Conservatives can trust in Miers - Newt Gingrich

Baltimore Sun ^ | 10/7/2005 | Newt Gingrich

[KMAJ2]

Conservatives can trust in Miers - Newt Gingrich (excerpts) --- Ms. Miers' first remarks were reassuring in this regard: "It is the responsibility of every generation to be true to the founders' vision of the proper role of the courts and our society." She promised to "strictly apply the laws and the Constitution." --- she proved to be a very effective leader opposing the American Bar Association's official stance in support of abortion, including active support of taxpayer-funded abortions. --- she is deeply committed to the conservative ideal that the people themselves, not an unelected elite, should be able to decide about deeply held values. --- In addition, Ms. Miers brings an important type of diversity to the bench: diversity of experience. --- And perhaps most important, Mr. Bush has worked closely with Ms. Miers every day since his days as governor. The president knows her and knows what kind of justice she will make.

[manwiththehands]

I'm sitting the bench on Miers until the hearings. I'm sick of the whole thing. I don't trust Newt. He sucked up to Hillary ... and Hillary has KOOTIES! :)

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

In a word?

No.

[Siena Dreaming]

he told Pat Robertson there wouldn't be any casualties

I doubt it.

[KingKongCobra]

Meow meow. I smell troll

[KingKongCobra]

Wow, fast mods today. Nevermind the troll, he's already gone.

[Texas Federalist]

The best guarantee you can have that [a candidate will strictly interpret the Constitution] if you have personally know the candidate for a long period of time.

I'm sure George Bush and Miers have had lengthy talks about Constitutional philosophy. Bush isn't a lawyer and has not demonstrated that he knows the first thing about Constitutional law himself.

[Christian4Bush]

So much of comments like that are driven by her not being the choice a person wanted, she wasn't the one I wanted either, I was hoping for Garza or Miguel Estrada. But, we weren't elected president, we don't get to choose.

BUMP to the rafters.

[Logical me]

Wow, are you mixed up. A couple of aspirins and a good night sleep might help. President Bush never said there would be no casualties.

[GarySpFc]

I have come to the conclusion the DU is out in force on FR to stop this lady from being nominated.

[Monti Cello]

The major question for me is whether her level of legal expertise is a non-starter for the position.

Supreme court justice is not a figurehead position, nor a management position, and there are qualities that matter aside from voting yea or nay as one might like.

Can she hold her own in deliberations and cross-examination? Can she write an informed and well-reasoned and legally respectable opinion? Can she stand up to other justices who will put her to the test, and may try to intellectually intimidate her?

The personal connection to Bush and the lack of a 'paper trail' are complicating issues, but less important than competence, in my opinion.

Fortunately the questions of competence and backbone will probably be resolved by the confirmation process.

[Stingray51]

"Virtually every conservative who knows him trusts him and thinks he's a competent guy." — Newt Gingrich on David Souter prior to his confirmation, as quoted by Ann Coulter.

http://www.anncoulter.org/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=67

[protest1]

Plenty of lawyers have demonstrated they they do not know the first thing about the Constitution.

[toddp]

Initially, I opposed the Miers nomination. Then, Dr. Dobson influenced me to support it. Now, I oppose it again after listening to many arguments from other conservatives. With this nomination, a division has occurred in the pro-life ranks. This is sad because any president who sincerely cared about the issue would not have allowed this. I am an evangelical, but I know evangelicals who are pro-life and support a right to choose. Miers may be like this. Of course, I think this would be a contradiction. Bottom line: I oppose the nomination and think pro-life senators should vote against it unless Miers speaks out against Roe at the hearings which is unlikely. Every attempt by conservatives to defeat this nomination should be made.

[toddp]

Initially, I opposed the Miers nomination. Then, Dr. Dobson influenced me to support it. Now, I oppose it again after listening to many arguments from other conservatives. With this nomination, a division has occurred in the pro-life ranks. This is sad because any president who sincerely cared about the issue would not have allowed this. I am an evangelical, but I know evangelicals who are pro-life and support a right to choose. Miers may be like this. Of course, I think this would be a contradiction. Bottom line: I oppose the nomination and think pro-life senators should vote against it unless Miers speaks out against Roe at the hearings which is unlikely. Every attempt by conservatives to defeat this nomination should be made.

[toddp]

Initially, I opposed the Miers nomination. Then, Dr. Dobson influenced me to support it. Now, I oppose it again after listening to many arguments from other conservatives. With this nomination, a division has occurred in the pro-life ranks. This is sad because any president who sincerely cared about the issue would not have allowed this. I am an evangelical, but I know evangelicals who are pro-life and support a right to choose. Miers may be like this. Of course, I think this would be a contradiction. Bottom line: I oppose the nomination and think pro-life senators should vote against it unless Miers speaks out against Roe at the hearings which is unlikely. Every attempt by conservatives to defeat this nomination should be made.

[GSWarrior]

All good points. Personally, I want someone who will stick with the original intent of the Constitution. HM may well be that pick.

[w_over_w]

Thank you for your response. And further, thank you for the logical and sequential questions that your post raises. Like Sowell, you raise issues that at present are stealth in there respective answer. I share the "head scratching" as to the final outcome.

You are correct that the senate confirmation hearings will be telling ("I cannot respond that question" . . . not withstanding) and I look forward to the light of truth being shone therein.