Posted on 10/05/2005 10:18:22 AM PDT by Big Steve
I have some things in here that need to be said. I have heard so many nay-sayers keep saying negative things about President Bush's selection of Harriet Miers as the next Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. It has been said that this is a blown opportunity or a cowardly way out. Having nominated someone without any judicial experience may not be always a wise choice, but it is not always a bad choice, either. Remember, William Rehnquist was in Nixon's Justice Department when he was appointed to the Supreme Court, and he eventually turned out to be one of the greatest Chief Justices in United States history, especially in the eyes of conservatives. He had no judicial experience, either.
A lot of conservatives have felt betrayed by Bush time and time again. I am a big fan of Bush, but I felt he has let us down on failing to control spending and controlling our borders. If he can rectify these two things, he will be among the greatest Presidents in history. He wants more tax cuts and to have them made permanent. He has continued to support our military in the war on terror and the war in Iraq. He has never wavered on these two areas. Finally, he has appointed men and women who share the same judicial philosophy he has to the courts. He has not let us down yet in this aspect, and I don't think all of us conservatives should throw him or Ms. Miers to the wolves just yet. Let's wait and see what kinds of decisions she will make when and if she's confirmed. On issues like abortion, if makes a ruling against the conservatives, then those conservatives who opposed will have been right. But if she rules on our side, then those who opposed her will owe her and President Bush an engraved apology.
There are a couple of big names who have grave reservations about Ms. Miers. Rush Limbaugh, who in my opinion has been the strongest voice for conservatism in this country for nearly two decades, has had grave reservations about Ms. Miers because of a lack of a paper trail. One good thing I see of her lack of paper trail is that the liberals can't go all out on her right away. Eventually, they will once the confirmation hearings come up, but make them do a little more work on knowing more about her before opposing her because she's a Bush crony. If I had one thing to say to Rush on this matter, I would say, "Rush, one area Bush has not let us down on is his selection of judges. Don't throw in the towel, yet. You can still be cautious, but don't throw in the towel. Continue to be the optimist you always taught your listeners to be. I predict the President will come through again." Another one with grave reservations about Miers is Ann Coulter. Ann, in my opinion, is one of the most beautiful women around and is a strong legal scholar. We are lucky to have her on our side. But her criticisms of Miers and John Roberts as not being conservative enough have been really troubling. Lately, she sounds more like a reactionary and not wanting to give the President the benefit of the doubt. In her mind, any selection short of a Janice Rogers-Brown selection is a disappointment. I would say to her, "Ann, I admire what you believe in, but lower your rhetoric a little because it doesn't help our cause. Do continue your cautious approach, but don't flat out oppose a nominee like Ms. Miers until we know more about her. After all, Rehnquist was never a judge and look how he turned out." As much as I would like a Janice Rogers-Brown or a Priscilla Owen on the Supreme Court, they were never under serious consideration. After all, they were just confirmed to their positions 2-3 months ago. Give them a year or two on the bench like John Roberts, and when the next vacancy comes up, float their names again.
Let's all work together and pray we know more about this nominee before we discard her. After all, we don't know Bush's mind; and I don't want to call this man's bluff in a poker game. When his back is to the wall is when he's at his best. Only time will tell if we are right or wrong about this nominee. I am confident we will be pleasantly surprised. Thank you for reading what I had to say.
I'm sure Ms. Miers is a fine woman, hard working and decent lawyer. If her nomination was to a lower court that would be fine. Her nomination to the Supreme Court is like a little league baseball player being elected to the MLB Hall of Fame without any high school, college, minor or major league baseball experience.
This is news/activism or vanity forum material?
Brown and Owens need more time on the bench and Miers hasn't even been on the bench. ???
I am suspecting Bush knows what he's doing and we'll probably like her but he could have appointed someone with no doubt at all.
This is a vanity post. Just my opinions.
What this nomination shows is that President Bush is very much a maverick.
