Scalia, Thomas, Miers? Will the Conservatives Help Blow Bush's Stealth Nomination to Court?

The Richmond [VA] Times-Dispatch ^ | October 6, 2005 | Ross Mackenzie

[quidnunc]

Explain, please, why criticism of President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court does not fit hand-in-glove with the proposition that Bush is a boob.

You know, the line holding that in contrast to such bright lights as Al Gore and John Kerry, the Bush bulb glows dim.

Indeed, that he is incompetent, the never-married Ms. Miers is a crony and a lightweight, and her appointment — ideologically — a missed opportunity rivaling Bush I's nomination of the never-married David Souter.

Or Dwight Eisenhower's nomination of Earl Warren, Richard Nixon's of Harry Blackmun, Gerald Ford's of John Paul Stevens (even now, perhaps the court's most liberal justice), and Ronald Reagan's of the disappointing waffler Anthony Kennedy.

The Miers nomination could prove even worse — and after so much invested hope among moderates for someone who would turn the Court onto a more consistently sober course, most notably on such issues as abortion, single-gender marriage, and free expression.

And certainly, at first glance, Harriet Miers lacks the heft of many in the judicial monastery — e.g., J. Harvie Wilkinson, Karen Williams, and Michael Luttig of the Virginia-based Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, or Chief Justice Leroy Hassell of the Virginia Supreme Court. She lacks bench experience and (as principally a corporate lawyer) longtime grounding in constitutional law, and in her hearings she likely will not demonstrate the dazzling erudition and legal acumen of the new Chief Justice, John Roberts.

But.

-snip-

[dc-zoo]

I predict you'll be posting even more idiotic nonsensical drivel on this and other Miers threads.

[indianrightwinger]

Agree 100% with the troll, although I don't know why this term is used so often on Freep.

[DJ MacWoW]

There have been Supreme Court Judges that were never judges before. I think it's a good thing as I said she's dealt with people and isn't likely to be an elitist. She knows what the average mans concerns are.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

That's just one of the many, many legitimate reservations that I-and millions of other conservatives throughout this country-have expressed about this nominee's glaring mediocrity.

She fails on so many different levels-even prior to being subjected to the scrutiny of the U.S. Senate-that it's not even amusing anymore.

-Separation of powers

She will have to recuse herself from every single case that makes its way to the Supreme Court docket which involves this administration in even the most tangential way.

Think about that!

-Cronyism

I don't care how you choose to rationalize it, that's what it is, pure and simple. This nomination should be just as objectionable-if not more so, considering its provenance in a purportedly conservative, Republican administration-as the gross nepotism exercised by John F. Kennedy at the DOJ during the early 1960s.

-Paper trail

This woman has left no discernible impact upon her chosen profession, after spending literally decades of her life devoted to it. This is an individual who is sixty years old, and yet has left not even the most shallow imprint upon her chosen vocation. Replace the word "stealth" with "unqualified" and you'll see where I'm heading with this.

[msnimje]

There have been Supreme Court Judges that were never judges before. I think it's a good thing as I said she's dealt with people and isn't likely to be an elitist. She knows what the average mans concerns are. There have been Supreme Court Judges that were never judges before. I think it's a good thing as I said she's dealt with people and isn't likely to be an elitist. She knows what the average mans concerns are.

Yes, and they were not always good justices. Please read the post to which you responded (#40) to see my notes about Bill Rehnquist's background.

I would like to point out, being a judge or justice does not automatically make one an elitist.

[mathprof]

I predict you'll be posting even more idiotic nonsensical drivel on this and other Miers threads.

Your prediction is wrong. I have better things to do with my time.

I feel that W has made a big mistake that will hurt us all. I hope I'm wrong. I really do.

[flashbunny]

" I predict that Meirs will withdraw her nomination next week, which will be good for everyone."

I hope you are right, because I don't see any real evidence about her real judicial philosphy coming out.

