Posted on 10/03/2005 4:06:25 AM PDT by johnmecainrino
Harriet Miers
A minor disagreement in principle. There is no "best candidate". I mean, each of us has a candidate we probably like the best, but the notion that there are only a few great candidates in a country of 280 million people seems constrictive.
For example, they found 9 justices when our entire country had, what, maybe 20 million people? Were 8 of them idiots? (OK, maybe so).
My point: If we could find 9 well-qualified candidates amongst 20 million people, there should be over 100 fine picks now in our country of 280 million people.
Frankly, I think there are THOUSANDS of people who could be well-qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. I don't think it is like being a major league pitcher. You have to be able to read. You need a good knowledge of law, how it is written, how it is discerned. You need to know the constitution, something that should be attainable with a few dozen good books on the subject.
Every time the supreme court makes a decision, thousands of us ordinary americans read the opinions and pronounce them good or bad. We could all be wrong, we could all be clueless. I'm not saying that having smarter people is bad, or that there couldn't theoretically be a perfect candidate out there.
I remember Bush I bravely arguing that Clarence Thomas was the absolutely best qualified person for the Supreme Court. How many conservatives really thought he was the best conservative available? I remember (maybe incorrectly) a lot of argument on that point on BOTH sides of the aisle. But he seems to have turned out OK.
My purpose here is not to engage the larger question, just to raise the issue of whether "best" is an attainable goal.
After all, I don't think we are all convinced the Roberts was the "best" pick. And seemingly solid judges have become horrible supreme court justices. Others have pleasantly surprised.
I may well be wrong. I don't think there is one "best" president either, and if there is I am certain we will never ever come close to picking that person to be president.
"Michelle Malkin should think for herself. She shouldn't base her opinions on what others say they like or dislike."
Anyone who wants to be on the SCOTUS and gains someone like Chuckie as an ally, is very likely to end up a Souter clone. It's a significant danger sign. Michelle is right on the money, as she almost always is.
If true then Farah takes it all out of context.
...remember a time when most conservatives used to question everything that they read?
Well, there's this fellow (of course he was over 50 by the time he finally wised up)...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan
I suspect that the democrats aren't going to put up too much of a fight. As long as they get a nominee who isn't going to curtail federal powers, won't make abortion illegal, and won't curtail the move to grant special rights to homosexuals they'll be happy.
They'll let this nominee through because it serves their purposes.
Uh, he's not perfect. O'Neill. Meyers. Whitman.
Garner as first Iraq "controller".
We have been pretty happy with a vast majority of his judicial picks (many of whom were screened by this same Harriet Miers). If nothing else, I think she is keenly aware what the words Judicial Restraint, Original Intent, and Strict Constructionist mean, she's been asking all the judges about their philosophies.
I wouldn't be surprised if Bush didn't talk to his previous court picks to see what they thought about Miers. I would at least like to think that if they had all said she was a bad choice, he would have listened.
And, if Roberts turns out well, I think the entire circumstance of the court would be such that it would tend to pull weaker justices to the right, like they used to go left. Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas are more than a match for Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Souter. I wouldn't be surprised to see Kennedy come back a little toward the light -- IF Roberts is a good pick.
If Roberts is an Anakin, we are in big trouble, because he is really smart, and very smooth,and I believe will have a great influence on the other justices.
I guess I just don't see why, before we have the questioning of the senate, we should presume that Bush doesn't know this nominee, and in fact didn't pick her precisely because, of all the nominees he talked to, she was the one LEAST LIKELY to become a Souter.
"They'll let this nominee through because it serves their purposes."
Exactly. With her the Dems have no fear of the court tipping solidly back towards an originalist/strict-constructionist based reversal of the sewage that has poured out from the bench.
Do we know if she advocated these positions TO the president? Or did she prepare legal justification for a position the President took, as his lawyer?
Do we even believe that there IS a problem with women serving illegally in combat roles? (I ask that truly not knowing, it's not a field I follow, and I'm sure there are many here who will be happy to tell me all about it).
DO you suppose there will be a separation-of-powers case before the Supreme Court over whether Bush, as commander-in-chief, has the authority to assign women volunteers to combat roles, when congress appears to have tried to preclude it? (I imagine that if there was, and if she really WAS involved int he legal opinions, she would have to recuse herself).
In fact, does she fall into the same recusal quagmire as Gonzalez, or will her role as merely an advocate of the Bush policies (rather than a generator of those policies) be enough to keep her on the court for all those cases the NRO people argued Gonzalez would have to recuse himself from?
