Bush: Miers Shares Constructionist Views

Associated Press ^ | October 4, 2005 | TOM RAUM

[RWR8189]

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush pushed back against suggestions by some skeptical Republicans that Harriet Miers was not conservative enough, insisting on Tuesday that his nominee to the Supreme Court shares his strict-constructionist views.

"I know her heart," Bush told a Rose Garden news conference. "Her philosophy won't change."

As his White House counsel made the rounds of Senate offices, Bush reached out to his conservative supporters with words of reassurance.

"I hope they're listening," said the president as he worked to appease conservatives without giving new ammunition to Democrats.

Some commentators and activists have expressed open disappointment with Bush's selection of Miers, citing her lack of a judicial track record and complaining that Bush had passed over more prominent, proven conservatives.

Bush suggested he would not release documents relating to her work at the White House, saying it was "important that we maintain executive privilege," even as Democrats demanded more information on her role in administration decisions. He urged Democrats to give her a chance to explain her views of the law and the Constitution at her confirmation hearing.

In welcome news to the White House, Miers won the unqualified support of one of the Senate's top conservatives, Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.

"A lot of my fellow conservatives are concerned, but they don't know her as I do," said Hatch, a former chairman of the Judiciary Committee. "She's going to basically do what the president thinks she should and that is be a strict constructionist."

The term refers to justices who believe their role is to decide cases based on a close reading of the Constitution rather than ranging more widely in interpretation.

Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., a strong abortion foe, said he was yet to be convinced. "I am not yet confident that Ms. Miers has a proven track record," Brownback said.

In his 55-minute news conference, Bush repeatedly implied that conservatives should trust his judgment in picking Miers to succeed the retiring Sandra Day O'Connor, who often was the swing vote on divisive social issues including abortion.

Asked point blank if Miers was the most qualified person he could find in the country for the high court, Bush said, "Yes, otherwise I would not have put her on."

His father, George H.W. Bush, made a similar claim about Clarence Thomas - and was derided for it - while defending his controversial Supreme Court pick in 1991. Thomas was confirmed 52-48.

Pressed on whether he and Miers had ever discussed the court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion, Bush said: "Not to my recollection. ... " He reiterated his own opposition to abortion, but said he had not asked any judicial candidates about the subject.

Dismissing charges of cronyism, Bush said: "I picked the best person I could find. People know we're close." Bush has known Miers for more than 10 years, first as his personal lawyer and most recently as White House counsel.

Bush asked the Senate to act by Thanksgiving.

He said any request for White House documents relating to Miers' work would be a "distraction." The Democratic National Committee, meanwhile, said information was needed on Miers' role in forming policies and decisions, including U.S. treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and in Iraq.

Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee were expected to make a specific request for documents soon.

"She's a Bush loyalist, with little public record," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass. "The president should refrain from invoking executive privilege and give the American people a full and fair look at (her) record."

Bush voiced concern that many Democrats would reflexively oppose Miers, as many had voted against the confirmation of John Roberts as chief justice despite the broad acclaim he enjoyed in the legal community.

But Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada - an open fan of Miers - praised her in a floor speech.

"With so much at stake, we shouldn't rush to judgment about this or any other nominee, but even at this early stage of the confirmation process, I will say that I am impressed by what I know about Harriet Miers," said Reid, who voted against Roberts. He has not said how he will vote on Miers.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said after an hour-long meeting with Miers that he still planned to review her record but the meeting left him impressed. "She has a good understanding of the role of a judge - that a judge should not make law," Sessions said.

Several conservative leaders, including James Dobson of Focus on the Family, have given Miers a qualified endorsement - saying, in effect, that they have faith in Bush's judgment. Several others, including commentator Rush Limbaugh, have criticized the pick.

Paul Weyrich, a conservative leader from the Free Congress Foundation, said he was disappointed but would withhold judgment until he learned more. "The grassroots are not happy," he said in an interview.

"The president promised to pick somebody in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. We'll find out if he kept his word," said Weyrich, referring to justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Some conservatives have expressed fears that Miers would follow the path of Justice David Souter, who was nominated by Bush's father only to become one of the more liberal justices.

Said the president, "I don't want to put someone on the bench who's this way today and changes. ... I'm interested in someone who shares my philosophy and will share it 20 years from now."

Asked if that was a reference to Souter, Bush chuckled and said, "You're trying to get me in trouble with my father."

[RWR8189]

I sure hope you're right Mr. President.

[MAD-AS-HELL]

check out postings on http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/

Just heard him on Hugh Hewitt. Some food for thought about Miers.

[NorCalRepub]

Isn't that what John Sununu said about his buddy Souter....or was that Kennedy....oh well...one of them....

