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.
You are a fool.
Only for six months. You really don't think people check FReepers' homepages, do you?
That's it, due to the indisputable facts *cough* you have brought to bare, I withdraw my support for all Howlins nominee's to the SCOTUS and call for a Congressional investigation.
Everybody who's been here as long as you have who has been PAYING ATTENTION knows I first registered under another nickname because I was working at another chat forum.
Fool.
You do not have much of a memory.
"Asked point-blank whether she was the most qualified person in the country to serve on the high court, Bush said, "Yes. Otherwise, I wouldn't have put her on."
His father, George H.W. Bush, made a similar claim about Clarence Thomas -- and was derided for it -- while defending his controversial Supreme Court pick in 1991. Thomas was confirmed 52-48."
http://www.detnews.com/2005/politics/0510/05/01-337242.htm
We have to be at war to defend our borders??
We are not being attacked by Mexico.
We are being INVADED. The Constitution says the Federal government must safeguard the states against invasion.
Immigration is a domestic issue.
Invasion is an issue of national security
You have no idea what you are saying blaming Bush for not closing the border. And I am sick of hearing that lame argument.
You're not arguing in good faith---why am I not surprised? I didn't say "close"----I said "defend," capisci??
I'm sick of 'zoids like you who want to let Bush hand this country with both hands over to Mexico. If Posse Comitatus prevents the Feds from defending our borders in the absence of a declaration of war, cite me chapter and verse. Give it to me, traidor.
If you show up to bash Bush, better be prepared! The facts of this matter are on our side.
I agree the nomination should be withdrawn. David Frum claims Miers was one of the principal backers in the White House of the decision not to fully support the plaintiff in the University of Michigan case dealing with preferential admissions. She apparently has no problem with affirmative action continuing, as O'Connor said, for perpetuity. Conservatives have been working for years to get this crap overturned, but apparently, it's not an issue that concerns Bush or his nominee.
I'm sick to death of getting affirmative action forms for all of my job applications. And I'm tired of being asked to "voluntarily" identify myself as a "non-Hispanic white." And I am fed up with having to answer questions in job interviews about my commitment to "diversity" and "multiculturalism." I thought electing Bush would eliminate this once and for all. It now appears he has squandered his last chance to finally make a difference and reverse these abhorent policies. Bush is out to lunch and so is his nominee.
It figures.
Are you serious?
I have not heard that, good news if true.
Maybe you could build a big shiny wall, or if not that, just shoot the Latins like the dirty dogs they are. Since they are attacking us, why not.
It'll be withdrawn. The Republican Party, which takes in a lot more than just Bush and his coterie, isn't going to let GW stay "stuck on stupid"---they can't afford it---they have to turn the situation around in time for Nov. 2006 to hold onto Congress. And if the Miers nomination isn't going to get people to the polls, but rather has the opposite effect, someone's going to have a real heart-to-heart with GW about Ms. Miers suddenly having to ask that her nomination be withdrawn "for personal reasons."
Thank you for setting the record straight!
Yes, they are.
Harriet Miers went to Southern Methodist University Law School, which is not ranked at all by the serious law school reports and ranked No. 52 by US News and World Report. Her greatest legal accomplishment is being the first woman commissioner of the Texas Lottery.
I know conservatives have been trained to hate people who went to elite universities, and generally that's a good rule of thumb. But not when it comes to the Supreme Court.
....
Second, even if you take seriously William F. Buckley's line about preferring to be governed by the first 200 names in the Boston telephone book than by the Harvard faculty, the Supreme Court is not supposed to govern us. Being a Supreme Court justice ought to be a mind-numbingly tedious job suitable only for super-nerds trained in legal reasoning like John Roberts. Being on the Supreme Court isn't like winning a "Best Employee of the Month" award. It's a real job.
...
To be sure, if we were looking for philosopher-kings, an SMU law grad would probably be preferable to a graduate from an elite law school. But 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. Bush may as well appoint his chauffeur head of NASA as put Miers on the Supreme Court.
Third and finally, some jobs are so dirty, you can only send in someone who has the finely honed hatred of liberals acquired at elite universities to do them. The devil is an abstraction for normal, decent Americans living in the red states. By contrast, at the top universities, you come face to face with the devil every day, and you learn all his little tropes and tricks.
...
This little tidbit:
" The devil is an abstraction for normal, decent Americans living in the red states. By contrast, at the top universities, you come face to face with the devil every day, and you learn all his little tropes and tricks"
tells me that Ann is decidedly out of touch (and a tad arrogant) with "normal decent Americans" if she thinks we never deal with the nastiness of liberalism- those of us with kids in school are all to familiar with the liberal agenda...and even in the parkinglot of a PetSmart in South Carolina you'll see a Bush=Hitler bumpersticker, and some of us have moonbat family members.
Excellent. New tagline!
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.