Posted on 10/03/2005 9:46:39 AM PDT by conservativecorner
Harriet Miers, that is. I'm sure that she is a capable lawyer and a loyal aide to President Bush. But the bottom line is that he had a number of great candidates to choose from, and instead of picking one of them--Luttig, McConnell, Brown, or a number of others--he nominated someone whose only obvious qualification is her relationship with him.
Miers is also 60 years old, which limits the number of years she will be able to serve on the Court. The great unknown is whether she is a conservative. I don't know, but President Bush does; and I think he is committed to moving the Court in the right direction. So until we see something to the contrary, I'll take it on faith that she will be a principled strict constructionist on the Court.
The next move it up to the Democrats; it will be interesting to see what they do. Undoubtedly they will question her qualifications, and you will hear the word "cronyism" from some of them. But will they filibuster? I've been predicting that they will, more or less regardless of the identity of the nominee, and there will no doubt be powerful pressure in that direction from far-left interest groups. But it is going to be very hard to explain publicly the rationale for a filibuster of Ms. Miers. Beyond her being (presumably) a Republican, what would the stated grounds be? She has little or no paper trail, and no track record, obviously, as a judge. So I would think the Dems will have to seize on something that comes up during her Judiciary Committee hearing.
Regardless of what the Democrats do, many Republicans will have misgivings about this nomination. "Stealth" nominees have not turned out well for Republicans.
ONE MORE THOUGHT: Various helpful Democrats and media people have advised President Bush that, since he has been weakened by [fill in the blank], he can't risk a battle with the Senate Democrats and should nominate a "consensus" candidate, i.e. a Democrat/moderate/abortion rights advocate, or whatever, to the Court. The President rightfully rejected this thinking with the Roberts nomination, which turned out to be one of the few political successes of his second term. The reason the Roberts nomination was successful politically was the nominee's obviously overwhelming qualifications for the job. Bush could have done the same thing once again, with any of a number of superbly qualified candidates. He should have nominated another great conservative, and dared the Democrats to filibuster him: the resulting political fallout might have changed the dynamics of Bush's second term in the administration's favor, and we would have wound up with another great jurist on the bench.
Instead, Bush chose a nominee who makes little sense on either substantive or political grounds: a second or third tier candidate whose choice will be, I think, slight political minus for the President because of her perceived lack of qualifications. I really don't get it.
PAUL concurs: This nominee is a two-fer -- she would not have been selected but for her gender, and she would not have been selected but for her status as a Bush crony. So instead of a 50-year old conservative experienced jurist we get a 60-year old with no judicial experience who may or may not be conservative.
I was hoping that, because this is Bush's second term, he would thumb his nose at the diversity-mongers and appoint the best candidate. He thumbed his nose all right, but at conservatives.
FRIENDS IN ALL THE WRONG PLACES: Here's more. Washington Post reporter Mike Allen, writing in Time's online edition, calls Miers a safe pick and notes that her name was suggested by several Democratic Senators. Allen quotes Harry Reid, who says, "I like Harriet Miers." And a Republican Senate staffer says, "If there is a fight to be had, it will be from the right." Great.
Meanwhile, Red State and others are pointing out that, based on political contributions, Miers appears to have been a Democrat at least until the end of the 1980s.
The only positive spin I can think of is this: President Bush knows Miers well, and it is almost inconceivable to me that he is insincere in his repeated descriptions of what he is looking for in Supreme Court justices. He also is acutely aware that the Souter nomination was one of the chief blots on his father's administration. Is it possible that he would waste a Supreme Court nomination on someone who isn't a conservative? It's hard for me to believe, but the evidence so far isn't encouraging.
ONE MORE: The most optimistic conservative I've seen so far is the ever-positive Hugh Hewitt.
PAUL adds: The fact that President Bush knows Harriet Miers and must think she's conservative doesn't take me very far. I'm willing to take it on faith that, in a very general sense, she's a conservative as opposed to a liberal or centrist. But so was Sandra Day O'Connor. I doubt that Bush has any idea whether Miers' conservatism runs any deeper than that, much less how it would translate into the judicial battle field.
