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

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.

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!'

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.)

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?

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.

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.

That is why the track record as a judge is so important.

Well historically, many have been confirmed on the SC that were never judges. A lot of precedent for what Bush has done.

The second point I would like to stress as to why I am so disappointed is that I WANTED a fight.

Not Bush's style. He campaigned for putting dignity back, into American politics.

I happen to see Bush as the careful pragmatist, who goes for results. So for him, the goal is achieved if he gets a conservative confirmed. The less fireworks the better.

The alternate tactic of setting up obvious fights, apparently what you salivate for, ignores the voting demographics.

The 2008 race was close. There are several "moderate" Republican Senators that might break off, if Bush started an obvious fight.

Ken (Clinton cannot be prosecuted) Starr did the vetting work on O'Connor and judged her good.

Ken Starr has not, will not, and never will be a committed Republican. He is an extremely talented lawyer who has nurtured extensive netowrking relationships on both sides of the aisle for decades.

Bush ran away from the fight without so much as a staggered retreat. He picked someone who is 60 years old, and while many here and elsewhere might not consider that a major drawback, those forward looking young Republicans as a cohort who will now have to fight over her replacement in the coming decades will rue this decision today, as the demographics and politics of this country will be incredibly different in the future.

Think about USSC decisions that would have been decided the other way if your favored Justices had been remained on the Bench for another 10+ years. I'll be a middle aged father with kids in college when Miers steps down instead of a newly retired grandfather (hopefully). Bush has surrendered a decade of the culture wars of the future for HIS political expediency today. And this has become a pattern in the Bush Presidency, sacrificing and mortgaging the future generations of Americans to support the political expediency of today's politicians and the special interest groups who support them.

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.

Sorry, only little children stamp their feet, throw tantrums, and expect to get everything they want. This is politics. I'm sick and tired of all the little babies who constantly whine "I want it my way. Whah...". It's time to grow up. Those of you who constantly threaten to take your balls and run home to mommy need to leave once and for all.

Bush did this or that!!! I'll never vote for him or a Republican again! Whah!"

Enough already!!!

I'm neither hysterical nor angry. I am, however, disappointed. What is absolutely undeniable is that there are people with more sterling records and a much more clear commitment to the strict principles of the Constiution than she. As such, the reasons for selecting her are murky, if not dubious.

What I do see, is that there is a coterie of people who simply refuse to acknowledge that there are legitimate reasons to be concerned and will call Ann Coulter a "bimbo" and other such nonsense in riposte. Let's be clear - President Bush is a human being, and as such, he will make mistakes. This has the appearance of a mistake, and worse, a missed opportunity.

I have supported President Bush through thick and thin, particularly in the War on Terror. I bit my tongue over issues such as spending - though it was a clear violation of what the Great Man said on that wintry day in January 1981 ("In our present crisis, government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem"). I am very concerned that as of late, he is actually listening to the media and the Democrats, when in actual fact he should give both the two fingered salute.

Regards, Ivan

"Thoughts anyone?"

You are engaged in doubleplusungood FReepthink, Tovarisch!

"Anyone still doubtful over Miers?"

She is strongly RKBA--she wrote an article that enumerated it as an individual right that is to not be surrendered in the name of "fighting crime" or any other purpose.

But don't tell that to the Midol and Prozac deficient around here.

"If so, state your reasons; let's actually have a nice, civilized DISCUSSION instead of turning it into a paranoid, hyperbole-filled ranting, as Leftists are known to do."

This is your second warning! You are engaged in doubleplusungood FReepthink, Tovarisch!

BTW, Schumer didn't know a damn thing about her when he gave a thumbs up. He is probably wishing he hadn't.

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.

LOL. I hear ya. Harry Reid was the most fun yesterday with his "See, she's a trial lawyer like me and not one of those icky judges. That's a good thing." Harry, this is an honest woman. She is nothing like YOU.

And just for the record, I think Ann Coulter (who called Miers a 'complete mediocrity') needs to simmer down; from what I've read from her recently, she's starting to overheat.

If Ann isn't arguing, fighting or complaining about something/someone, she has nothing to say, thus no TV appearances, speaking engagements or books. It's become her job to do this. For me, she's becoming a real turn off.

