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 ...
I have seen a lot of adhominem attacks tonight, but I think that nopardons has been trying to argue his position.
The tiresome posts are the one's that lay down an attack, wait for a well reasoned response, and then respond by hitting the "troll button". I don't agree with his position, but he appears to be arguing with reason instead of emotion. You have both been laying down some good posts.
And it was Specter who saved Thomas. He is NOT willing to do that for JRB.
:-)
However, I don't believe there is any "best qualified" individual out there. It's in the eye of the beholder because the Constitution is silent on judicial qualifications.
From my point of view, results are what matter. Will Miers vote reliably and consistently right of center? If so, that's what matters to me. She doesn't have to be a brilliant Constitutional thinker in order to be a reliable right-of-center vote. She can do what most modern justices have done -- hire brilliant law clerks to do much of the behind-the-scenes work for her, including drafting her opinions. The one thing her clerks can't do for her is vote. That's the bottom line for me.
Am I convinced she will be a reliable, consistent right-of-center justice? Partially, but I still have more to learn about her.
This isn't a matter of "trust."
This isn't an FDA commissioner, or a Surgeon General, or even the head of the DOJ.
This is the single greatest, most solemn responsibility entrusted to the chief executive, short of executing his role as Commander in Chief.
We're being asked to take a leap of faith...with an associate justice of the Supreme Court!
This is an institution that-after many years of aggrandizing its Constitutionally-enumerated prerogatives-has become the single most important, decisive branch of the federal government.
This is an individual who, if confirmed, will serve-barring any unforeseen debilities or catastrophic personal issues-for the next two decades.
The rest of her natural life!!
You're asking us to invest our hope in an unknown quantity, who will be stepping into one of the most vital functions of our federal government, and who will be assuming heretofore unimaginable professional responsibilities.
This is a risk that shouldn't have ever been asked of us.
(bows) Thank you. :)
I'm a "SHE", not a "HE", but thank you.
You're most welcome.
Doh!...my bad
Again, thanks for your kind words.
A Luttig nomination won't happen now. The "Gang Of 14" deal only applied to the first and only nomination to come out of the queue, which was John Roberts. The "Gang Of 14" deal did not render a filibuster motion irrelevant for all subsequent nominations following Roberts. Run JRB through the process again, filibustered. Run Luttig again, filibustered.
I'm suggesting there could be a difference between her professional demeanor and her private beliefs. For example, I'm rather wobbly on abortion compared to the average Freeper, but if I were asked for my opinion on whether a pro-choice guy could be a good choice for the Republican presidential nominee I'd say "Hell no, that would just be inviting desertion from the base. It's not even worth considering." And if asked to interview him or anybody during a primary I'd be fairly aggressive on that issue. But personally? I'm not sure I'd care.
I don't doubt that Miers does her job as White House Counsel well, but if Bush believes that reflects how she'll rule as an independent justice I'm very skeptical. I'm also concerned by signs of sycophancy about her, such as the David Frum story that she claims George Bush is the most brilliant man she's ever met. I doubt she actually believes that, but it may show she tries a little too hard to tell the President the stuff he'd like to hear. I'm sure when he says he thinks she'll be a conservative judge he is telling the truth --- but is Miers?
How many posts are you going to use to tell Mark Levin that you don't want his book anymore? Just say it once and move on.
oh yeah, you're welcome :)
To go one further, everything Will wrote has been posted on FR and read by me already, except for the specific Bush quotes about McCain-Feingold CFR, which has still mentioned directly by myself and others as a dmn mighty good reason to NOT trust Bush for his opinion on Constitutional philosophy and interpretation.
What's inexplicable is the Republicans conspicuously absent from the Senate floor when it really mattered most.
I think the potential success of a nominee is also a consideration, in addition to the point you raise.
After nominating two stealth candidates, it does appear questionable as to whether President Bush is willing to fight for candidates with a discernible conservative viewpoint, I agree.
But Rogers-Brown would have been a good choice both because she was an obvious conservative with a paper trail and because she would have been confirmed.
The Reagan whitehouse was caught totally off-guard with Bork, and did not put up a good defense. It is most unfortunate. He would have made a superb justice and was an excellent pick.
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.