The mostly Republican Senate is not compelled to confirm her.
What anybody who cares about this has to do is write a letter to the Republican Senator who represents them and say "if you vote to confirm this nominee, I will never vote for you again no matter what else you do or don't do".
Cronyism: is partiality to long-standing friends, especially by appointing them to public office without regard for their qualifications. The word "cronyism" is always used derogatorily.
They are already lining up with Bush as we speak.
Does anyone remember when Bush said he looked into Putin's eyes and saw his wonderful soul?
OK-- I'm at work on a short lunch. Can you tell me why this is a "debacle"? Because she's unknown?
"I was hoping that, because this is Bush's second term, he would thumb his nose at the diversity-mongers and appoint the best candidate. He thumbed his nose all right, but at conservatives. "
I would strongly urge every conservative to write their Republican Senators and tell them to deep six this foolish choice by Bush.
But I think there are enough liberal Dems and Rinos in Congress to shuttle her in. And that is exactly what will happen.
Bush will get the support of the Democrats and McCain gang on this woman and the mainstream and conservative Republicans will be outnumbered - and knowing that - will be unlikely to oppose a Presidential choice.
I'm torn on this nomination.
I'm gonna sit back and listen for the next couple of days.
Ms Miers may be well be a strict constructionist - but she's never served as a judge before. To me, that is a blow against her nomination.
There were several better selections that Bush could have made - but he didn't. I wonder what his train of thought was on this one. The fact that he consulted with a number of dem senators is not re-assuring to me.
Luttig, Rogers-Brown, etc. were all safe picks who likely would have been confirmed - albeit with a battle.
before we pressure the Senate, let's give it another couple of days. If this nomination continues to look awkward or get an increasingly bad smell, then let's go and tell our Senators what we think.
Or him and his 'ol man... kissing 'The Rapists' arse? Or having 'The Swimmer' over for 'dinner-and-a-movie'?
"the Miers Debacle" is hilarious. Sometimes the MSM is right about the bloggers. It yet become a debacle but I doubt it.
I used to attend Valley View Church in Carrollton, Tx, (Dallas) for a short time. This is the church Harriett Miers belonged too although I did not meet or know her. The church is a solid evangelical christian type. This gives me hope that a solid pro-life candidate has been chosen. When Jay Sekulow of ACLJ has endorsed her then it's a plus for conservatives.
SISTERS?........
I beg your pardon..who are you?
Thank you for reminding us.
All I see here is old. Unfortunate.
The post Harriet Miers -- pro, part 1 (long but informative) is encouraging. She sounds like a solid Christian, who takes her Bible and her Constitution straight up.
If Bush botched this pick, then likely both he and us will agree. We won't know for a while. But no pick is a certainty, and as I said above, Bush is most certain of the people that he knows.
First Impressions - Monday, October 03, 2005 @ 11:12:27 AM
I love it how we're all instant experts on the president's nominee. But first things first: how did Harriet Miers come across in her statement? One immediate thing to like: her Dallas, Texas accent. It'll be enough to drive the liberals crazy, a constant reminder she's not one of them. Plus she struck all the right notes:
"...I have always had a great respect and admiration for the genius that inspired our Constitution and our system of government."
"It is the responsibility of every generation to be true to the founders' vision of the proper role of the courts in our society."
Working with members of Congress as White House counsel "has given me an eager -- even greater appreciation for the role of the legislative branch in our constitutional system."
This doesn't sound like a woman who will legislate from the bench.
One other thing: Bush will be fried for his cronyism. But it's his prerogative to nominate whomever he decides on. He's the president. Cheney headed Bush's vice-presidential search and ended up the veep himself. Miers played a similar roll in vetting Bush candidates to the federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court, and now ends up a top choice herself. What was good in the case of Cheney can't be in Miers's case?
Posted By: Wlady
By picking a crony from inside the Whitehouse so close to himself, Bush has showed that what he cares about right now is himself and his Administration, not the future of the country.
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.