Posted on 10/06/2005 3:32:08 PM PDT by Map Kernow
“Sometimes, party loyalty asks too much,” said JFK.
In asking conservatives to support Harriet Miers, prior to full Judiciary Committee hearings, George W. Bush asks too much.
Trust me, Bush is saying. Trust but verify, they should reply.
For as of today there is no evidence Harriet Miers possesses the judicial philosophy, strength of intellect, firmness of conviction or deep understanding of the gravity of the matters on which her vote would be decisive to be confirmed as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.
If she does not exhibit these qualities in testimony before the Judiciary Committee, Harriet Miers should be rejected. That she is a woman, a good lawyer, a trusted friend of the Bush family, a born-again Republican and Evangelical Christian is not enough. That Dr. James Dobson has been secretly assured by Karl Rove she is pro-life is not enough. After all, we have a president who professes to be “pro-life,” yet cannot bring himself to say that Roe v. Wade was an abomination he hopes will go the way of Dred Scott.
Because of the immense damage the Supreme Court has done to our society over fifty years, seizing upon and dictating on issues beyond its constitutional province, imposing a social revolution from above, tearing our country apart over race, religion and morality, conservatives cannot take any more risks. We are too close, now, to the promised land.
After Nixon named Blackmun, Ford named Stevens, Reagan gave us the malleable O’Connor and Tony Kennedy and Bush’s father gave us that textbook turncoat Souter, presidential assurances are not enough. We must hear from Harriet Miers herself of her judicial philosophy and views of what the court has done and should do.
Why did Bush do it? Is he unaware of the history or savagery of this struggle? Does he not understand the cruciality of this one court appointment to conservatives who vaulted him to the nomination over McCain and gave him the presidency twice? Does he not care?
Since the Goldwater and Nixon campaigns of the 1960s, a great philosophical struggle over the Supreme Court has been waged. In that 40-years war, jurists like Clement Haynesworth and Robert Bork have been pilloried, smeared and rejected by a liberal Senate that realizes the stakes. Others like Clarence Thomas have survived brutal scourgings. Brilliant young lawyers and aspiring judges like Miguel Estrada have even been denied a vote for the appellate court because of liberal fears they may have the stuff of another Scalia.
Yet now we are told by the White House Harriet Miers is an ideal candidate because she “has no paper trial.” But what does that mean, other than that Miers has never declared herself with courage and conviction on any of the great issues from 1965 to 2005.
This is now a qualification for the U.S. Supreme Court? To have been AWOL in the great social and moral conflicts of her time? This is like saying the ideal candidate to sit on the Joint Chiefs of Staff is an officer who has never seen combat or suffered a wound.
There are today third-generation conservatives who have bravely defended their beliefs in hostile law schools, clerked for Supreme Court justices, paid their dues in the White House or the Department of Justice, joined the Federalist Society, advanced by excellence and merit to federal judgeships. The message of the Miers appointment to this generation is: You made a mistake. You left a “paper trail.” Is this the message we want to send to the next generation: Don’t let anybody know where you stand on gay rights, affirmative action, or Roe v. Wade?
Is this what the conservatism has come to? By the standard of “no paper trail,” we would never have nominated Scalia or Bork, or Ronald Reagan, who, with his thousands of radio and TV commentaries, had the longest paper trail in American history.
In claiming Miers is the most qualified person he knows to fill the seat of Sandra Day O’Connor, President Bush tells us more about himself than her. If she is truly that qualified, why did he hide this extraordinary talent in the paper-shuffling job of White House staff secretary? Why was she not named White House Counsel instead of Gonzales? Why was she not nominated to the U.S. Appellate Court for the District of Columbia to give her judicial experience? If she is that good, why did Bush pass her over for John Roberts?
Twenty-four hours after he picked his personal lawyer for the Supreme Court, George Bush was in the Rose Garden trying to put out the firestorm he had ignited in his own base camp. How’s that for political brilliance?
His aides are now demanding that Republican Senators and conservatives rally around their president. They should not. They should tell the president, respectfully, that, though he went with Harry Reid, they will stay with their convictions.
It’s stand up time again, as in the days of old.
Oh yea, that's the ticket. Let's encourage all Republican Senators to turn their backs on our President, and let's encourage all Republicans to do the same thing. Oh yes, what a brilliant plan that would allow all the cheering Democrats, loony liberals, and even the Hollywood fan club to finally, finally bring down our President and all of those who support his agenda.
Lord help the Republican party. They are being eaten by the wolves in their own pack.
You want a brilliant, non-Ivy Leaguer with no experience as a judge, why not choose Laura Ingraham then? Many blogs have asked that very same question.
Frank
Most people that vote are not giving this nomination a second thought, much less remember it in a few years.
That's not a strawman argument.
Republicans who voted overwhelmingly for Ginsburg (and Breyer) but are thumbing their noses at Meirs is hypocrisy run amok.
She got an undergrad math degree. That's enough for me. That makes her smarter than at least 80% of Harvard law school graduates.
http://southernappeal.blogspot.com/2005/10/senator-dan-coates-are-you-freakin.html
FYI. Sen. Dan Coates is shepherding her nomination and he can't even get her name right in an interview. Sounds like a great sign of future success.
Frank
ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!!!!!1
I think the reason we have Harriet Miers is because Republican Senators won't rally around a more conservative candidate. Mr. Buchanan should call the White House, as Mark Levin did, and ask about the vote count for a more publicly originalist, pro-life nominee. Snowe, Collins, Chafee, Voinovich, Hagel, etc.
You do not have a clue as to what a true conservative is.
I don't want Bork on the SCOTUS, he can't understand the plain English of the 2nd Amendment. Scalia is good but even he gets infected with the penumbral vrius at times. The ideal is Thomas and the doubts and vitriol concerning Thomas were akin to the Miers vitriol I have seen and heard the past few days. It really is amazing, deja vu all over again.
ok...
make that 4 reasons to support her now....
Yeah, you guys say that every election cycle.
But you'll meekly go to the polling booths and vote GOP, trying to shield your faces, like a pervert does when he enters an adult videostore.
Here's an excerpt from the NY Times a month ago:
WASHINGTON, Sept. 6 - President Bush said Tuesday that his list of candidates to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was "wide open," and he jokingly but pointedly singled out Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales.
....
Mr. Bush said that he had yet to make up his mind and that he would "take a good, long look at who should replace Justice O'Connor." But he mentioned only one name, that of Mr. Gonzales, a longtime friend and aide who, if nominated and confirmed, would be the first Hispanic on the court.
"The list is wide open, which should create some good speculation here in Washington," Mr. Bush said to laughter in the Cabinet Room, with the attorney general sitting directly across from him. "And make sure you notice when I said that, I looked right at Al Gonzales, who can really create speculation."
As if none of you remembered. I guess that's what Bush hacks depend on, short memory span of the "base."
OOOOOPPPPPPSSSSSSS ass. Bush said that if the cfr bill crossed his desk he would sign it into law. Guess what the stupid republicans passed the bill and sent it to his desk. Big f'n mistake.
I'm a conservative and you don't speak for me
Ditto that
You're right. I'm just bluffing. No one among Republicans in DC is at all worried about holding on to Congress. Guess you win.
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.