Posted on 10/03/2005 6:31:17 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
In a just-completed interview on Fox News, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol made no effort to sugar coat his criticism of President Bush's selection of Harriet Miers as his Supreme Court nominee.
Among Kristol's comments:
There is no way to say she is the best-qualified.
It really looks like W, faced with pressure and criticism, "flinched."
This is an insult to the well-qualified conserative women W has appointed to the federal bench.
W could have appointed Miers to a federal judgeship before but didn't do so. Could reflect his views on her qualifications up till now.
He's spoken with a number of leading conservatives already this morning and they are disappointed.
Kristol stated more than once that he was surprised by the pick and was obviously disappointed, to the point of seeming almost angry.
I like the fact that Dubya picked a person he personally knows. At least there is some personal history there.
Souter was recommended to Bush senior by Sunnunu and Rudman, and didn't know the guy. I doubt that fact escaped Dubya.
I'm not getting the gist of your post. Would that be a good shock because he actually *did* pick someone conservative, as your post's second part suggest?
Thanks.
Give it time... You will see (o:
Leahy has concerns about Harriet Miers
By Christopher Graff, Associated Press Writer | October 3, 2005
MONTPELIER, Vt. --U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy said Monday that he does not know much about Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers and has concerns about her close ties to President Bush.
"It is too early to reach any firm judgment about such an important nomination," said Leahy shortly after the president announced the nomination.
"I do not know Ms. Miers well and I did not meet her until recently, six months after she became the White House counsel," he said. "What I do know is that she has a reputation for being loyal to this president, whom she has a long history of serving as a close adviser and in working to advance his objectives.
"In an administration intent on accumulating executive power, Ms. Miers' views on - and role in - these issues will be important for the Senate to examine," said Leahy. "It is important to know whether she would enter this key post with the judicial independence necessary when the Supreme Court considers issues of interest to this administration."
Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, supported the nomination of John Roberts to be chief justice.
He said that Miers, who would replace Sandra Day O'Connor, would fill an "especially crucial seat on our nation's highest court," a reference to the fact that O'Connor was a decisive swing vote on many high profile cases.
Leahy, who met with the president to discuss possible nominees for the seat, said that "many will be surprised that the president did not pick a Hispanic woman from the many qualified Hispanics across the country recommended to the president."
The senator called on the White House and Miers to ensure that the Senate Judiciary Committee has all possible information to decide on the nomination.
"I supported Chief Justice Roberts nomination in spite of -- not because of -- the lack of cooperation from the White House and the misguided urgings of some senators that the nominee not be forthcoming about his judicial philosophy during the committee's hearings," he said.
"The White House should provide us with the information we need to have a full picture of Ms. Miers qualifications and record, and we will expect her to answer the questions that tell us what kind of a justice she would be in this especially crucial seat on our nations highest court," said Leahy.
Jim Barnett, the chairman of the state Republican Party, praised Miers as an outstanding nominee.
"Like Justice O'Connor, Harriet Miers blazed a trail for women as the first female leader of a prominent Texas law firm, the first woman president of the state bar of Texas and as the top lawyer to the president and the White House," said Barnett.
"I urge Senators Leahy and Jeffords to maintain the open mind they demonstrated in voting to confirm Chief Justice Roberts, and resist the inevitable pressure from far-left groups and Howard Dean to obstruct the confirmation process," he said.
U.S. Sen. Jim Jeffords supported Roberts; former Gov. Howard Dean, now the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, did not.
Found this...
October 03, 2005
Harriet Miers -- her pastor's view
I talked yesterday with Miers' pastor, Ron Key, who for 33 years (until a few weeks ago) was pastor of Valley View Christian Church in Dallas. “She started coming to church in 1980. She helped out with kids, made coffee, furnished donuts, served on missions committee. She worked out her faith in practical, behind-the-scenes ways. She doesn't draw attention to herself, she's humble, self-effacing." Key has still seen her in recent years because "her mother is 93. Harriet tries to get home as much as she can." When Key and Miers met in 1980, "I don’t know how strong her faith was at that time. She came to a place where she totally committed her life to Jesus. She had gone to church before, but when she came to our church it became more serious to her.... Our church is strong for life, but Harriet and I have not had any conversations on that…. We believe in the biblical approach to marriage."
Actually I had not voted for years. But something about President Bush made me register, give money to the Republican Party, and vote for the first time in years.
His message was one that I liked - it wasn't extreme right. It was moderate and full of faith.
I wasn't expecting him to do anything for me after giving my vote and my money...unlike you.
Also found this...
Harriet Miers -- pro, part 1
This begins a series of seven posts on Harriet Miers, based on interviews with those who know her. Some background for the first five: I spoke yesterday with Nathan Hecht, the Texas Supreme Court justice who is a prolife hero for strongly supporting parental notification laws five years ago when a SCOTEX majority was scuttling them. Hecht, 55 and never married, and Harriet Miers, 60 and never married, have known each other for 30 years and are -- to quote Hecht -- "very close friends. We dated some. The relationship has been close: Platonic... We go to dinner, I go to Washington for special things."
