The Coming Explosion Over Miers – Redux (Too many conservatives going off half-cocked.)

The American Thinker ^ | October 3, 2005 | Thomas Lifson

[quidnunc]

Rush Limbaugh has found the information that Harriet Miers is an evangelical Christian, a member of a church in Dallas that most would describe as "fundamentalist." I believe that this vindicates my earlier analysis based on mistaken information about a Ministry supported by Ms. Miers.

Blue state fundamentalists tend to hate evangelicals the way that Islamists hate Jews: viscerally. It will take enormous willpower for many of them to avoid saying that one who believes in the literal word of the Bible should not be allowed a place on the Supreme Court. They played footsie with the position that a devout Catholic would be disqaualified.

To partially quote my earlier post: this is a battle the Democrat left can't win with a majority of the American public, which sees religious faith as a good thing. As far as I am concerned about the coming attacks, Dirty Harry summed up my feelings: "Go ahead — make my day."

-snip-

[SuziQ]

We conservatives need to pipe down until the facts are all in instead of going off half-cocked.

AMEN!

[Carry_Okie]

Not so. The intellectual trends that are popular now have been popular for decades throughout the entire Western world. The father of modern Deconstruction, Martin Heidegger, was a member of the Nazi Party. Paul de Man wrote pro-Nazi articles in his native Belgium. The radical historicist view has also been popular since the 1930s.

And Antonio Gramsci proposed Cultural Marxism in the 1920s. Popular, but not dominant.

All of this was taken up by various French intellectuals in the 60s, sure, but the underlying philosophy that is now all the rage at Yale and Princeton has been around for a very long time.

IMO the Frankfurt School was more influential, or effluential depending upon your preferences.

We don't need anyone who's an unknown *and* a graduate of an elite law school. Ann Coulter is exactly wrong.

On that we agree somewhat. There are exceptions.

[carton253]

Given the choice of supporting or not supporting based upon lack of knowledge and blind faith, I obviously choose NOT supporting.

Why? You a glass half empty type of guy...

[CFC__VRWC]

Reid could say, "I was duped, the battle is ON!" and there could be an enormous knock-down drag-out fight over Mier.

Reid is a scummy little low-life jackass who's dumber than dirt. But even he's smart enough to know that any words of praise he has for any Bush nominee will send conservatives into fits of rage. He did the exact same thing when the President nominated John Roberts that he did with Miers today. And of course, in the end he invented some excuse to vote against Roberts, like I knew he would all along. Why anyone takes anything Harry Reid says seriously is beyond me.

There may well be good reasons for us to oppose Harriet Miers' nomination, and if those reasons exist, they'll come out over the next few weeks. But getting the "endorsement" of that POS Reid is not a good reason

[ErnBatavia]

Let the 'rats turn down a Brown or a Luttig or an Owens - and then have to twist themselves into logical pretzels to explain it.

I'm coming into this thread from the tail end, so this may have been addressed....it's somewhat conceivable that there's a more grand 'Rat-Killing strategy in play here, such as at the first signs of Leahy popping off she drops out for 'personal reasons' and Bush drops the Bunker Buster: a proven hardcore conservative.

(Just dreaming, I know, but fun to think about)

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

I don't want someone who gets along well with others. I want someone who will zealously protect me from an overreaching government and judiciary. My momma is a great person who gets along with other people, does that qualify her for the Court?

Why are you so willing to fawn all over this nominee when there are so many exceptionally qualified judges with outstanding conservative credentials? BTW, I am the chair of my county GOP central committee, on the steering committee for a GOP gubernatorial campaign and was on the Bush legal team in this state in 04. So don't you dare accuse me of whining or complaining.

[NoControllingLegalAuthority]

We have the Bush cultists here who will follow him wherever he leads.

This country gives us all the right to disagree with our politicians and throw them to the curb when they deserve it. We don't have a monarchy we have to follow blindly.

