Posted on 10/05/2005 9:26:43 PM PDT by Pikamax
WASHINGTON -- Two questions were asked in conservative circles Monday when it was learned President Bush had nominated his lawyer, Harriet Miers, for the Supreme Court. Question No. 1: "Is this what we fought for?" Question No. 2: "What was he thinking?"
The conservative Republican base had tolerated George W. Bush's leftward lunges on education spending and prescription drug subsidies to re-elect him so that he could fill the Supreme Court with conservatives and send it rightward. But the White House counsel hardly looked like what they had expected.
Nothing could have more quickly deflated Republican spirits. The antidote to the Iraq-Katrina malaise was the spectacular confirmation performance by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., and Republicans eagerly awaited Act Two: confirmation of a successor to social liberal Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. This was one issue where the wind was at Bush's back, not in his face. But he robbed his legions of spirit with the Miers nomination.
Miers hardly seems the true believer the Republican base was anticipating when the president's agents spread the word last week that his choice would please conservatives. In 1988, she was contributing to Al Gore's presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee. She is listed as chairman of a 1998 American Bar Association committee that recommended legalization of gay adoptions and establishment of an International Criminal Court.
Presidential adviser Karl Rove, recognizing the peril here, was on the phone Monday morning assuring conservatives of Miers's intrepidity. The line from the White House was that Miers should not be compared with Justice David Souter, who was named to the court 15 years ago by the president's father and immediately turned left. While Souter was a stranger from New Hampshire to the elder Bush, it is claimed no president ever has known a court nominee as well as the younger Bush knows his fellow Texan. Skeptics are assured she is sound on abortion and other social issues.
Assuming those assurances are well founded, Miers's qualifications for the high court are still questioned. Members of Congress describe Miers as a nice person but hardly a constitutional scholar. Indeed, she might trip over questions that Roberts handled so deftly. People who have tried to engage her in serious conversation find her politely dull.
In singing Miers's praises, Bush agents contend her every thought is of the president's best interests, not her own. That may be a desirable profile for a White House counsel, but it hardly commends a Supreme Court justice who will be around long after George W. Bush is gone. By naming his longtime attorney, Bush risks the charge of cronyism. After the Michael Brown fiasco at FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency), Harriet Miers might seem the last person he would name to the Supreme Court.
Two weeks ago, Bush was seriously considering another Texas woman he likes and knows well. The nomination of Federal Circuit Judge Priscilla Owen would have been highly regarded in the conservative community. Owen was confirmed for the appellate bench only after the compromise forged by the Group of Fourteen, and Republican senators advised the White House they did not want to fight for her again so soon. But there is no rule that O'Connor must be replaced by a Texas woman who is the president's pal. Many well-qualified conservative men and women were passed over to name Miers.
The question recurs: "What was he thinking?" Bushologists figure the president was irked by repetitive demands that he satisfy the base with his Supreme Court appointments. He also was irked by the conservative veto of his Texas friend and Miers's predecessor at the White House, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. So, Bush showed the critics by naming another close aide lacking Gonzales's track record to draw the ire of the party's right wing.
Immensely enjoying himself was Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, who let it be known to colleagues that he recommended Miers to the president. With Miers at his side, Reid praised her a little for contributing to Al Gore and a lot for being a "trial lawyer" -- no encomium in the GOP. With friends like Reid, Harriet Miers hardly needs enemies.
rob, of course you are entirely correct, she will prove herself, or not. at this point those that didn't get what they wanted are still trying to come to grips with that. they are still in the temper tantrum phase and are on the floor face down kicking and screaming. there are plenty who were sorely disappointed (myself included, i am a lawyer and have argued before Judge Luttig, wanted him on the SC in the worst way) figured, well, i didn't get what i wanted, but what did i get? we will see.
ok, i will cease trying to enlighten you. please go about your business.
Which -- hello? -- makes it a non issue, not to mention a lie to say that she did.
It's people like ME who are the base. We are the people who loyally support him even when we don't agree, who have maintained our faith in him because we know what a good man he is, who take the time to look at accomplishments as well as problems.
Amen! Excellent rant, Miss Marple.
Thank you so much for the ping, Emily. Much appreciated :)
Why didn't Scalia or Thomas resign in protest when the SC took any liberal items under consideration? Why didn't they resign in protest when the liberals on the court outvoted them and put out decisions like Kelo?
Good grief.
Perhaps the answer can be found in the lyrics of Jackson Browne:
She was a friend to me when I needed one
Wasn't for her I don't know what I'd done
She gave me back something that was missing in me
She could of turned out to be almost anyone
Almost anyone--
With the possible exception
Of who I wanted her to be
Running into the midnight
With her clothes whipping in the wind
Reaching into the heart of the darkness
For the tenderness within
Stumblin' into the lights of the city
And then back in the shadows again
Hanging onto the laughter
That each of us hid our unhappiness in
Talk about celestial bodies
And your angels on the wing
She wasn't much good at stickin' around--but
She could sing...
There is a POINT her coming on the scene as an unknown. Bork not being on the Court is a great example.
By Donald J. Trump
Chairman, Trump University
Posted 10/5/2005 11:45:00AM
The President has nominated his longtime assistant, Harriet Miers, to the Supreme Court. He did not ask for my input on this one, nor did I offer it. But as someone who has done a lot of appointing to very important positions within the Trump Organization, I can see why he made the choice he did.
