Posted on 10/04/2005 11:30:07 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher
President Bush sought to calm conservatives over his latest Supreme Court pick in a rare Rose Garden press conference yesterday, but some Republicans on Capitol Hill remain unconvinced.
Responding to a question from The Washington Times, the president said he hopes conservatives who wanted him to pick someone more demonstrably conservative than White House Counsel Harriet Miers understand that "she will not legislate from the bench."
"I know her; I know her heart; I know what she believes -- remember, she was part of the search committee that helped pick Roberts," he said. "She knows exactly the kind of judge I'm looking for. And I know exactly the kind of judge she'll be."
But in a response not likely to please conservatives or liberals, Mr. Bush yesterday said he does not recall discussing abortion with Miss Miers in the decade that he has known her, and he declined to say whether the court should overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that made abortion a constitutional right.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Because with so little info in any direction, that little joke is a concern. I don't have time to keep on posting the laundry list.
You're real popular in Vegas....
We already have a leftist theocracy..what's wrong with balancing things out?
A chance to read somethings that that person had written? or
The chance to work with that person under many conditions for many hours over many years?
Since I didn't have the opportunity to work with that person under many conditions for many hours over many years, I'll take the writings.
Taking Miers on blind faith (which is all we have right now) is just like popping that 'shroom in the mouth, hoping that we don't get Stevens in a skirt; and rejecting her outright because we don't have much of a clue eliminates the possibility that she could be Scalia's soulmate; but demanding some solid info lets us know where in that spectrum she is. I'm not one that says, "It might be good, it might be poison. Let's eat."
You're right; I'm just the poor sot that did the voting and some donating, believing President Bush when he said that he would nominate Justices in the Thomas and Scalia molds.
Are you really expecting a sitting President to call a sitting Supreme Court Justice a "mistake"?
My first impulse when Bush selected Harriet Miers was the same as Rush Limbaugh and many on this forum. The things in her past were like red flags which led me to disappointment and shock. I got over my 'knee jerk' reaction and calmly examined her history and, more importantly, the history of President Bush.
One was that she was a former democrat. As I recall, President Reagan was also a democrat before he saw the light, as were many of our southern politicians. They all turned out to become some of the most staunchest conservative Republicans in the party.
She donated money to a democrat ? Perhaps, but then many people who are the head of law firms donate money to both parties.
She stated that homosexuals should not be denied civil rights. How many of us would deny civil rights to any of our citizens? She didn't say that they should have the right to marry or adopt children. We leave that view to the left.
I know there are other areas in her life which will be under scrutiny by us on the right but the bottom line is, do we trust our President. In my opinion, we have seen the courage and commitment to conservative values which he has shown, over too many years, to abandon our faith in him now.
I agree with you on gambling. However, I hear this woman is pro-life. I also think Bush deserves some trust on judicial nominees because his appointments to the Federal Court have been much better than any president in my lifetime; I am 41 years old. They are definitely better that Ronald Reagan's appointments, and he is my all-time favorite modern day president. I think this lady will be great on religious freedom issues, too. I am also confident she supports capital punishment. You are right on gambling, but she could be much worse. She will probably turn out to be a more certain conservative vote than Roberts. However, I do not think she is as intelligient as him. I'd rather have the right votes in a justice. Satan is very intelligient, yet he is evil.
For the next liberal that tries to claim they are not wanting judges to legislate from the bench. From this, it appears the Supreme Court can ammend the constitution, completely bypassing the legislative and ratification process.
If he doesn't have the stomach for it now, what makes you think he will have the stomach for it later?
Exactly.
Bush could have nominated any one he wanted. It is the exception, not the rule, that nominees are rejected. It is rare. It just does not happen that often.
Also, Miers is, by definition, a crony. Even if she is a great Constitutional thinker, she is still a crony. Unless we are ready to say that cronyism just dosn't matter anymore, how can we support this?
While, absent any independently-verifiable qualifications, the "cronyism" charge has a ring of truth to it, I won't go so far as to apply the "dictionary crony" tag if the candidate can be independently-verified as well-qualified.
Qualification has nothing to do with it. Read Federalist Paper Number 76.
"To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. . . . He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure."
Alexander Hamilton from Federalist No. 76
"Harriet Miers is not just the close confidante of the president in her capacity as his staff secretary and then as White House counsel. She also was George W. Bush's personal lawyer. Apart from nominating his brother or former business partner, it is hard to see how the president could have selected someone who fit Hamilton's description any more closely. . . . Given her lack of experience, does anyone doubt that Ms. Miers's only qualification to be a Supreme Court justice is her close connection to the president? Would the president have ever picked her if she had not been his lawyer, his close confidante, and his adviser?"
RANDY E. BARNETT, "Alexander Hamilton wouldn't approve of Justice Harriet Miers," Tuesday, October 4, 2005
I humbly suggest you read it again. The quoted passage does not read,
"He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who came from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or were in some way or other personally allied to him, or possessed the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure."It reads,
"He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure." (emphasis added)
Thank you. I did not mean to misquote.
But since you raise the point, lets look at the possible candidates only according to merit. I suggest that by doing so, Miers does not even make the not-so-short list.
Bingo. She better find some qualifications by the hearings, but the fact that we're still being told, "Trust us," is not good.
Regarding her hearings: We will learn nothing about her judicial philosophy; We will hear only platitudes like "won't legislate from the bench."
Her resume will be exploited first for being light on judicial qualification, and then, for being a Bush crony.
Unless she makes a major gaff at the hearings, she will be confirmed.
So, are you telling us Mr. President that she selected herself?
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.