Posted on 10/07/2005 2:34:38 AM PDT by pookie18
That may be the motivation for some. For the most part, I think the less you trust the president, the less you like this pick. Also, a lot of people weren't really overjoyed with the Roberts pick. Not because they wanted a fight per se, but because they wanted to be sure of what they were getting. They wanted a record.
In the end, a lot of folks 'round here rationalized by saying the second pick would be different. Surely we'd get a sure thing originalist the second time. And so I think it had a cumulative bad effect on the hard core originalists among our ranks.
I can't say they've done a great job with Roberts, because there's not much to go on. He's smart and obviously able. But that's all I really know about him. But, I'm through bitching about it. It is what it is, and it doesn't help to fight ourselves, I guess.
I completely agreed with you about Souter right from the beginning. I'm still shaking my head over that one. Many of my conservative friends were vehemently opposed to Souter, but I don't recall that you ever came out publicly as being opposed (as is only appropriate for someone on the President's staff).
Of course, I also opposed Reagan's choice of GWHB as vice president because 'way back in '80 I honestly believed that conservatism was destined to overtake the US, I knew that Reagan's veep would be very likely to succeed him, and I hated the "moderate" credentials GWHB brought to the table. The most important reason for presidential elections has, for me, always been the USSC. Due to that distrust of GWHB, I wrote Reagan suggesting a different veep in '84, and I opposed GWHB's nomination in '88, but there was of course, no choice but to support him in the election. Bush'41s choice of a "moderate > liberal" judge for the USSC was a foregone conclusion to me, and that was why I opposed GWHB nearly ten years earlier.
This situation is nothing at all like the Souter situation that many like to tout. Bush'43 is much more conservative than Bush'41, and there is no reason for anybody to believe she is anything other than a strict Constitutionalist.
Nothing in Miers' record suggests otherwise, or that The President is incorrect in his evaluation of her Constitutional philosophy. He knows far, far more about her than anybody else does in this respect. It is highly likely he knows far more about her Constitutional philosophy than he knows about any other USSC justice prospects.
I may not have nominated Miers, you may not have nominated Miers, because to us she may not be the "best possible nominee." The President, however, believes that she is.
We'll know her better after the hearings in a couple weeks, but even then, unless she falls completely flat on her face, the President's view of her qualification might be better than ours.
The major reason for the vehemence of Miers' opponents is that they wanted a bloody fight over this USSC justice. This is simply their temper tantrum.
And with this nomination, he's gone All In. Those who think his hole cards are crap -- prepare to lose your shirts. Miers is the ultimate secret weapon.
Tony is wrong, though, to claim that the President's appointment of a "diversity" pick puts him at odds with Ronald Reagan. Just look at who Miers is replacing! Other than being the first female nominee, Sandra Dee O'Connor was extremely mediocre.
You're probably right about the "cumulative effect" observation. You didn't go back quite far enough, though - that "blood in the streets" attitude has been accumulating ever since Gonzales, etc., was filibustered. It is sad that there is so much fighting about this among ourselves.
What really bothers me most about this situation is that The President HAS been delivering on the judges, that he knows Miers so very well, and from every thing in her background and her self description, it seems most likely to me that Miers is indeed, as you put it, a "hard core originalist" that we all ought to be proud of.
Not to worry. Justice Miers will be a FAR better Justice than Sandra Dee O'Connor. The President gambles the same way I do -- hold back until you have the nuts, then go All In and clean up when you are called.
In the lower courts, he has nominated ppl we all like. But that's why I bring up Roberts. I think ppl see the SCOTUS as a whole new ball game. And I think folks saw Roberts as a step back from the lower court nominations we'd seen up to that point, and now see Miers as a step back from even Roberts.
Nothing in her record? Wrong! According to Michael Yoo, she supports racial preferences. Do you have evidence to the contrary? If so, please provide it otherwise stop making this false "nothing in her record" claim.
Who's Yoo?
I agree...the elitist snobs are screaming their ugly heads off including Krystol...he's showing his colors...
Personally, I think W has picked another souter EXCEPT SHE'LL BE HARD RIGHT...LOL
Shouldn't that be yoo who?
sorry...couldn't resist.
Shouldn't that be yoo who?
sorry...couldn't resist.
Yoo Who to You, too!
We do know some of them because they were leaked along the way by the Administration. They leak them to see what kind of response they get in editorials, from Senators, phone calls, etc.
Granted, as a lawyer, she is bound to this doctrine in that she had to anticipate its affect on rulings she was pursuing, but part of the legal game is learning how to present prior decisions in order to justify one's desired outcome (as a plaintiff or defendent). That means she had to consider the text of the relevant law, all rulings upon that law, and the blank areas of the law and rulings.
An appeals court judge, if my understanding is correct, is tasked with deciding if a lower court has correctly decided based on the case briefings presented to them. A SCOTUS justice is tasked with the same thing, plus the need to consider whether precedent was correctly decided - which requires more independent thinking than the appeals court judge (in other words, Justices must be able to balance the law against the presedent - with the Constitution being the highest law).
I know this post is long, but I'd appreciate if you (or anyone else) could comment on my thoughts. Thanks in advance.
.
I voted for that man as well. Is he the same as the one in the White House? Time will tell.
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.