Some of us maintain allegiance to principles, not to personalities.

We absolutely have a right to expect an experienced judge be nominated to the Supreme Court.

This woman is not a judge.

The strongest argument against this pick is the woman is not qualified.

What qualifies this woman to be a Supreme Court Justice other than that she is a lawyer and is a friend of the President?

This woman may or may not be a conservative but Bush was elected by conservatives expecting him to appoint one to the Supreme Court.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Stephens is an old fart and could drop dead tomorrow.

I'm an atheist, but I will say if there was ever a time to pray, your above comment should be motivational for those so inclined...

[Reactionary]

"I still believe - given the fine choices available to him - that he ought to have at least tried."

Perhaps we should have. But it would have been an incredibly ugly process. It would have been a degrading process, too, for the person who was nominated. And (I might add) for the country.

[Ninian Dryhope]

"My children and grandchildren will have to suffer"

Correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to recall that the President has children as well, does he not? I think I remember them being beautiful young women who will probably be having children in the not too distant future and giving the President and the First Lady grandchildren. Do you think he wants to hurt his own children by undermining the Constitution?

Get real!

[visualops]

Leonard Leo, President, Federalist Society:
"In nominating Harriet Miers, the President has once again kept his commitment to select Supreme Court justices who are very well qualified and share his philosophy of interpreting the law, not legislating from the bench."

"She has also on a number of occasions demonstrated her commitment to conservative legal principles and the principles of judicial restraint in fairly applying the law, and not making public policy from the bench."
(Leonard Leo, Memo To Interested Parties Re: Nomination Of Harriet E. Miers, 10/3/05)

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

So when will a Republican president ever be able to nominate a truly noteworthy conservative jurist? Must all future nominees be stealth conservatives? You appear to be ceding the point that conservatives are second class citizens in our republic.

[Ninian Dryhope]

"The only reason he didn't nominate them was he didn't have the guts to go to the mat for them."

I think the President is a very gutsy guy. He is willing to go to the mat with Osama and Saddam, knowing that so many good Americans would die in the process. Don't underestimate a man who has shown so much wisdom and courage.

[Judith Anne]

ROFL!!

Abso-freakin-lutely!

(Just think, I've found another FReepin Friend, here!)

;-D

[Reactionary]

"This woman is not a judge."

Thank g-d. The lawyers are enough of a humiliation.

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

Then how did Bush show guts with this nomination?

[medscribe]

LOL! "Last chance?" The calendar says October 2005, giving the president more than 3 FULL YEARS left in his 2nd term. And given that Scalia is approaching 70, Stevens is past 80, etc, I would wager that there is at least 1, maybe 2 more SCOTUS openings before January 20, 2009.

I'll just sit back and watch all the so-called conservatives who are outraged at the Miers pick make fools out of themselves. Miers is a tough as nails, no nonsense Texas woman. Heck, Dubya might as well have put the Silver Fox on the court today.

[carton253]

I don't have to be a Bush cultist to point out the obvious flaw in your reasoning...

This woman may or may not be a conservative but Bush was elected by conservatives expecting him to appoint one to the Supreme Court.

By your own words, you state that you do not know if this woman is or is not a conservatives, yet you are angry because you didn't get what was your by right - a conservative judge.

Now, how's that for some twisted logic. Before you decide whether or not you have grounds to be so angry, shouldn't you wait to find out just what she stands for.

Don't forget, she's the one responsible for getting the Owens, Browns, etc. to the nominating process. She endorsed and vetted them. Do you really think that she was picking people she did not agree with judicially?

[carton253]

How did he not?

[visualops]

You know all those judges everyone has been saying they wish had been nominated? Guess who found them, vetted them, and recommended them for Dubya to nominate?

Alot of folks seem to be missing the point that it's been she and Rove who have done so much work on the nominees. Bush already knew her very well, and in seeing her in action in vetting the nominees, it would seem that cemented his opinion she herself was a great choice.