Posted by Olasky at October 3, 2005 08:24 AM
Harriet Miers -- pro, part 2
Miers has been a member of Valley View Christian Church in Dallas for 25 years, where Hecht has been an elder. He calls it a "conservative evangelical church... in the vernacular, fundamentalist, but the media have used that word to tar us." He says she was on the missions committee for ten years, taught children in Sunday School, made coffee, brought donuts: "Nothing she's asked to do in church is beneath her." On abortion, choosing his words carefully for an on-the-record statement, he says "her personal views are consistent with that of evangelical Christians... You can tell a lot about her from her decade of service in a conservative church."
Posted by Olasky at October 3, 2005 08:23 AM
October 03, 2005
Harriet Miers -- pro, part 3
Hecht says about Miers' judicial philosophy: "She's an orginalist -- that's the way she takes the Bible," and that's her approach to the Constitution as well -- "Originalist -- it means what it says." He notes that her legal practice involved writing contracts rather than tort law, so she was always looking at the plain meaning of the words: "Originalist." He also says she's not a social butterfly who will be swayed by Washington dinner table conversation: "She goes to the dinners she's supposed to go to. She's not on the social circuit."
Harriet Miers -- pro, part 4
Hecht says Miers never got married because she "probably worked too hard. She's close to her family, has a sister and three brothers, goes to her nephews' high school football games, bought a car for one of them." She "had a Catholic upbringing, had not been close to the church, it was off again, on again, then she came to a point in her life when she wanted to change that…. She made an abrupt change in 79 or 80. She was very hard-working and successful, she wanted new meaning, substance in her life.”
Her father died when she was a freshman in college. "Look at her commitment in taking care of her [now 93-year-old mother] all these years. Look at her tax returns. She tithes, gave a full tithe to the church. Helps out in missions, Bible translation. These are the kinds of values she shows." Hecht and Miers "went to two or three prolife dinners in the late 80s or early 90s."
Posted by Olasky at October 3, 2005 08:21 AM
I don't want anything other than for him to keep his promise to propose people like Scalia. Roberts I think was a good choice, but this keeps things status quo, which I think is what energized people to get him re-elected to change, which he promised he would do.
So, my hunch was correct.
"Would that be a good shock because he actually *did* pick someone conservative, as your post's second part suggest?"
Barnes was basically saying the conservatives he heard from, outside of the White House, were shocked in a negative way. He then went on to say that certain conservatives, inside the White House, were trying to reassure others that Miers is "conservative" and Bush would not have picked her if he didn't think so.
Initial reaction from conservatives was positive.
"She has been a forceful advocate of conservative legal principles and judicial restraint throughout her career," said Leonard Leo, executive vice president of the Federalist Society.
"Harriet Miers is a top-notch lawyer who understands the limited role that judges play in our society," said Noel Francisco, former assistant White House counsel and deputy assistant attorney general during the Bush administration.
The president offered the job to Miers Sunday night over dinner in the residence. He met with Miers on four occasions during the past couple weeks, officials said.
snip
With no record, liberals say the White House should be prepared for Miers to be peppered with questions during her Senate confirmation.
"Choosing somebody who is not a judge would put that much more of a premium on straight answers to questions because there would be that much less for senators and the public to go on when looking at such a nominee's judicial philosophy," says Elliot Mincberg, counsel with the liberal People for the American Way.
"Have fun guys, but remember, nothing you have to say will matter to anyone."
That's about the most relevant comment I've seen around here in awhile.
Carter was a lot like Max Cleland.....hid his liberalism until he got to Washington.
And don't forget...Carter wore his Born Again patch on his sleeve.
Gutless George is frittering away the chance to bring the courts back to the Constitution. Instead, he is giving us stealth nominees like Roberts and Miers. More in the great Republican tradition of Warren, Brennan, Blackmun, Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, etc.
Miers has been a contributor to Gore and Bentsen. (You remember Bentsen, don't you, George? He's the guy who beat Daddy for the Senate, and your nominee gave him money.)
Upchuck Schumer is praising this choice. Saying this is a rejection to the "extremeist wing" of the GOP. Geraldine Ferraro also praised it. This cannot be good.
Why couldn't W have given us a genuinely, demonstrably constitutionalist nominee? There were numerous originalists available, such as Luttig, Alito, Wilkinson, just to name three. Among the women, you have Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown, to name two, or Edith Jones. Heck, Ann Coulter would be a better nominee, and she'd pretty up the place too. Or there is Estrada. (I won't even mention Roy Moore.)
This is what happens when you vote Republican to try to change the courts -- you get Roberts and Miers, not the kind of strict constructionist justices we need.
Couldn't agree more.
Well, at this point, you don't know whether she will be like Scalia or not, do you? You are just blowing wind!
People who know her in Dallas this morning on the news says that she is a "Constitutionalist."
Just because she isn't one of YOUR choices, you said you were pulling funds and tucking tail...before you know the facts, I might add.
I can understand the donations to Bentsen (high ranking home state Senator) and Gore (the most conservative of the Dems running in 1988). But why did she donate $1000 to the DNC on November 3, 1988, just days before the 1988 general election? At least she didn't donate to the Dukakis campaign.
Couldn't DISAGREE more.
If you know of any/see any concrete info about this gal ping me. I'm going to be very busy the next few days and won't even be pinging my lists probably - just checking if to see what's going on in the world.
Haven't forgotten about Evil with a capital E.
That would be very troubling. I've done a Google search that doesn't yield anything suggesting she's been connected with NOW. On what do you base the statement?
The exact same thing! Blackbird.
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.