Posted on 10/06/2005 6:25:16 PM PDT by wagglebee
“Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.”
--Matthew 5:5
And so they have.
A quiet public servant, who has toiled for years in veritable obscurity, immediately calls her pastor and asks him to pray for her. An unassuming Texas lady, who for years went unnoticed and didn’t make anybody’s short or long list, is stepping into the biggest limelight America can offer a legal mind, the Supreme Court.
Her name is Harriet Miers and people like Rush Limbaugh are fuming. The conservative right feels let down. Betrayed!! They are suicidal, depressed, disappointed and “demoralized”. In short, they are steamed. Pat Buchanan goes postal; Bill Kristol, hysterical; Rush Limbaugh, incoherent.
Everybody needs to get a grip. By the time you finish reading this column, you will feel calm and euphoria sweeping over you. You will be shocked and awed by the brilliant leadership President Bush has shown with this selection. You will know the Court will be in the best hands possible. You will love Harriet Miers. You will wish you had put her on the top of your short list. And here’s why:
1. Note the quote beginning this column: The “meek shall inherit the earth.” This is not just some pabulum I dreamed up. This is what Christians actually should believe. This is what Christ taught. Ordinary workers, who labor in the fields of the Lord, shall inherit the kingdom of heaven. And an unpretentious laborer in the fields of the Lord, and the fields of George W. Bush, might just be the best person for the highest court in the land.
Harriet Miers does not just show up at church on Sunday morning; go downstairs for coffee and donuts; check her Christianity at the door and return to bloodbath politics as usual.
She identifies herself as a “born again” Christian. Now, this is an important distinction. People who identify themselves this way are dead serious about their faith. They live it. They love it. And they would probably die for it. Bored, comatose Protestant mainliners and robotic, zombie-like cultural Catholics need not apply for this personal distinction unless they are ready to take the big leap into being born again, or, as we Catholics say, conversion.
As a Catholic myself, of course, I miss her and wish she’d come home to us. I can certainly imagine, though, how it happened, as the Catholic Church took a nosedive into immorality, corruption, relativism and liberalism after Vatican II.
2. Harriet Miers has toiled in obscurity and she is not getting much respect in her own town. People who toil in obscurity usually don’t owe anybody anything. You don’t see them on endless talk shows schlepping their latest book, that is, in actuality, a bloated, overblown magazine article. The D.C. assembly-line cocktail party circuit probably does it without her.
3. Horror of all horrors, liberal elitism has reared its ugly head! She was not born with a silver spoon stuck in her mouth by an Ivy League alumnus with a Harvard education on the end of it. I mean, come on, Ted Kennedy graduated from Harvard. How great can it possibly be?
4. No personal baggage! No, we don’t have to worry about any frat-house, drunken party images showing up on the internet with this Texas lady. Refreshing, isn’t it?
Not much partying for her it seems, except for a few celebrations with her co-workers, who, apparently, adore her.
She spends most of her time at the office. Being single and never married, no unseemly marriage problems, bimbo alerts or embarrassing divorce papers to be splattered all over The Smoking Gun website; no illegal-alien-nanny-gate problems; no grand-children-who-need-bailing-out-of-jail problems, and, living the simple life alone, she probably doesn’t need a cadre of workers from Guatemala to keep up the estate and then not pay their taxes. She seems to have a nice gentleman friend who shows up occasionally, so, a little romance might do the staid Court some good.
5. She is a woman! I think Harry Reid has a crush on her!
Her lack of bench experience is a red herring. Dozens of Justices brought no bench time to the Court, including the late Chief Justice Rehnquist, whose road to the Court also ran the same course through the White House.
Now, let’s pull ourselves together. This great lady presents a clean slate and appears untarnished. Her main drawback being the intellectual conservative cabal didn’t think of her first.
Harriet Miers came creeping in under the radar like a Stealth bomber; a modest, unassuming, hard-working, experienced lawyer with strong moral, religious and constitutional convictions. Just what the boss was looking for.
Let's give her a chance. Bombs away!
I should take his opinion seriously?
Boy did I miss out. I haven't been able to listen to Rush for the last few weeks, but to hear the best spoken man in the nation reduced to incoherency, well, that would be something!
"Someone said trust, but verify. Fine, Harriet Miers is pro-life, period. How do I know? She has donated $1000 to the following Congressional candidates: Jon Newton, Don Stenberg, Pete Sessions. All of them are solid pro-life Republicans, you wouldn't donate to them if you are pro-abortion. She has attended pro-life dinners and donated to pro-life groups."
I am solid pro life but, believe it or not, there are other issues, more important that can be tackled before RvW.
RvW has been around for a long time. Liberalism has been creeping for even longer. I prefer a court that will roll back some of the extremes that the libs have foisted on us over the last 60 years.
Tackle each in its own time and use well chosen cases to make the decisions.
I'm still waiting for the wave of calm and euphoria to wash over me.
