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.
Harry Reid feels the same way.
So does Susan Estrich. So do quite a few Democrats who are suspiciously quiet or even quietly breathing sighs of relief. I have a feeling despite all the "boob bait for the base" about her "pro-life" views, etc., that the Dems will play softball with Ms. Miers when it comes to the hearings. They don't eat their own, like the Bush people do those in their conservative base.
Are you honestly going to try to convince me that Harriet Miers is bad for our country but somehow Ruth Bader Ginsburg was good for our country?
I'm four-square behind Miers.
LOL
The only three senators who voted against Ginsburg were Helms, Smith (NH), and Nickles.
Lott voted for Ginsburg. Brownback was not in the Senate at the time.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=1&vote=00232
Who coined the term "Patsies" because I'd like to take credit for popularizing it on FR, at least.
And I second your motion!
What? Is it the case that liberal snobbishness has infected us to the point where we identify Ivy League graduates with the "good of the country?" One would do better to associate them with the very ruin of it.
Take your "straw man" arguments elsewhere. If anyone's made that argument against Miers---that she's not qualified because she isn't Ivy League---show me. Otherwise, go find a nice "Pray for Bush" thread to play in.
"Liking her" does not mean he supports her nomination..
>Lots of people in the media think they'd make a better president, Mr. Buchanan. Lots.<
and almost every one in Tinseltown...
Wow, still with the "straw man" arguments, hunh? Where did I say Ginsburg was "qualified"? She stinks. So does Miers.
Actually, Ginsburg was considered quite a coup by the Republicans because she was already old and sick when she got to the court and she is a hack besides. Hatch negotiated that one and frankly, he saved us from somebody like Breyer who thinks he's smart.
pat lost me when he defended the waffen ss. this guy is an opportunist and a fascist.
I think I'll get a bumper sticker "What would Helms do?".
Do Ann Coulter's recent outbursts come to mind? No? You mean, you missed that whole thing about what university Miers went to? You missed the entire debate about whether or not she was qualified because of her educational background?
And as far as the "Pray for Bush" threads, well, I don't frequent them. But perhaps you're saying that the real reason you're against Miers is because she's one of those dirty evangelicals, aye?
Thou shalt not critique or disagree with George W.
Haven't you folks learned anything yet?
Illegal Immigration? Not an issue. Spending bill veto? Don't make me laugh!
Strict constructionist judges? "Trust me"
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.