Dubya the gambler will enjoy the last laugh

Jewish World Review ^ | 10/7/05 | Tony Snow

[pookie18]

The Harriet Miers nomination has set off one of the most delightful psychodramas in recent Washington history. President Bush, the habitual iconoclast, shattered prevailing traditions and expectations by asking his former personal attorney and now-White House counsel to assume a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Elites hate the nomination. Miers, in contrast to the polymath John Roberts, has little direct experience with constitutional law, and may know less about cases and precedents than such potential inquisitors as Sens. Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer. She hasn't spent time on the federal bench. She hasn't written sage articles for prestigious law reviews. She has little conventional pedigree — and that drives the local elites nuts.

Conservative activists also count themselves unamused. Sen. George Allen told the Richmond Times-Dispatch that of the 100 phone calls his office got on the Meirs pick before noon last Monday, only three supported the president's pick.

Many conservatives wanted the president to duke it out with Senate Democrats by selecting a known and documented constitutional originalist — Judges Michael Luttig, Michael McConnell, Edith Jones and Janice Rogers Brown topped many wish lists. The president, the thinking went, not only could have established himself as the King of Capitol Hill, he also could have killed the recent Democratic tactic of slurring and smearing conservative judicial picks.

[Captain Kirk]

Snow doesn't even address the evidence that Miers supports racial preferences. I guess post-911 conservatives no longer care about such issues.

[Captain Kirk]

How about the evidence that she supports racial preferences? What more do you need?

[altura]

If she would just follow your suggestions, she would be almost as cute as Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

[Col Freeper]

I am firmly in the camp that says "The Supreme Court should strictly follow the Constitution (i.e., no prenumbras) in making its decisions."

I have read many postings regarding the types (legal-eagle, Harvard type vs non-elite school graduate), experience (jurist vs non-jurist, etc.), character, and on-record positions on issues that SC nominees should have. It has been interesting to read both the "Official Conservative Pundits" opinion articles, as well as the postings of fellow Freepers.

It seems to me that if a you believe the Constitution is clearly enough written that the average person, with average educational background, can understand and apply the intent of the Founders, then that person would be qualified to sit on the SC.

While there can never be any guarantee that a person would not change once placed on the SC, the assessment of their character, life experience and recorded positions provide the only valid clues about their likely approach to applying the Constitution in SC deliberations.

Both the pro and con arguments I have read thus far contain some thought provoking content, and I believe that FR is just the right modern-day "Town Square" for discussing the current nominee and her qualifications to be nominated and approved for the SC.

The selection, and seating of a life-term SC Justice is of such significance to the future of our country, that, as long as the posting rules of the forum are followed, I encourage a lively, fully fleshed-out discussion about the current nominee.

If Ms. Miers' character, life experience and recorded positions will lead to her making decisions based on the content of the Constitution and the intent of the Founders, than she is fully qualified to be a SC Justice.

At this juncture, it appears to me that she is, but I will continue to follow the threads to see if any new information is provided which would change that perception.

I don't accept the idea that only lawyers and/or elite individuals can hold top positions in other parts of the Government, and I don't accept the idea that a SC Justice can't be drawn from non-elite sectors of our society.

[RobbyS]

Pretty good analysis. Of course, the referendum on the Iraqi constitution had better come out well for our side. Gambling is great so long as you win.

[KosmicKitty]

no one knows what she will be like, but a lot of people are jumping in and defending Bush as brilliant--the bushbots.

As are alot of Bush-bashers - whining and pouting about a choice THEY didn't like. They rant and rave and threaten to leave the GOP, and on and on

But, not to worry. We'll all come together again under another Clinton presidency!!

[GarySpFc]

With all due respect to your beliefs what the country needs on the supreme court is someone who is a passionate about the constitution as you claim she is about the bible.

With all due respect I was pointing out how she interprets the Bible will affect how she does the Constitution. Secondly, it could not but be more obvious by her life of dedication to the law she is that passionate on this subject.

[Salvation]

Bump for later.

[daybreakcoming]

Agree with you on the eyeliner - she has nice blue eyes that need a softer look. But the bangs gotta stay - take a look - her forehead is way too high.
Now that we've got her makeover taken care of - I look forward to the hearings to find out what the rest of her is made of.

[RobbyS]

I don't accept the idea that only lawyers and/or elite individuals can hold top positions in other parts of the Government, and I don't accept the idea that a SC Justice can't be drawn from non-elite sectors of our society.

