[frankjr]

National Review actually posted this in their "Bench Memos" blog today. I think it is interesting since they are hitting hard on Miers now.

[RockinRight]

Funny what they thought of Thomas back then.

He's our best Supreme Court Justice today, IMHO.

[linkinpunk]

Funny.

I posted an article yesterday where an author claimed Clarence Thomas was a "stealth nominee."

My point was that we did not know a whole lot about Clarence Thomas when he was nominated, just as we do not know a whole lot about Miers.

I wish I had known yesterday that the National Review claimed Thomas was "Souteresque."

[Rodney King]

OK, so of unknown candidates we have:

O'Connor - bad
Kennedy - bad
Souter - horrible
Thomas - Great
Roberts - Probably good, but still unknown

Therefore, we should trust that Miers will be good.

Is that the logic?

[JerseyHighlander]

Dane, thanks for the heads up. I'm young enough that pubic hair jokes were all the rage in the schoolroom during the Anita Hill hearings. So, for me, it's not quite "everything old is new again." Yet.

[DallasMike]

Great article. I'm a Miers supporter because she's more of a known quantity to me since she's from Dallas, but I can certainly understand why some people are concerned. Shoot, I'm concerned about any Supreme Court nominee because I know that once they're confirmed, they're subject to being wowed by the glitzy life of DC liberals. Souter fell victim to that as did O'Connor.

I think, however, that Miers' grounding in her faith and her lack of succumbing thus far to the party circuit (she ran Locke Purnell here in Dallas, which is a huge, wealthy firm) indicate that she more interested in serving than in being wooed and admired for "growing" on the court.

 

       

        <-------- Visit Stingray blogsite for conservative Christian commentary

[shhrubbery!]

I usually like the baby-faced boys Lowry, Goldberg et al over at NRO. But NRO's showing their callowness BIG TIME over the Miers nomination.

Same goes for the likes of George Will, Laura Ingraham, and Ann Coulter (previously one of my faves) -- except those three snotty elitists don't have the excuse of being young anymore. Meeeeeeeowwww!

Here's an excerpt from an email I got from the Family Research Council that I found very encouraging about Miers:

...A story in a homosexual newspaper--The New York Blade--reports on Dallas homosexual leaders' meetings with Harriet Miers when she sought election to the Dallas City Council in 1989. "She was not hostile, nor did she come across as some kind of right-wing ideologue," said Louise Young, formerly with the Lesbian/Gay Political Coalition of Dallas.

Ultimately, the group declined to support Miers. They said she told them then that she would not support repeal of Texas's sodomy law and that she was opposed to abortion.

Despite this non-endorsement by his group, Marc Lerro said his fellow homosexual leaders viewed the fact that Miers met with them and filled out their questionnaire as "a positive gesture." Today, Lerro says "I can't say...she will be good on our issues, but on a personal level, she was very open to having gay people serve on boards and commissions."

I think the line I highlighted in red shows something very positive about Miers:
That whatever Miers's personal views about "having gay people serve on boards and commissions," she was NOT in favor of having the courts strike down Texas's sodomy laws.

This shows a respect for letting the people to decide their laws through the legislative process, and an understanding that the courts should not legislate.

[zook]

NR on Clarence Thomas: "Truth be told, however, his public record on issues other than civil rights is still more Souteresque than Borkian."

I'll bet we could dig up a lot of other statments like this from "conservative" snobs and snake handlers.