Anyone who has watched my hit TV show, The Apprentice, knows how much I rely on my own assistant, Carolyn Kepcher. She’s as loyal as a Labrador Retriever. In the cut-throat world of high-finance and billion-dollar deals, that kind of loyalty counts for a lot. I feel the same way about Carolyn as the President does about Harriet. I'm comfortable with her and would trust her with any task I assigned her. If you think of the President of the United States as the CEO of an even more global empire than my own—which isn’t to say mine isn’t big, I’m just using an analogy here—then the Supreme Court is like a board of directors. And Harriet Miers is exactly the reliable, trustworthy sort of person any world-class executive would want on his board. She’ll do exactly what you want her to do.
Harriet doesn't have to be a rocket scientist. Carolyn is no rocket scientist. As a successful corporate leader, I’m not looking for brains here. I don’t need this person to think for me. What I rely upon Carolyn for is her gut reactions to people and situations. She’s a nice, normal person. She’s been out in the real world dealing with real people—something I don’t get much time to do anymore. She’s basically the person I go to to second my own opinion. If some people are worried about whether Harriet has the goods upstairs, then the President should create a “junior” position on the court. Apprentice her to someone like Scalia or Roberts (talk about starting at the top!) for a while. Let her learn the ropes. Don’t allow her to weigh in on any of the big decisions right away—she can work up to them after wrestling with a few of the smaller constitutional issues.
As for the conservatives who object to Harriet Miers: I’m warning you guys. You’re acting like one of the losing teams in my boardroom. I’ve seen this before. Harriet is the quiet, nothing candidate everyone else ignores until the last two or three rounds of the season. Then suddenly everyone looks at her with surprise and asks themselves, “How did she end up here?”
It’s about loyalty, people. And knowing your boss.
NOTE TO READERS: In light of so many of your comments below, I feel compelled to point out that this is a PARODY, and not the musings of the real Donald... DC
Danielle Crittenden, is wife of David Frum, if i am not mistaken?
She didn't have to be unknown though. Knowing her views on everything under the sun is another thing entirely.
yes she is his wife, she wrote the book Amanda@home which my wife enjoyed.
ROFL! So true, so true. lol.
did you read the Lileks column yesterday? i nearly wet myself laughing at it. it provided some much needed levity. if you haven't seen it, i can post the link.
I trust the President but I wish that on certain big issues (the size of government, the importance of choosing the best qualified) he would trust us, his core support.
I disagree with Ann Coulter when she writes in opposition to the Miers nomination that if we're looking for lawyers with giant brains to memorize obscure legal cases and to compose clearly reasoned opinions about ERISA pre-emption, the doctrine of equivalents in patent law, limitation of liability in admiralty, and supplemental jurisdiction under Section 1367 — I think we want the nerd from an elite law school.
I don't believe that we're looking for nerdy "lawyers with giant brains." We have quite enough of those to "memorize obscure legal cases" Ms. Coulter finds troubling. I believe that is precisely NOT what is needed at this time. What the Court has lacked is a majority with the common sense to know that it is unconstitutional for government to take private property from one for another's use; a majority that knows that the Constitution does not prohibit religion but prohibits the government from restricting those who would practice it; a majority that believes that the Constitution's words mean what the founders said they meant.
Perhaps that describes Harriet Miers. I hope so.
He forced a tax cut through Congress. That's real Republican behavior.
'Course, since then, he allowed the 'Pubbies in Congress to spend like drunken sailors in a brothel on two-fer-one night.
I agree, What has he done besides making Big Government Bigger.
The Boarders are not secure!
Big Government Spending on Education and Medicare Prescription Drugs
Now a more moderate / liberal Supreme Court!
If we can't fill the shoes of a Scalia now, when we control both houses of Congress and the Presidency. I'm afraid to say,
We Never Will
; thanks to Bush!
I'm sure we could guess what he view would be on the subject of leaping to conclusions, and tarring a feathering a person before they get a chance to defend themeselves.
I'm sure that her view on being given a fair chance at a rational confirmation hearing is fairly similar to that of most people.
I just wish some of you would shine that fabulous blinding light of yours on yourselves for a moment and see how you are acting. Give the nominee a chance.
We'll know when the confirmation hearings get underway. I doubt that she's going to get a pass from all the Republican members of the Judiciary and, if the Dems are reading the mail, they've undoubtedly heard some of the same things we have concerning her positions on abortion, the Second Amendment, etc. and they will, as a result, behave just like we expect them to. (I would consider anything less a REAL bad sign.) We'll have to see whether or not she trips on the questions that Roberts handled so deftly. If she does, there could be more than a few Republican defectors.
Chill out, I'm not being defeatist. I'm a conservative first, a Republican second. This cause is much bigger than GWB; I just wish the president understood how this looks to people.
I'm tired of people like you coming on FR and basically telling those of us who are disappointed that we need to get over it and stop being so critical. That's bull.
LOL!
No one forced them to vote for Bush. But then again...any alternative would be a big mistake. Unfortunately, Howlin, extremists are not conservative and will have problems with REAL conservatives. It was extremists, both right and left, who gave us 8 years of Willy Clintoon. It was not leftist democrats who voted for Perot...it was the extreme right who wanted to prove a point..lmao...and look what they got.
Bush has been and will continue to be a excellent leader, especially considering the disasters he's been dealing with ( an economy in recession, 9/11, the war on terror, Katrina, Rita and irate righties...;^)
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.