I agree. What you say is, in m opinion, the essence of plain Republicanism.

[winodog]

The bottom line is we will not know for sure for a few years. However I am leaning twords giving her a chance. I have always felt with all the advisors you would have being president or SCJ is mostly common sense especially if you use the constitution as your bedrock.

[daybreakcoming]

That is pretty much what I said last week. Who knows who may have turned down the nomination and who else may not have passed the vetting? Look what "they" attempted to do with Roberts' adopted children FGS. Nothing is beneath them. Based on that type of bs from the msm and the demos tells me that Ms Meirs has gumption in even accepting the nomination.

[Señor Zorro]

Wrong. Bush knows at least as much as any mrotal could,and it's his opinion that's important.

I reiterate (with all reverence) that God alone knows what Miers would be like as a Supreme Court justice. You are free to dissent (I am in a generous mood today /sarcasm).

I believe most people would agree that to say a person is generally overestimated by his constituents is a bash.

My exact words were "many Republicans overestimate him." (refer to original post, et. al) Furthermore, if it is a bash against anyone, it is against those who overestimate Bush, not Bush himself.

[GarySpFc]

The saving grace in the presidency is W likely will appoint at least one and maybe two more justices to the SCOTUS.

[meema]

Sorry, Tony. I am NOT an elite by any stretch of the imagination! And "TRUST my judgement" is not enough.
I thought this was a bad joke when I first heard the rumor early Monday morning. Now what I see is "Sc*** the base. You don't want Gonsalez, hum? I'll fix you."
If you are going for an older person, How about Ted Olson?
At least we all know where he stands.

[Señor Zorro]

As are alot of Bush-bashers - whining and pouting about a choice THEY didn't like.

Granted. If you wish to insinuate that I fall into that category, don't. Tell me. I take it as would my screen name's namesake.

But, not to worry. We'll all come together again under another Clinton presidency!!

Maybe, maybe not. It seems to me that true-blue conservatives are stiffed by the Republican party (as a whole). A true conservative wants: to fight abortion and homosexuality, reduce spending and government size, fight judicial tyranny, and mantain a strong military. On all of these issues, the Republicans are merely a lesser evil compared to the Democrats. Isn't a little presumptuous to assume that people who are regularly being stiffed by both sides of the political aisle will continue to turn out for you? I make this prediction (not threat): if Bush's nominees turn out to be a net loss, conservatives will feel disheartened and scammed. As a result, the will not turn out for an election and the Republican party will be roasted. To clarify, they will not vote Democrat, they will just not turn out in droves to help Republicans with votes and dollars.

[Mo1]

As governor of Texas, he crafted an alliance with Democratic stalwart Bob Bullock, creating an era of good feelings in Austin.

And once upon a time Texas was a Dem State

Now it's a Big Red State

[daybreakcoming]

To clarify, they will not vote Democrat, they will just not turn out in droves to help Republicans with votes and dollars.

If this is true, I cannot tell you how disappointed/disgusted I will be in my fellow Republicans who will refuse to exercise their voting right because of this issue. A voting right that so many have died to protect. Shameful.
Between these threatening not to vote and the RINOS, God help the Republican Party.

[AFPhys]

I voted for the man who said this, and so did the majority of America:

"I've spoken clearly to the American people about the qualities I look for in a Supreme Court Justice. A Justice must be a person of accomplishment and sound legal judgment. A Justice must be a person of fairness and unparalleled integrity. And a Justice must strictly apply the Constitution and laws of the United States, and not legislate from the bench."

He has been consistent in his application of these guidelines in the past, and there is no reason at all to believe he's suddenly departed from that philosophy.

The woman he has nominated has been assisting him in fulfilling those goals, helping vet outstanding judicial appointments for five years, and she has stated:

"It is the responsibility of every generation to be true to the founders' vision of the proper role of the courts in our society. If confirmed, I recognize that I will have a tremendous responsibility to keep our judicial system strong, and to help ensure that the courts meet their obligations to strictly apply the laws and the Constitution."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/10/20051003.html

Nothing in her record suggests that she is lying, 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.

Face it: THE MAJOR REASON people are opposing Miers is that they wanted a bloody fight over this USSC justice, and this is simply their temper tantrum.

[firewalk]

bttt