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 ...
Well, I guess that fourth time mattered if you feared a write-in campaign from Howard the Duck.
She vetted GWB when he was running for Governor of Texas.
As his personal attorney, Miers conducted a background check on Bush before he ran for Texas governor in 1994 to look for potentially embarrassing information.So I agree. I would say that he trusts her explicity. I am not clear on her role in the nominee screening process, and it is clear that she was not the sole person with input. See, e.g., many Senators who expressed their sense of appropriate criteria for the nominee.http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000989.html
(Contains links to Nov. 2004 Houston Chronicle article)
For example, if whe was organizing the vetting, taking the various inputs and facilitating GWB decision making, that would illuminate her work ethic and ability to organize (which is already known) but not necessarily illuminate how she would rule from the bench.
One thing about the Cheney analogy - he recommended himself after reviewing the other VP candidates. Do you think Ms. Miers recommended herself for the nomination?
"Managed." Well: he was head of the agency at the time. What's unknown is what his personal role was.
Either way, Katrina did as much damage as all of them put together - and that test, at any rate, he surely flunked. Bush certainly thought so.
And we are discovering that many of the "horror" stories put out over FOXNEWS and CNN were fabrications from the office of Ray Nagin and Police Commissioner Compass.
I don't dispute that point. I am not sure what relevance it has.
I still wonder how the fired head of an Arabian horse breeder's association is qualified to head FEMA.
Me: "We might just stay home."
Well, if the Democrats take over Congress, I'll know who to thank.
Actually, the Iguanas always vote.
However - assuming we don't vote third party - we might feel less inclined to ante up when the RNC hits us up.
The immigration debacle was bad enough. The spending spree was worse. But we could always tell ourselves Bush's picks for the federal courts would be far better than Gore's or Kerry's. Maybe she'll vote like Scalia. The problem - again - is that I have to rely entirely on Bush's word for that. Someone like McConnell would have done pretty much the same but wouldn't have faced five weeks of scrutiny about whether he was qualified or not.
Actually he was gone before Montana had it's primary. I voted Republican in the primary anyway.
I think one of the significant criteria for this nomination was that it not be grounds for a battle on Constitutional principle. Neither GWB nor the GOP Senate have the heart to battle for Constitutional principle - not at this time. Maybe because they don't trust the gang of 14, i.e., don't really have a majority in the Senate. Maybe because there is reluctance to repair the dysfunction that cloture abuse represents.
Hopefully, a future opportunity will arise where Constitutional principle and cloture abuse can be addressed, but this nomination does not seem to fit that bill.
But her opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey is telling. She represents "Imperial Judiciary" to me.
Yeah, it was rather shocking how quickly Howard the Duck's campaign imploded. In retrospect you could see the signs were always there, but still the Duck Squawk will live in infamy with the Dean Scream as perhaps the loudest political self-combustions in recent memory.
Yes. I have noticed lately how conservative commentators who for years have been lauded on fr are turned on instantly and smeared in a fashion worthy of the most extreme leftists if that commentator dares to say something critical of the current administration. Many of those bashing Will now were probably staunch McCain supporters back when Will was about the only one in media strongly supporting Bush. I think you learn a lot more about peoples true qualities when you disagree with them rather than agree.
G. Will says that GW forfeited his right to safeguard the Constitution back in 2002. Anyone who believes that should not have voted for him in 2004.
Yeah after hearing for months on end in the media he was the best thing since Bill Clinton. The grassroots effort he had was impressive, but he pushed the red button.
Hey. Shut up. You were the one puttin on a show long after I left. The fact is that you can dish it out, but when anyone questions you, you get all dizzy like a little girl. I told you that I supported the nomination of Roberts. But that's not good enough for you. I wanted a fight, because I thought we could win it. You are a coward.
"Please...try to stay focused. Tell us why this woman is, in W's words, the most qualified candidate for the Court?"
She has a far better paper trail than any other potential nominee on the 2nd Amendment. That's kind of important.
Maybe you're one of those people who calls people like me "gun nuts." Fine, that's your right. But the NRA, unlike most loudmouth conservatives, has actually delivered for this President, so why don't you go back out and actually deliver some results?
pingomai
It's called a record. If you have a record of decisions you reveal your philosophy and approach to cases.
Mike Brown served 8 years at the Arabian Horse Association. Only the best and the brightest in this Administration!
I support gun rights even though I wonder whether you are stable enough to be owning any.
I have been attacked mercilessly for making such arguments.
I disagree, in part, BECAUSE I believe the President has base motives.
G. Will: The wisdom of presumptive opposition to Miers' confirmation flows from the fact that constitutional reasoning is a talent -- a skill acquired, as intellectual skills are, by years of practice sustained by intense interest.
While I'm nonplussed by this nominee and even more nonplussed by this President, I don't agree with the prevailing opinion that we need a legal genius on the court. If you are credentialed as being in "the top 1% of the legal profession" I have enormous reason to distrust you. They were these inventive and creative folk, ever in search or novelty and prestige to took us on this road to hell, paved with their good intentions. Godlike elitism may be what is worst about our Judicial System.
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.