Anyone who wants to be on the SCOTUS and gains someone like Chuckie as an ally, is very likely to end up a Souter clone.
As I said, and as you conveniently left off about what I said, think of the ramifications of doing the opposite of what your enemy says.
All Hillary and Schumer would have to do is say the opposite of what they want...and then you would go along with the opposite of that.
Isn't it better to think for ones self. To actually think that Schmucky knows more about Mier then us here on FR, is wrong.
There is only one way Hillary can win in '08. She needs enough conservatives to become dissatisfied with the R party to tilt the election in her favor. This is the strategy for the next three years. She and her ilk can not possibly win the presidency and even these SC battles taking the liberal approach. So instead they sweat talk the nominees, and cause people like you to think the opposite and to become dissatisfied.
As I said before think of the ramifications...and then think for yourself.
But if what the anti-Miers crowd says here is true, nothing could be better than having the democrats slash this nominee. She's "established" her "moderate" credentials be being relentlessly attacked by all on the right, so if the dems destroy her Bush would have "no choice" but to send up a more solidly conservative heavyweight -- and he could argue that he tried to mollify the democrats and they stabbed HIM in the back.
i'm not arguing (as some have on FR) that this might be Bush's actual strategy, or that it would be good. I'm just saying that, in the realm of things I would be worried about if I was opposed to this nomination, I would NOT be worried that she was so weak the democrats would destroy her -- that would instead be my fervent hope.
I only replied to it what I knew about Hatch's tactics as chairman concerning gun control issues.
I was very active in supporting The Second Amendment in my younger days.
Those days of handwritten letters and books of stamps and memberships in several pro-gun organizations and political rallies.
The recruiting of gun club members,training young people to shoot for fun,sport and defense and teaching them the true meaning of the second amendment and it's value in our country's history and future.
In 3 words, "Politics ain't beanbag."
The senators can do as they please, restrained not by "should" but by the ability of the nominee to resist them. Again, Roberts made it look easy, but Roberts is a remarkably gifted man.
Schumer doesn't "love" this pick. He said she has the CHANCE to be a consensus nominee, but we don't know enough. And what is he going to say after Reid pretty much asked her to marry him.
Is Schumer really going to love an evangelical Christian who lead an organization which sought to rehabilitate felons by converting them?
The democrats may be happy, but it has to be because the THINK she is a lightweight, NOT that they think she is on their side on the issues. Maybe she is, but they can't possibly know that. And they certainly don't know her as well as the President does.
I don't know the woman personally. I am interested in seeing what people who do know here personally (not just in passing) have to say. So far we've only heard from people who like her. But they were probably given a heads-up. I'm sure there are people out there to tell us bad things about her.
All I'm saying to the President is...Help me, help you.
I don't direct this just to you. Do you have a justice in the running who you PERSONALLY KNEW would be a good pick? Or are you saying that there were other justices who had the backing of people who you trust more than the President?
My problem is that I have a list of people I trust, and about half of them are saying she's great, and the other half are saying it was a terrible pick because we DON'T KNOW ENOUGH. Then there is Mark Levin who truly makes me nervous by pointing out that in his mind she is actually unqualified for the bench. I'd love to get to personally interview her. Instead I'm making a list of questions to send to my senators and the people on the judiciary committee.
It will be interesting to see what her ABA rating is.
I think Harriet Meirs is as conservative as they come. There was much disinformation about her earlier today. Check out this thread. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/1496108/posts
Since she is his personal counsel, I wonder if some time in the past she let him know that if she were ever on the court she would over turn Roe?
There'd be collateral damage to the President if she were humiliated and rejected. Impossible to say whether that's better or worse than having her on the bench.
For example, if the nomination ends in a massacre, maybe the Dems will gain seats in '06; maybe the majority; and then what if two more Supreme Court justices retire or pass away in '07 or '08? The President will have lost an opportunity to shape the court for a generation, with four conservative appointments. Instead, he'll have to nominate people acceptable to the Democrats.
I'm very skeptical of this choice he has made, but I do believe she is about as conservative as he is, which is not saying much. So maybe he never would have shaped the court as conservatives would prefer, but still, it cannot be a good thing for him to lose any more political capital. We are probably looking at the high tide for Republicans in the Congress, as it is; we'll be lucky if we can sustain it through another election cycle.
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.