I agree that Ann Coulter is over heating. There are fights that must be won, and wins that do not need fighting.

We've all heard how Souter, and O 'Conner, and Kennedy etc etc were presented as middle of the road conservative jurists. Obviously the presidents who selected them were wrong.

In this case, George Bush knows this person and has worked closely with this person. She reviewed his choices for SC. In the five or more years with her, he knows how she would have voted on the various matters before the SC and the decisions made there, because she undoubtedly gave him her opinion privately.

I like Ann Coulter, but we're all beginning to sound like the Barry Goldwaters in the 1960s where we'd "rather be right" than be president.

Let's all breathe deep and exhale slowly and give this lady a chance. To be sure the SC has some landmark cases coming up. We'll see immediately where she and Roberts stand.

nikos

There is a large and important difference between making an intellectually persuasive argument and merely insulting those whose opinions differ. It requires very little intelligence to understand and appreciate this difference. What, exactly, accounts for your decision to employ the latter, rather than the former?

Those of you who constantly threaten to take your balls and run home to mommy need to leave once and for all.

I have never threatened anything of the sort, neither on this thread nor elsewhere, not once and certainly not "constantly." Thus you have proffered an argument that embodies the fallacy known as the "straw man" argument. Try responding logically and respectfully to what I actually did say, rather than to some easily-dismissed argument that you merely claim to be mine.

This nomination was an enormously important decision by the President at a moment of great opportunity for conservatism. You disgrace yourself by participating in such a moment via such unintelligent and dishonest arguments.

This just shows you how brilliant this pick is and how desperate the lefties have become. I think this is their strategy. The lefties know Bush's numbers are down and they are trying to siphon off his conservative base by throwing some of these thoughts on the Miers pick.

When I first heard about this yesterday, I was disappointed but as I went through the day and heard about the pick, I think it is brilliant. She has no track record as a judge so the Dems will have a dificult time putting her on the hot seat, she is an insider (so Bush knows her better than a lot of other President's picks) and Reid and company have basically endorsed her. The only thing the lefties can say is the conservatives are disappointed with the pick.

I trust this President because he has done exactly what he says. Bush has said he wants more Justices in the Scalia/Thomas mold and I believe him. I have heard she is a Christian and she is pro-life. I truly believe this pick will show how great of a man Bush is and the legacy is leaving behind. He understands the stakes and the opportunity he has to make an impact on this Supreme Court and this country.

I was thinking back in 1997 when 1 million men got together in Washington DC to pray and intercede for this country. I remember Clinton flying over with Marine One to see all the men and he couldn't believe how many evangelical Christians were there. A year later President Clinton is impeached and a presidency starts to unravel.

We elect President Bush (an answered prayer in D.C.) who is not the savior of this country but an evangelical Christian who does what he says he will do and searches after God's heart. I believe we will say Miers is one of the best justices for this country and conservative Christian will be thanking God for Bush's pick in a few years.

I honestly think you're getting your wish.

As I enumerated above, one of the things that I wanted was a nominee who was fifty years old rather than sixty. On at least this point, I think we can agree that Michael Luttig (for example) is a benefit for conservatism as compared to Harriet Miers.

This President has a habit of doing what he says he will do.

This President said he would seek the most qualified nominees. Yet, as I pointed out above, the defense of the Harriet Miers nomination almost invariably begins with a discussion of confirmability and rope-a-dope. Her qualifications, as stated by her proponents, are larded with the phrase "first woman to..." That, to my conservative mind, does not constitute a qualification for a seat on the Supreme Court.

Can you...just relax a little?

Maybe the difference between you and me is one of opinions and values, rather than our respective levels of "relaxation." Can you consider this?

Awww would da wittle people get their panties all in a knot cause there might be a "Fuss" in Congress? GOD FORBID WE MIGHT OFFEND SOMEONE.

Here's my line of reasoning: like Roberts, Miers is someone who's caught the Dems flat-footed and off-guard. You know, kind of like a feint in boxing before a KO-right hook. And let's be honest; Bush isn't the type of guy who wants to fight or get people upset. That's just who he is. He likes to be a 'clean' politiciann, so to speak. Whether or not that's good for us in the long run, only time will tell.

And just for the record, I have no problem with offending the Left. :P

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.