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.
I have to admit, his argument pushed me over the top... IN FAVOR... of the nomination.
... not helpful to the conservative cause nor to the Republican party ...
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.
It's down right scary to see how many of them there are...
She is also a democrat. RINO
I think the president should have nominated a Thomas clone with a clear record and outstanding credentials. Then the Dems Bork him, Frist drops the nuke, the country wins. What am I missing?
Anyone who calls themselves "Professor" is truly a dork. I don't care if he is a professor.
Sincerely,
Maestro Frank
This is from a strict conservative? Sounds more like liberal talking points to me. I trust the President took more factors into account in making this choice than most blithering emotards who consider themselves experts on the subject.
"Seems like" cronyism? "Seems like" affirmative action? I thought conservatives were more concerned with substance than with appearances.
Everyone points out that she was a Democrat and gave to Al gore in 1988...
anyone want to bet that Zell Miller didn't also? Or maybe he wasn't a Democrat back then either?
Maybe she'll be a solid conservative of the Scalia stripe. Maybe she'll be another O'Connor or even a Souter. We haven't the slightest idea. What I do know is that the first ruling she makes in which she sides with the liberals there will be anger in the base and the Republican Party will be the loser. Nothing will demoralize conservatives in the country more than if an opportunity to change the Supreme Court in the right direction was lost.
Bush has nominated Harriet Miers to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the SCOTUS. As a strict conservative, I'm happy, and here are 5 reasons why:
1. She has real-world experience as a corporate lawyer and as the head of a large law firm. Many justices don't have that kind of experience, and so have a harder time understanding the impact of their decisions on the economy and on the business environment. The business community will strongly support her nomination, and for good reasons.
2. According to a judge who has worked with her and knows her well, she will likely be a strict constitutionalist. She has worked in contract law for a long time, and people who work in contract law are focused on the meaning of the law as it's written in the original document.
3. She is an evangelical Christian who has been very active in her church.
4. She tried to get the ABA to reconsider their pro-abortion stance.
5. She has worked with Bush in the executive branch trenches formulating the legal framework needed to combat terrirism. She will likely know more, and be a positive bigger influence on the court on this critical issue than any other SC justice.
Well put. Picking Miers was all about affirmative action and cronyism. In this regard, Jonah Goldberg has provided what I consider a a thoughtful commentary on the pick:
GOLDBERG: "We can go to school on her record more. But, at first blush, what bothers me more is the political calculation here. Bush could very much use a brisk confirmation battle right now. His base is forgetting why he should be supported. Confirmation battles over big ideas are clarifying in ways that are good for the public and good for a president whose principles are getting blurry. The Miers pick comes along at precisely the wrong moment. Bush is saying "trust me" at exactly the time when conservatives want to be reassured they can trust him. The last thing he needs right now is to dip into his house credit one more time.
Bush has a history of running against the wind of his strongest critics, which is one of the things I love about the guy. For example, people said Bush was too unilateral and hostile to the international community, so he appointed John Bolton. But, either by accident or design, this time around he seems bent on countering a different kind of criticism. He's been getting beaten -- somewhat unfairly -- for his alleged cronyism of late. This appointment seems like the Bolton approach; "Oh yeah, you think I'm into cronyism? Well here's my former personal lawyer from Texas!"