Posted on 10/03/2005 1:38:07 PM PDT by Rutles4Ever
Bush has nominated Harriet Miers to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the SCOTUS. I'm appalled:
1. She's 60. There were lots of highly qualified younger candidates out there who would have sat on the court for decades.
2. She has no judicial experience.
3. She has no public track record of proven conservative judicial values (what happened to Bush's 2000 promise to appoint people in the old of Scalia and Thomas?). How do we know she won't be another Souter? or Kennedy?
4. She's a Bush crony, which is an unfortunate choice for an administration that has been fairly charged with excessive cronyism (anybody remember ex-FEMA head Mike Brown?).
5. Her resume pales in comparison to those of some of the other leading candidates.
6. Why is the leader of a party that is supposedly against affirmative action making an appointment that can only be explained as an affirmative action choice?
7. And if Bush was bound and determined to make an affirmative action choice, why not go with a more experienced and qualified woman like Edith Jones or minority like Emilio Garza?
This appointment reeks of cronyism, which along with prideful arrogance seems to be the besetting sin of the Bush presidency.
At this point, I see no reason - none, nada, zilch - for conservatives who care about the courts to lift a finger to support this candidate.
Only minutes after Bush appeared at the White House Monday to announce the nomination, Manuel Miranda, a conservative strategist and former aide to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist issued a scathing statement: "The reaction of many conservatives today will be that the president has made possibly the most unqualified choice since Abe Fortas, who had been the president's lawyer. The nomination of a nominee with no judicial record is a significant failure for the advisers that the White House gathered around it."
While cautioning that "the president deserves the benefit of a doubt," Miranda added, "Something has been left unachieved by the Miers nomination. A Republican president has yet to erase the stigma of the (1987) Robert Bork hearings and the David Souter nomination. The nomination of Harriet Miers has not rid us of the repugnant situation that a jurist with a clear and distinguished record will not be nominated for higher service. The nomination did not rid us of the apprehension of stealth nominees."
Excellent arguments, sums up exactly how I feel. As Hannity just said "There was an entire stable of experienced, constitutionalist, young judges, why were they by-passed?"
Neither did Rehnquist.
I guess that John Roberts confirmation was all just a dream, then...
What is this over and over again harping on "She's 60."?.....how do they know she won't live to be 100?.........It's not like she has one foot on the banana peel..........
Yeah, we all know how badly the last nominee with no judicial record turned out. That Rehnquist dude sure was a slackard...
And everyone else's resume paled in comparison to Roberts but that wasn't good enough for some.
She's so conservative she gave money to Al Gore.
"What is this over and over again harping on "She's 60."?.....how do they know she won't live to be 100?"
What kind of logic is that? I could just as easily say "What is this over and over again harping on Gore being a liberal?... How do they know he won't become a conservative?"
I have to admit, his argument pushed me over the top... IN FAVOR... of the nomination.
This is true. Rehnquist did not have experience as a jurist.
... not helpful to the conservative cause nor to the Republican party ...
--- She's so conservative she gave money to Al Gore. ---
Lets not judge so quickly.
I once sent a letter to Al Gore offering him $20 to KISS MY ASS!!!
If he would have taken me up, I would have gladly given him the money.
"What is this over and over again harping on "She's 60."?"
Well... there was an entire stable of better qualified candidates that are in their 40's and 50's. Why take someone who will likely retire much sooner and who we know nothing about? I heard Cheney defending her on the radio before, and he gave me not one significant reason to believe that she will be a conservative justice.
Agreed. The author being "appalled" by the nomination and the absolute nonsensical hand wringing by some on the first day of debate is pushing more and more in favor of the nomination.
Could this be George Jr's "Read my lips....." This President has no election to worry about, no more castles to build. Yet he has taken the once chance he might have to really swing the court to its intended purpose and perhaps, blown it. How many more years will it be before all the circumstances come together to have this sort of impact on the court? I hope and pray I am wrong......
It is presumtious to think that just because someone is 60 means that they won't live that much longer. Al Gore will always be a liberal, but Ms. Meirs may live longer than you or I. Only God is supposed to know the time of our deaths.........
I think the points made in your post pretty well sum up my concerns with this nominee.
While she may be from out of the blue. I trust the Prez and he is a man of character. i think he looks for that in people, so I think she will be ok.
I heard him, too. He nearly damned her with faint praise, didn't you think?........
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.