Posted on 10/06/2005 11:23:28 AM PDT by longhorn too
Christian Worldview Network Columnist Had Politically Correct Run in With Harriet Meirs When They Both Worked At The White House
Conservatives are Not Amused with the Miers’ Nomination By Ned Ryun
When my brother told me the end of last week that there was a strong likelihood of a Harriet Miers’ nomination to the Supreme Court, I started laughing. I didn’t think he was serious. Sadly enough, he was right.
Now I have just a few problems with this nomination. First, I wanted a brawl. I wanted an in-your face, strong conservative nominee with a proven track-record, like a Mike Luttig or a Janice Rogers Brown, that would clear the benches and be a showdown with the left. I’m tired of how the left in America has used the Supreme Court, and the rest of the federal judiciary, to tear apart the moral fabric of this nation. I’m tired that the left has been advancing its cause through the court system because it knows its causes cannot win at the ballot box.
Truth be known, the President needed a big fight between Republicans and Democrats, conservatives versus leftists, over this nomination to replace O’Connor. He needed something to unite his base, especially with his abysmal poll numbers. What he is getting is exactly the opposite as conservative passions begin to boil over at the President over the Miers’ nomination. If you haven’t been following, meetings between the President’s surrogates and the conservative groups over the Miers’ nomination have gotten downright ugly.
A friend of mine commented the other day, “It just struck me that perhaps Miers isn’t the real stealth candidate here. Maybe Bush is.” That’s a pretty interesting charge, and perhaps unfair, but what if this President has been playing his conservative base? He’s been awful on immigration, terrible on any fiscal restraint, and he has made it fairly clear that he is a big government Republican. I’m not really sure I want to even consider that he might not be a true conservative. I’d rather chalk this Miers’ nomination up to a we’re-all-human-and-make-mistakes decision.
This nomination is almost too cute (President appoints long-time personal lawyer), and barely passes the laugh test; Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah was heard arguing that her stint on the Dallas City Council means that she would bring real world experience to the table rather than having been in a judicial cloister. While being an elected official is an act of public service, being on a city council is not a strong argument for sitting on the Supreme Court (and I’m trying not to chuckle as I write that last sentence).
What concerns me about the Miers’ nomination is that it is too ambiguous. The White House seems to think that one of the strongest points for Miers is that there is no paper trail. What I want to know is why no one really knows what a 60 year-old person, who has been in the public eye for some time, really believes? I’m half that age and I bet people know pretty much where I stand on the issues. So in case you’re not able to read between the lines, the “no paper” trail argument means that the President and the White House do not have the guts for a hard nomination battle. And they need a battle to unite the base.
Another item of concern to me, despite hearing all the arguments to trust the President on the key issues like abortion, is what happens when Harriet Miers is confronted with the choice of whether to stand up for basic principles or whether to compromise. I worked with Miers at the White House. Though my interaction with her was limited, since I was merely a Presidential Writer and she was the Staff Secretary, I had a unique experience with her. In 2001, I was given the task of writing the President’s Christmas message to the nation. After researching Reagan, Bush, and Clinton’s previous Christmas messages, I wrote something that was well within the bounds of what had been previously written (and in case you are wondering, Clinton’s messages were far more evangelical than the elder Bush’s).
The director of correspondence and the deputy of correspondence edited and approved the message and it was sent to the Staff Secretary’s office for the final vetting. Miers emailed me and told me that the message might offend people of other faiths, i.e., that the message was too Christian.
http://www.worldviewweekend.com/secure/cwnetwork/article.php?ArticleID=301
Be careful, any thread criticizing Miers is being pulled by the moderators today.
Instead the president nominated (we're told) a 3rd grade sunday school teacher from a fundementalist evangelical church who has served on church committees and reads the constitution as literal as she reads the bible.... and that's not good enough for him?
I still think the President appointed Meirs because he figured the weak kneed Senate Republicans would cave on the "proven conservative" types.
By the way.... you longhorns got no chance this saturday :)
My issue with her isn't so much her ideology. I think she's probably a conservative (although a moderate and opportunistic one) at heart. My issue is with the fact that she:
1. Has no particular qualifications aside from being a personal friend of Bush. Neither experience nor exemplary performance/intellectual weight is in her record. As a matter of fact, commentators have noted her complete lack of any particular evidence of ideological courage (which is absolutely necessary on the Supreme Court if one is to not move left like Souter, O'connor, or Kennedy)
2. Is over 60 years old. This is not a disqualifier in and of itself, but it does tell me that Bush clearly was not trying to make the choice that would have the biggest long-term impact on the Supreme Court, and I consider it a wasted opportunitiy to choose as a replacement to O'connor a justice only 14 years younger than her... particularly when there were far more qualified justices over 10 years younger than Miers.
"I still think the President appointed Meirs because he figured the weak kneed Senate Republicans would cave on the "proven conservative" types."
With all due respect that's their problem, not Bush's. I don't see how Miers is any more likely to be nominated given the righteous outrage among conservatives and her honest lack of qualification.
This woman is an evangelical Christian? Give me a break..."We don't get fooled again." There's a reason Harry Reid is smiling over Miers' nomination, and it isn't because he thinks she's a good Christian, or pro-life.
Q: How does Pres. Bush say "Screw you, conservative base!"
A: "Trust me. TRUST me....!!!"
And even Reid is backing away now....
I was sending hate mail to the RNC monday at noon... but after thinking about this a little, and listening to what is actually being said by the players, and not the commentators.... I think our president has nominated a more conservative person than I expected. More conservative than Roberts.
I hope the right Vince Young shows up for this game, not the one that fumbles and throws interceptions. If he has a good game I think the Longhorns will break OU's streak.
:) That's probably an accurate assessment.
Not if the rumor of Rove and others being indicted turns out to be true. Not saying that those rumors are true, but something to consider.
You might want to rethink that statement. Threads are not pulled unless they are duplicates, and vanities are moved to the chat forum.
I liked the part where Bush might be a stealth conservative.
Thought this might interest you.
I don't know what to think, other than that all politicians are untrustworthy.
You hit the proverbial nail on the head.
I trust the President that Ms. Miers is conservative, but that is not enough, by itself, to qualify one for the USSC.
(1) As you point out, she is too old. I want a "young" conservative. 50 at the outside. Preferably in their mid-forties, who will be on the court for 30 years.
(2) I want an intellecutal powerhouse - a Judge Bork (now, sadly too old), Judge Luttig or the like. Someone who, like Justice Scalia, can cut through the convoluted and ugly logic of the liberal on the court.
"I think our president has nominated a more conservative person than I expected. More conservative than Roberts."
On what grounds? All I'm hearing is "Trust me", "You're not really a conservative if you disagree with the President on Miers", "You're an elitist if you're against Miers", "You're a sexist if you're against Miers". Nowhere am I seeing real evidence of ideological courage and judicial qualification.
This was a national discussion that needed to take place.
It needed to occur after the Bork debacle-in fact, it would have been preferable if it had occurred before the nomination of Robert Bork-but it didn't.
The fact that Kennedy, Schumer, et. al. threatened to turn what would normally be a dignified process into a complete and utter circus-with their toadies in the D.C. press corps eagerly aiding and abetting their attempt at perpetuating this sort of idiocy and the defamatory charges that accompany it-is entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
The battle should have been joined, and it wasn't.
This will go down in history as one of the greatest missed opportunities of the Bush presidency.
I am not amused either if she has been nominated by Ned Ryun.
You have that problem as well?
I thought I was the only one.
;-)
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.