about Miers, no?). THIS is the one I wanted: Am I on the DU board?

Don't tear yourselves apart fellow Freepers. Doing so only hurts Conservatism in the long one. Patience is rewarded, after all.

[BigSkyFreeper]

I do remember that Howard Dean caught some flak when the revelation came from the Boston Globe about a year and a half ago that as Governor, Howard Dean imposed tax incentives to outside corporations to lure them into Vermont and to do business in Vermont to help boost the Vermont economy. If I remember right, he approached Halliburton and Enron.

[Rokke]

"let's actually have a nice, civilized DISCUSSION"

Good post and good idea. It would be appropriate for people who think she is a terrible appointment to list exactly why she is terrible. The most common comment I heard from senators and talking heads today was that nobody really knows anything about her. Yet, on FreeRepublic it would appear most people believe she is just one level above Teddy Kennedy. How is it that so many Freepers are in the know, when so many professional babblers are in the dark? So hopefully the list can start here...exactly what does Miers stand for that makes her such an objectionable candidate?

[Mike Darancette]

It may seem that the RATS might be on board with Meyers but they just haven't gotten their talking points together yet.

[Black Tooth]

However, getting into a fuss over Miers when there's need to fuss is pointless, IMO.

Strange. Over the past few months, many have said this is the most important decision bar none.

Now it's a pointless fuss?

How confusing.

[Moorings]

Good post. I was somewhat concerned at first this morning. However, as I thought more about it and heard that people like Jay Sekulow of the ACLJ endorsed her, I think I'll go with Pres. Bush on this one.

I don't think we've been "Soutered" again, as the President has known this woman for a while up close. It is evident that he trusts her and knows where she stands. It is a safe pick, as much as is possible (unless she changes totally later). I don't believe Pres. Bush who chose such fine people as Janice R. Brown, Justice Roberts e.t.c would really drop the ball on this one.

My only minor disappointment is that she is 60 years old. Also, I am hoping that she has a lot of charisma like Scalia and Roberts.

[Ultra Sonic 007]

I'm not saying it like that. I'm merely talking about the utter paranoia over Bush's decision to pick Miers. Heck, for all we know, there might be a THIRD nomination by the time this administration is over.

[jennyjenny]

I was surprised at the nomination, but for the time being will give the president the benefit of the doubt on his selection. I am cautiously optimistic, and am eager to learn more.

The hysteria on here (and from some of the talking heads) today made my head spin! Thanks for posting this.

[Dolphy]

I would have also preffered it if Bush appointed Luttig (or Brown, or another more well-established conservatism). However, getting into a fuss over Miers when there's need to fuss is pointless, IMO.

Had it been Luttig or Brown imagine the Dems reaction. With this nomination they got caught flat footed (once again) while the more patient among us began to watch the blanks get filled in on Miers. I'm coming to believe that Coulter and the like are arrogant elitists who believe they are of a special pedigree and owners of the only list of conservatives. Bush detests that arrogance, regardless of what side it's coming from. And given their constant criticism of him I'm hoping that in time we will see he has slapped them down a notch.

[RasterMaster]

Pat Buchannan and Bill Kristol? Pat's a borderline anti-semite who I wouldn't trust (he is on PMSNBC) and Kristol is a weak-kneed opportunist looking for any angle to bash the President and sell more of his worthless articles.

[IrishCatholic]

Well, I am extremely disappointed. She may be Scalia or Thomas in drag or she may be Kennedy or Souter in drag. She may be Rush Limbaugh's clone. The fact is, she has no history of decisions. The first and only way we will see how the wind blows is when she writes a decision from a position she can't be fired from.
What she does as a lawyer, even the greatest to walk a courtroom, is advocate her client's case. That is why the track record as a judge is so important.

The second point I would like to stress as to why I am so disappointed is that I WANTED a fight. Appeasement and getting along hasn't worked in history, it won't work now. You have to stand up to bullies (I.E. Democrats, Socialists, Marxists or whatever flavor the left calls itself). A fight would have called them out. Now they can scheme and manuever. This was weakness and nothing more. There was no stomach for a fight. By picking a known conservative it would have solidified the GOP base and exposed the RINO's making them take a stand. It would have also pushed the Marxist-Dems into such a forefront that even their mouthpieces of the mainstream press would have not hidden it from the population.
What you get here is business as usual. I hope she is good, but it is a roll of the dice. That isn't what we voted for and it wasn't what we were promised. This will hurt greatly the GOP in the 2006 elections. Conservatives will stay home. Nobody gets fired up for compromises. Nobody storms ramparts for consensus.

[RasterMaster]

"...there might be a THIRD nomination..."

I'm not the only one that thinks there will be at least 2 more. Justice Stevens nearly fell down the steps today and if CJ Roberts hadn't caught him, we may have had another opening on the court. Ruth Race-baiter Ginzburg can't last too much longer, and even the DUmmies know it!

[WOSG]

See also:

http://volokh.com/posts/chain_1128378033.shtml

[Ultra Sonic 007]

Quite true. However, this round of appeasement may be the key to a future atomic bomb that Bush has in the wings. One can only hope. There's still three years left.

[rogue yam]

Had it been Luttig or Brown imagine the Dems reaction.

This is my main problem here. It is impossible to justify Harriet Miers' nomination without talking about "confirmability." But when in the last twenty years has a Michael Luttig been more confirmable than right now? If we're too scared to fight for what we know is right right now, then we're too scared.

[joyspring777]

Pat is to be ignored anymore, but your characterizaton of Kristol is way off base IMHO.

[CFC__VRWC]

It may seem that the RATS might be on board with Meyers but they just haven't gotten their talking points together yet.

Plus, they went way overboard with the sleazy tactics against John Roberts early on, and got burned so badly as a result that it completely threw them off their game. They never really completely recovered - one of the main reasons they had to throw in the towel on Roberts. So they're being very cautious for now, hoping to not repeat that debacle.

[RasterMaster]

What about it? He is a weak-kneed opportunist. There's more than one of them on this side of the fence.

[rogue yam]

Pat Buchannan and Bill Kristol? Pat's a borderline anti-semite who I wouldn't trust (he is on PMSNBC) and Kristol is a weak-kneed opportunist looking for any angle to bash the President and sell more of his worthless articles.

Dude! The issue here is not PJB or Bill Kristol. The issue is Harriet Miers and the Supreme Court.

Your argument is a classic fallacy of logic - the ad hominem attack. Rather than address the ideas raised by these two, you attack their character. They did not say "Harriet Miers is a bad choice, trust me." They laid out reasons for their opinions based on simple observations, plainly-stated values, and logic.

You are arguing like a DUmmy.

[joyspring777]

You know, we have in Republican land, many Senators and Congressman and a history of Presidents that need broadsides to do the right thing.

I believe Ann serves a very valuable check on our vision.

Also, Bush could have saved a lot of this by bringing in people like Dobson, Sekulow, Kristol, and about 30 to 40 of our other key leaders and huddled this AM...told and sold them ALL on why Miers is the WOman! Then had them all attend the announcement together at about NOON.

That makes too much sense, but it is a great way to do it. Many of those 30 to 40 would probably clear their scheds for a morning for that purpose.

They could have in turn spread out across the libertarian and conservative prairie boards and it would be orderly.