[dc-zoo]

Well from my observation I've never seen Bush make a bad pick for the judiciary before and I see no reason to believe he has now. Just look at what he's up against even in his own party. All of this attacking, bickering, and eating our own sure cannot help.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

She was managing partner of a major law firm...

So was Hillary Rodham-Clinton.

[DJ MacWoW]

Yes, and they were not always good justices.

Who?

I read it. So?

being a judge or justice does not automatically make one an elitist.

I think as judges move up the courts that they lose any idea of who the average American is. The Scotus backed land grab is an example.

[DJ MacWoW]

Let me clarify my position. If she's a Constitutionalist, she'll be an asset to our court.

[mathprof]

Well from my observation I've never seen Bush make a bad pick for the judiciary before and I see no reason to believe he has now. Just look at what he's up against even in his own party. All of this attacking, bickering, and eating our own sure cannot help.

I agree with you that until now, W's picks for the judiciary seem to have been outstanding! That's one of the reasons that I am so deflated! Honestly, I almost feel like peeling off a Berkeley-Volvo bumper sticker!

We all know how one wrong pick for the Supreme Court can be the kiss of death (e.g., Souter). Faith based mathematics and faith based supreme court nominations don't work!

[JCEccles]

She does have certain credentials but there is not one reasonable person who can claim she is the "Best Choice.

She's the bestest choice 'cuz she's such a swell pal.

She's so lightweight she has to carry a load of buckshot in each cheek just to keep from floating away.

Who's her lawyer? Her own lawyer likely has more heft than she does.

[msnimje]

Yes, and they were not always good justices.

Who?

Abe Fortas and Chief Justice Earl Warren just off the top of my head. I am sure there are more.

I read it. So?

Sorry to bother you, I was trying to have a meaningful discussion.

[msnimje]

She's the bestest choice 'cuz she's such a swell pal.

Who do you think was the runner up? Karen Hughes maybe?

[Jedidah]

"Less real life experience"

Oh give me a break.

Here is an industrious and intelligent woman

who put herself through college and her brother through medical school,

who has worked her way to the top of her profession,

who has worked in the trenches and managed a major law firm,

who has been seriously involved in her community in the heartland of our great nation,

and you denigrate her lifetime of experience because she doesn't have a man.

[dc-zoo]

I understand your frustration but I do have faith in Bush's judgement since his track record for picking judges has been right on target. I also find it unfair for republicans to be bashing this woman and the President unmercifully showing no respect or trust whatsoever. It just seems to appear disgraceful. I'd hate to see republicans responsible for chasing this woman back to the democrat party. Let's settle down and give this process a chance to work.

[Earthdweller]

"I predict that Meirs will withdraw her nomination next week, which will be good for everyone."

I believe your prediction is a bit premature. National Right to Life has come out in her favor as well as Focus On The Family.

Check out the latest Freeper poll.

Do you approve of Harriet Miers for Supreme Court?

Need more info
37.7%

Yes
32.5%

No
25.5%

I'm voting Hillary!
2.3%

Pass
2.1%

[alnick]

She does have certain credentials but there is not one reasonable person who can claim she is the "Best Choice."

There is not one reasonable person who can claim she is not.

You cannot in the same breath complain that nothing is known about her and that she is not qualified, which is what most of the emotionally-driven complaints about her have been.

[msnimje]

There is not one reasonable person who can claim she is not. You cannot in the same breath complain that nothing is known about her and that she is not qualified, which is what most of the emotionally-driven complaints about her have been.

I know plenty about her and I know she is not in the top 50 candidates for the Supreme Court in this country.

Do you think Harriet Miers is a better choice than J. Michael Luttig, Michael McConnell, Samuel Allito, Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, Miguel Estrada, Alice Batchelder, Maura Corrigan, Mary Ann Glendon, Theodore Olson, John Cornyn, William Pryor and Karen Williams?