[Rodney King]

one of the Senate's top conservatives, Orrin Hatch,

ROFLMAO

[Brass]

A good friend of mine was recently diagnosed with a brain tumor which was judged to be fatal if not removed.  He was faced with the decision of choosing which doctor to perform his lifesaving surgery. He narrowed his choices to:

1. A very talented brain surgeon who was highly experienced in this type of surgery and would be capable of thinking on his feet should any complications occur.  This surgeon was expensive, had a terrible bedside manner, and some of the nurses griped when they had to work with him. However, he was recognized by everyone in his field as the best brain surgeon around.  or
   
2. A very talented pediatrician who had been the first female doctor on staff at the hospital. Most recently, she had performed admirably as an assistant to the administrator of the hospital. The administrator strongly recommended her to my friend explaining that he had known her for years and was confident that she could handle what he judged was a critical but routine procedure.
   

My friend accepted the recommendation of the confident hospital administrator and had his surgery performed by the pediatrician.  During the surgery, complications arose, the surgery took much longer than expected, and my friend died on the operating table because no experienced surgeons were available to help the pediatrician.

[Rodney King]

Asked point blank if Miers was the most qualified person he could find in the country for the high court, Bush said, "Yes, otherwise I would not have put her on."

ROFLMAO again.

[Rodney King]

Good post. Please post it on all the Meirs threads.

[Huck]

LOL! You got me laughing. I just watched that troll DUer Ann Coulter on Hannity, after listening to that DY talking point spewer Mark Levin. And brother, they are on our side in this. I sort of feel sorry for the bots. As much as this pick sucks, it must suck even worse if you're a bot, and have to dig deeeeeeeper into denial, else face the ugly truth.

[LS]

Drudge now running two pieces: 1) She had a born-again experience in 1979 and became a Republican, and 2) is called "on the extreme end of the pro-life movement."

Course, we here all know we can't trust her. Nahhhh.

[Chickenhawk Warmonger]

Thanks for that link. Some great points made in his comments. After listening to Ann Coulter just say "I think that Bush hates conservatives" and "I think he just wants to go back to Crawford", I needed some rational thoughts. I am truly disappointed in the elitist attitude of some of the "pundits". I also think that many conservatives are being a bit hypocritical - decried the left's "litmus test" on abortion but requiring one of their own.

[Porterville]

I voted for Bush because he is anti establishment.... he put in a justice outside the establishment.... I am very happy.

[SE Mom]

While I'm still undecided about this nominee- I find Ann Coulter's attitude out of bounds. Her self-importance is unbecoming- and distracting.

[mjwise]

Yeah, and Orrin Hatch supported the Ginsburg nomination too -- has there been ANY nomination he hasn't supported?

[bvw]

Great post on beldarblog.

I'll add to that info -- Dick Cheney. He was on the team to select, to vette, a VP for Bush. Remember all that? In the process of vetting many good candidates, Mr. Cheney showed himself to be the best pick of all. And so he was picked by Mr. Bush.

Samewise, Miers -- she was on the team to select and vette Supremes. They selected the short pool which included Roberts -- no more sterling a choice can be imagined. He walked through the fire pits of Babylon already and came out unscathed -- he came through that Judiciary Panel's hearing.

And with him through that fire pit, by her apt selections, Miers. Miers' own star surely showed like Cheney's must have done a few years back.

It is not a question of trust. It is Reaganesque -- "Verified". She was validated and verified to the eyes of the Bushes -- Mr and Mrs, in that process.

Anyway that's my take. Like Cheney was selected and has done superbly, so too can we expect of Miers.

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

Good post. Discuss among yourselves.

[Theresawithanh]

And I am supposed to believe either:

1. Some poster by the name of Brass who posts on an internet forum a bogus story about his supposed "friend" who chooses a pediatrician (!!!) to perform brain surgery, instead of the experienced, very talented, but apparently nasty brain surgeon whose surgery would have saved his life.

or:

2. A president who has worked with and trusted a woman whom he nominates for a SC position.

I'm choosing #2. (parables don't always work out so well)

[inquest]

1) She had a born-again experience in 1979 and became a Republican

Though she continued being a Democrat into the '80s.

[Richard-SIA]

"shares his strict-constructionist views".

Bush has strict-constructionist views?
Really?

If that's at all true how was he able to state that he would sign a new AW Ban if it came across his desk?

Oh, he has SELECTIVE-constructionist views!

Some portions of the BOR are worthy of strict-constructionist view, others are merely a hindrance to the NWO and total Gov. Org. control, that makes it all so much clearer.

[Brass]

2. A president who has worked with and trusted a woman whom he nominates for a SC position.

I'm choosing #2. (parables don't always work out so well)


I fear that Harriet Miers is not the most qualified, constitutional scholar available. Without a strong background in constitutional law, how will she react to new but critical issues presented to the SC in 20 years?

[Theresawithanh]

IIRC, there have been a few on the SC w/o a strong background in constitutional law, and also who have never served as jurists. I choose to trust that President Bush knows what he's doing. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. Guess we'll know in 20 years, eh?