Posted on 10/03/2005 8:43:43 PM PDT by 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.
Great post!
Miers will be Bush's greatest Rope-A-Dope EVER on the Rats! Trust me on this one. The only reason people here should be hysterical is in laughter that Chuckie Shumer actually thinks this nominee is 'ok'. ROFLOL!!!
Nope...neither have any character to assassinate.
I don't want rope-a-dope, and I don't want to trust you, Pres. Bush, V.P. Cheney, or anyone else. I just want what we were promised, and I want it delivered in an honest, straightforward way. That is the conservative way, and that is the American way. Let's leave it to the commies to play tricks.
I have been on this topic all day and I would like to make a few observations clear:
One, I don't believe anyone really believes this is cronyism. It is a choice that lays Bush open to unfounded arguments of cronyism in the MSM and by liberal socialist Democrats. That being said, Miers (sp?) is no Abe Fortas. Mr. Fortas had criminal ties, Mrs. Miers has a sterling resume.
Two, I don't believe anyone really sees this pick as a Souter. Bush Sr. did NOT know Souter at all, that is why it was a foolhardy (maybe not for you conspiracy folks out there) and stupid pick. That being said, Miers is no David Souter, but may be a questionable pick that could turn out like O'Connor (though if you check the record...Ken (Clinton cannot be prosecuted) Starr did the vetting work on O'Connor and judged her good. Bush is and has been a close friend of Mrs. Miers...which is far better than a Souter. We just mean the pick may turn out poorly...only time will tell.
Third, we (as Rush was saying today) were ready to take it to the Dems, go nuclear (I prefer constitutional) and change the rules forever so the courts would NOT have to go through Filibuster anymore. A fight we were ready to fight...will not be fought...unless Ginsburg or whathisname fade out. Even then, is Bush willing?
Finally, despite all of what I have posted (venting my disappointment) on FR today, I hope and trust the Lord God that Bush and Co. know what is really in the package. So...having vented my spleen of what shoulda, coulda, woulda...I am tucking my powder in my belt.
Godspeed!
Very well stated.
I'm disappointed in President Bush's choice. I think he punted. He could have gotten so much better. With the important decisions the Court will confront in the next few years, we deserve to have a qualified jurist with extensive constitutional experience and credentials.
The issue is not who else disagrees. The issue isn't whether or not Miers is a nice lady (I'm sure she is; I don't care). The issue is that President Bush walked away from a well-deserved fight, and chose mediocrity and expediency over experience and acumen.
I'm trying not to get too emotionally worked up about it. This too shall pass--although it may have long-lasting societal repercussions.
But the frustration among the base is palpable and understandable after Campaign Finance Reform, Prescription Drugs, and--four years after 9/11--persistently porous borders. We expected more.
Whoops. Too late.
"I was alarmed at first, but I have come to believe that Mrs Miers is a supreme example of a "Trojan Horse"."
Time will tell. I just don't like waiting or wondering.
I'm calling your post as a thoughtful addition to the thread. Hyperbole-filled ranting? Not from you, dear sir. ;-P
And Meirs couldn't get on a TV talk show unless she was nominated to the Supreme Court or something crazy like that. What's your point? They each do what they do, and apparently, pretty well. So they are not interchangeable. Ann is popular because she says the things we all wish more conservatives would say. The legs are a bonus.
I don't know that they were "confirmable." The Republicans in Congress, on the whole, strike me as incredibly weak, unable to carry any effective message unless it's critical of the President. If I were Bush I wouldn't count on their backbone for a thing and I'd keep my promise to voters the best way I could.
"I just want what we were promised, and I want it delivered in an honest, straightforward way."
OK.
I honestly think you're getting your wish. Bush has made an honest, straightforward nomination of someone he truly trusts to be a strict constructionist as he promised.
Can you consider the possibility and just relax a little? This President has a habit of doing what he says he will do.
For my part, I am trying to consider that possibility, and I'm attempting to relax. I do believe that she will be a fairly solid constructionist. I just don't know how effective she will be at persuading other justices on key cases. I simply think this was a large missed opportunity.
It's not the end of the world. But the straws are adding up, and starting to feel heavy.
WHo U CALLIN THoTFUL?!??
(Sorry...that's my best DU impression.)
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.