That's not necessarily a bad thing.
ajolympian2004's comments, while apt, and I agree with, may be less important than we think.
Here's the deal -- if I'm in a spot where I have to choose someone for something so important that it must be right, 100%, then I am not going to pour through resumes looking for the most qualified candidate. For example, if I'm in a spot where I need someone who knows about electrical engineering, I'm not going to go through the resumes of all the MIT grads if it's critically important. The person I'm going to call is one of my friends from college. Why? Because I know that when things are deadly serious she isn't going to tell me sweet stories of kitties purring and angels singing. She's going to give it to me straight. I can trust her to do the right thing. I suspect Bush is in the same spot. He can trust Miers to be a strict constructionist. Looking for a strict constructionist solely by going through judicial records and people's qualifications is how we ended up with Souter.
And then the Dems would have filibustered and we'd be in no position to go nuclear shortly after more than half of the Dem caucus voted for Roberts.
What I meant was they just got there and both when through grueling confirmation processes. I think neither want to go through another grueling process just yet.
Does it really matter if Miers is not as "brilliant" as Scalia so long as she votes with him? And maybe Scalia would be better off if he used his brains to figure out ways to make conservative coalitions win, rather than be stuck writing "brilliant" dissents.
I think we who have worked so hard since the mid 60's to stop the liberalization of our culture are bitter. But I feel that Rush, Levin and now Geo. Will have sent a strong shot to the moderate Republicans that we are p.o.'d.
It is now time to rally behind GWB. I asked myself last night if there was something better or a place I could go in the short term. There isn't. So I am left, sadly, with hoping - not trusting - Ms. Miers works out OK. She has been nominated. Nothing I can do will change that.
To keep dragging on my complaining only weakens GWB, our chances in 2006 and 2008, honestly.
After many hoursd of thourough research on Miers, i have come to believe she is a wonderful candidate. Although she lacks credentials that some believe are a necessity, I have very little doubt she will not stray from the voting patterns of Scalia and Thomas, something I can't trust Roberts on. I have found articles from long before she was nominated showing that she is personally pro-life and sensible. Although I wish Bush nominated two justices as qualified as Roberts and as Conservative as Miers, I believes Miers lack of trail is a blessing. I mean, despite what some of us think, Rogers brown would get zero Democratic votes, and would test many RINO's support of her. If she was Bork'ed, we may as well put a bullet in any President ever nominating a JRB candidate ever again, so why nominate Janice in harsh times when we can put Miers, as good as Janice, on now
Hopefully it will be Miers that ends up voting to make the government enforce the borders while Bush is still president. Wouldn't that be an interesting twist of fate?
Sort of along the same vein...I'd like to see less career politicians/lawyers in politics.
FWIW-
The reason Scalia does not figure out ways to win, is because of the choices of other GOP Presidents, including O.Connor, for Supreme Court. 5-4 wins every time.
Ironically Bush who is portrayed as a right winger, as a religious zealot, as some war mongering animal in the MSM is in reality a "moderate". Many of his nominations and positions on issues are quiet "middle of the road".
Being more on the right edge myself, I too feel like he betrayed the base which insured his reelection. Those hundreds of thousands who rallied behind him, the real "silent majority" of America which is conservative in values, hardly appreciate his watered down stance on many issues. He won with a mandate by the people based on certain values he said he had. He presented himself as a "conservative" and the fact that the MSM set him in the right wing corner did not stop his reelection. There is a reason why he got reelected! America IS a conservative nation. President Bush, it’s time to deliver!
Set a conservative in the supreme court!
Seal up the boarder.
Stop the murder of people through the removal of feeding tubes.
Don’t try to make a mark in history! Don’t chase some dream of being “liked”. Piss people off and do that which “the people” who voted for you want you to do. What the small loud mouths out there scream is inconsequential. They are the minority and didn’t vote for you anyway. You are loosing your base. If you want to go down as a mediocre President, continue to pander to those liberals in government.
Red6
Why not post your vanity on your own blog?
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.