“You really have to be more charitable toward him. After all, Clement Attlee is a very humble man.” “Yes,” replied Winston Churchill, “and he has much to be humble about.”
And you still have not given any evidence that she will not be a strict constitutionalist. You are just going on a gut feeling and a distrust of Bush.
So, by your post, I could reason, that Miers has agreed to President Bush's full-on-court-press of OUR border/port issues? Correct?
Lies.
In response to Corillo's specific comments:
I realize that many are concerned about Miers, but I think we need to trust Bush. Every judicial nominee of his has proven to be a solid conservative, and I believe Miers will not spoil that record.
That's not my main concern. Hey, maybe Miers will vote with Thomas every time. I hope so. Maybe she'll be as eloquent and as forceful in her defense of the Constitution. I hope so, but I doubt it. My biggest problem with this nomination, and I think a lot of people share this viewpoint, can be summed up in two words: MISSED OPPORTUNITY. This was a rare chance to put a real powerhouse on the Supreme Court. My personal preference would be for Judge Kozinski, my favorite judge ever, but there were plenty of solid candidates. Indeed, the federal bench is replete with conservative superstars. And every last one of them was passed up for Harry Reid's choice, a woman whose nomination prompted the nationwide rallying cry "Harriet Who??". President Bush could've given us an exclamation point. Instead, he's given us a question mark.
What message does this send to bright young conservative jurists? "If you believe the Constitution means what it says and should be interpreted as such, keep your mouth shut about it. Don't be a highly visible supporter of strict constructionism, or you can just forget about elevation to the High Court, no matter how deserving. Instead, be as obscure as possible, and try to become close personal friends with an ambitious politician.
Bah.
God love ya, wagglebee. Thank you for this excellent post. The hardliners probably won't give this article a first or second thought, but hopefully those with more faith in God and our President will.
BUMP!
Read these:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1496051/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1496071/posts
There's always that one sentence that makes you quit reading.
I voted for Bush twice because I trust him. A "commoner" on the Supreme Court is exciting to me... but not as exciting as Laura Ingraham or Ann Coulter would have been!
I don't think it's a "rationalization", but it definitely is "rational".
"I'm still waiting for the wave of calm and euphoria to wash over me."
LOL! My sentiments exactly. This is gaining momentum, not losing it. I think we are approaching critical mass. Every conservative legal expert is against this nomination to varying degrees, and several Senators are starting to come out against her (to varying degrees once again) even after meeting with her. I think someone should lead a campaign to get Bush to withdraw this nomination (or rather have Miers withdraw herself).
Because as Roberts so eloquently stated, SC justices are not politicians!
But, but, but. How can it be. The elites are insisting bench time is a requirement!
'Constitutional convictions'!!! What a strange term in today's vernacular. The pundits may not understand it, but "we, the People" know that whatever she lacks in artificial "credentials" can be made up by the conviction that the United States Constitution is and was, as someone observed a long time ago, the most miraculous document ever invented by the mind and purpose of man. Her fidelity to that document and its provisions (including the process required for its own amendment) is what will distinguish her service.
Great post!
As Dr. Mohler said, some of what we are learning about Harriet Miers is genuinely encouraging. She has been identified as an evangelical Christian with deep Christian commitments.
This means that Harriet Miers is not a product of the tight and relatively insulated world of legal scholarship and the judiciary. Her real-world experience in litigation, management, church, and life means that she is less likely to fall prey to the "inside the beltway" syndrome.
We'll put you down as yet another pretend writer who the president didn't consult before he nominated somebody.
Bitter. Bitter.
What if... Harriet Miers isn't supposed to be confirmed? As the days wear on, the dems, who originally seemed pleased with this nominee, are slowly backing off as news of her evangelical background comes into focus. They will not vote to confirm her based on her Christian beliefs, but they'll cite her lack of experience and a "paper trail."
This will be a lie, of course, the real reason won't be her presumed lack of experience, it'll be the Jesus thing and they'll swear up one side of the Constitution and down the other that it's not her ideology.
This is where they'll fall into the trap. The usual RINOs will side with the dems on her confirmation or lack thereof. The President will then withdraw her nomination, citing a new era of cooperation. "Advise and consent" has worked again just as it did with John Roberts. Since now the dems will be on record saying it isn't about ideology, it's about qualifications, citing Justice Roberts again, the road will be paved for the nomination of Priscilla Owen or Janice Rogers Brown.
Since the dems weren't opposed to either of them recently, i.e. the "gang of 14 deal", and the dems clamor for a highly qualified candidate, they won't have any ground to stand on while trying to oppose either Brown or Owen.
Perhaps it's rose colored glasses or a wild pipe dream, but I can't believe that the President, who has been shrewd in nearly all of his appointments until now would not have a more... sinister plot behind this nomination than just putting Aunt Bea out there to go on the Supreme Court.
This would also be the perfect scenario to use the "nuclear option" if a fight would arise. Not only would the President have just loaded the Senate's weapon, he'd have aimed it and done everything but pull the trigger for them.
...or I could be on crack.
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.