Posted on 10/04/2005 7:33:33 PM PDT by jdm
Edited on 10/04/2005 7:41:50 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
WASHINGTON -- Senators beginning what ought to be a protracted and exacting scrutiny of Harriet Miers should be guided by three rules. First, it is not important that she be confirmed. Second, it might be very important that she not be. Third, the presumption -- perhaps rebuttable but certainly in need of rebutting -- should be that her nomination is not a defensible exercise of presidential discretion to which senatorial deference is due.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Second, being a litigator does not prepare you for writing an antitrust or ERISA opinion. These are very arcane and difficult areas of the law.
yes, it's possible.
But I don't see any democrats with the guts on the judiciary committee to attack a black female who's the daughter of a sharecropper, as well as being ten times smarter than all of them put together.
If they did, it would further destroy the democratic party.
Besides, all that's a really moot point, because GWB didn't even try. You try, you fail, you renominate. And every time you do send up a qaulified, real conservative, it energizes your base and exposes the dems when they try to fillibuster.
Wow.
This will get George on every lib TV and radio show. Probably some rep shows too. How important it will make him feel.
OK...but the Republicans will be throwing softballs, and the Dems will be asking about abortion, and Miers won't be answering those questions. I don't think we will learn much. Why nominate someone with no paper trail? Why run from the fight? Roberts was the "stealth" nomination with good qualifications...why an even "stealthier" nominee with unknown judicial qualifications? She should have been 4th string at best. Lazy nomination by GW.
Oh... are you the President's psychologist? Then maybe you'll replace Dr. Carmona as Surgeon General.
PUH_LEEZE!! You can disagree without accusing the president of such base motives.
Why the need to put down Thomas as if that advances your case for Miers. He was not only a federal appellate judge, but he was EEOC chairman, a solid conservative in that post, and a well-known entity in the administration. Now, if you have some record on Miers you want to share, do it. But don't dump on Thomas.
George Will may not have the resources to run for President (if he even ever wanted to)."
"There's a reason things happen."
1) None of US has a vote on this.
2) Re-reading this in 10 years, about half of us will sound like geniuses and the other half like idiots.
So's Dianne Feinstein.
Are you reading this from her Court decisions? Is this something you've gathered from a careful analysis of Law Review articles she has authored?
Or are you reading what's been said in press conferences and releases? Or worse, opinions of other Freepers?
Exactly what I was thinking. Everyone is going to be so polarized that they can't or won't change their minds about her or give her a fair chance.
You know these guys would like to purge anyone who dares to disagree with this nominee out of the GOP and the conservative movement. They will only embrace you if you bless this nomination and implicitly trust the President. They do not realize it, but they are the true threat to conservatism.
Really: how do you know she will?
Do we have any law review writings? Bench decisions? Anything whatesoever to give us any clue to her jurisprudential philosophy and grasp of the kinds of issues and cases that regularly come before the court?
Even with Roberts we had something to go on.
With Miers, there's nada except Dubya's word.
I think it's asking a lot. Especially for those of us who worked and gave money to elect this administration with the Court as our chief concern.
I don't think she's Souter 2.0. I do think there's no reason to be certain she won't be O'Connor 2.0 or Kennedy 2.0. The pressure dragging justices to the left on the Court is tremendous. Can Miers resist?
Frankly, I have no idea. I'd have a better idea if I had something to go on besides Bush's word regarding his longtime lawyer.
I think elites are people who say "trust me."
Well, William Rehnquist had neither qualification when he assumed his post over 30 years ago. He was an Assistant Attorney General, but that doesn't involve much legal scholarship.
Look, I know you're unhappy with this nomination. Lots of folks are. If you want to tell your Senators to vote against Miers, go ahead. I suspect, if they're Republican, they will vote for her, regardless. I know mine, John Cornyn and Kay Hutchison, have already announced their support. Cornyn knows Harriett Miers. Well. And he is enthusiastic about her.
Yup.
"Are you reading this from her Court decisions?"
Kennedy was conservative, based on his decisions--and then he "grew."
"Is this something you've gathered from a careful analysis of Law Review articles she has authored?"
She stated that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right in one of those articles. That's WAY more than we've gotten out of anybody since Louis Brandeis!
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.