Posted on 10/07/2005 9:29:21 AM PDT by Kryptonite
Washington - Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold, who supported the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court, voiced serious questions Thursday about the qualifications and independence of President Bush's latest nominee, White House counsel Harriet Miers.
A member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Feingold said in an interview that he was "puzzled" by the choice. He said the selection of Miers raised at least two issues that were not present in the confirmation of Roberts, now chief justice of the United States.
"The president has chosen someone here about whom objectivity and independence is a very real question. He's selling this to the American people, saying, 'This is a person I know real well. You should trust me and trust her,' " Feingold said. "This is one of the president's closest confidantes."
Feingold suggested such a nomination was at odds with the founders' ideal of a judiciary independent from the executive. "This really is potentially an institutional question," Feingold said.
...
Herb Kohl, the other Wisconsin Democrat on the judiciary committee, declined an interview request. An aide said he had nothing to add to the statement he released Monday, when Kohl urged Miers to be "forthright and candid with the American people."
...
Brownback, who met with Miers on Thursday, said there's a fear on the right that "when people go on (the) bench (without) a well-formed judicial philosophy, they tend to the left. In that first year or two, they may vote conservative and then veer left."
Feingold, who faced criticism on the left for supporting Roberts, said Thursday that Miers was under a greater burden to supply documents and answer questions than Roberts because she is less qualified than he was.
(Excerpt) Read more at jsonline.com ...
Feingold is puzzled by a 4-way stop.
Brownback, who met with Miers on Thursday, said there's a fear on the right that "when people go on (the) bench (without) a well-formed judicial philosophy, they tend to the left. In that first year or two, they may vote conservative and then veer left."
Yup, just like I said during the Roberts nomination process, you watch all the Dems and the media like the Wash Compost say, "While we supportedthe Presidents previous nominee, however,..."
But let me tell you, if Rusty Feingold doesn't like her, then she must be a GREAT nominee!
"it clearly is not fair to require Miers to supply more documents and answer more questions because she doesn't compare favorably to John (the most brilliant man in America) Roberts."
Why not? The burden on the Senate is to confirm to their satisfaction that she meets the requirements to serve on the highest court in the country. Until they confirm that, they should keep asking and unless she can demonstrate that in the confirmation hearings, they should vote against her.
You know if Bill Clinton nominated a close lady friend where this would be going. lmbo
He prides himself as an intellectual. He's got book smarts, but he's not the most politically savvy elected official.
I think most of all he'll be an elitist on Miers, because he voted his fellow Harvard grad Roberts up there.
To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. In addition to this, it would be an efficacious source of stability in the administration....The danger to his own reputation, and, in the case of an elective magistrate, to his political existence, from betraying a spirit of favoritism, or an unbecoming pursuit of popularity, to the observation of a body whose opinion would have great weight in forming that of the public, could not fail to operate as a barrier to the one and to the other. He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure.
Federalist 76
Baloney. Roberts was THE most brilliant witness to testify before the judiciary committee - they all agreed on that.
In fact, I think it is over the line here at FR to call for Miers to get rejected because she's not like John Roberts, and it's clearly unfair (and sexist and elitist) for the Senate to demand more from her because she's not John Roberts.
Whoa... maybe there's hope.
Right into the porno movies.
Glad Bush doesn't have that rep.
This frickin clown is puzzled by most things.
Personally I'm tired of the "qualifications" crap. Give me a common man or woman that is sure of what they believe and I'll go with them every day. Those I've found to be the least stable are often those who want to be seen as intellectual. I would've perferred the President nominate Ann Coulter or a Radio talk show host but that isn't going to happen so Meirs it is and she doesn't seem to be half bad.
I guess this is Feingold's sop to the left to atone for his having voted to confirm John Roberts. You know, more important to be positioned right for the presidential race than to withhold judgment and make a proper decision AFTER the hearings. I'm also guessing this has to do more with the noise coming out that Miers may be quite anti-abortion and an evangelical Christian than anything having to do with her qualifications.
'And Feingold looked like a jigsaw puzzle,
with a couple pieces gone.' (Bad, Bad LeRoy Brown)
Thank you, I'm here at the Tiki Room all week. Management asked me to remind, two drink minimum, please don't take towlels from your rooms, and peepul, plz use the ashtrays by the pool.
How about some Barry and Neil next--hey, whoa! `At the copa . . . '
Yep glad that isn't the case but just wait. The Dems are likely to try and pull a fast one here. Right now they are only holding back because they are just as confused as some conservatives.
Feingold is bringing up legitimate questiions (though I'm not so naive to think politics isn't involved) that should be answered. It is dangerous to have close friends or aides of the president nominated to such an important position. Would she have to recuse herself on issues that she advised the president on, etc. We came up with the civil service for similar reasons.
According to Leahy, he is the one who suggested Miers to the President. Maybe he can explain it to Feingold.
Appointing close friends is the only way to go. If you appoint people you barely know, if at all, then you get David Souter.
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.