Posted on 10/07/2005 12:18:33 PM PDT by Map Kernow
REAL intelligent strategery move on Bush's part... </ sarc>
if we go for the Nuclear Option and lose, do we get another shot at it, or is it a done deal at that point?
No. He has no right to ask a candidate about a topic on which it is likely she will have to make a decision.
Besides, Brownback is showboating here. Do you think he asked Roberts his view on Roe v. Wade? If he did, do you think Roberts actually gave it?
This is for 'O8. Brownback knows Miers is not going to discuss Roe v. Wade with him or any other Senator.
Would a Brownback led 9-9 'no recommendation' from the Judiciary Committee change some more conservative Senatorial minds perhaps?
Not to mention, bring up Clifton 9th cir anytime someone uses this argument. ;)
If Miers gets voted down in committee, it's likely Bush will put forward Edith Clements, who was a leading candidate originally until he decided on Roberts.
Clements is truly a moderate.
Re: #28 - best post of the thread...
If she is so supremely gifted at picking conservative judges we cannot afford for her to leave!
Being able to pick judges relates only peripherally if at all to being an effective Justice on the Supreme Court. Simon does a whizbang job at evaluating the talent on American Idol; that don't mean he can sing.
Bush said he had no litmus test on abortion. He said that in 2000, and in 2004. You didn't think he was lying to get elected, did you?
Yes, I am saying that the senator would be out of line to ask how she would rule on an abortion case.
He can ask her what her views are on privacy rights and the constitution; and then he could try to devine what she would do in an abortion case based on those views.
But asking a justice to guarantee a certain vote on a case in exchange for confirmation is most surely NOT what the advise and consent is supposed to do. It is there to verify that the nominee is qualified, not give 100 senators a shot at getting favorable supreme court rulings.
That said, if Miers answers questions in a way that suggests she find a privacy right in the constitution such as would justify Roe V. Wade, I would urge all senators to vote against her. Problem is, there are more than 50 senators who are pro-choice, and our side can't filibuster without looking like total hypocrits.
So I can only hope that she is questioned completely and in detail on her judicial philosophy, rather than have this posturing over specific cases like it LOOKS happened here.
No, you are not wrong.
But by same token I'm disturbed by people citing she is supposedly a "pro-Life" Christian, and so, will overturn R v W and the like as reason to nominate her.
I'm a pro-Life Christian but that should not be the center of this discussion at either end. As Supreme Court Justice her allegiance is to the Constitution. Not to Bush and not to personal beliefs. So her thoughts of the Constitution and the process the Founders went through to craft it means far more to me than whether she is a "yes" or "no" vote for causes I care for. I want the proper verdict because it's constitutionally correct, I don't want a Ginsburg activist. Even if for my side, though we have no real proof it would be for our side either.
I wonder how much of this is principle and how much is it to get your name out there for a Presidential Run? He sure would be a hit with the conservative media if he votes against her.
Whatever happens, this Supreme Court season is chocked full of varied cases. If she is confirmed we all will know whether it was a good appointment or not.
Another question is, how will the LEFT react to Miers retracting herself and a strict originalist being named?
It is definitely a point in her favor. Presumably she is familiar with constructionism if she is busy picking constructionists judges...and conservatives seem very happy with Bush's judges overall.
She's been working on this area for years. Apparently, she's no Babe in the Woods as many attempt to portray her.
IMHO that's a pretty GOOD argument.
These two persons, the President and Harriet Miers, are from the Bible belt that includes Texas. I trust the President and that brings me to trust his choice of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court. Faith and Trust are sometimes important.
What's worse is that if Bush *did* have a stealth candidate strategy, it's backfiring bigtime.
Conservatives do NOT want to risk another Souter. It's that simple. Give us some real assurance you really will be an originalist. If Miers can't make those assurances stick even in a closed-door session with a Senator, I would prefer we take the fallout of a failed nomination than 20 years of smarting over a missed opportunity to put a conservative on the court.
I feel EXACTLY the same way. Those making it about one issue (abortion) are no better than the opposites on the left. For Bush and Rove to think that if they trot out Dobson's approval that everyone will fall in line behind Miers is condescending... imho.
What he was thinking I just can't fathom. All the hoopla about strict, constructionist judges... and he picks his legal counsel.
BTW... George Allen's been getting the same emails from his constituents.
If she can't make that assurance with a REPUBLICAN Senator, then how much can we trust her at all???
You are mistaken. Miers has spent most of her life in political contexts - ABA head, city council, helping Bush in the WHite House, Texas gambling commission.
As such, she is *more* susceptible to beltway pressures and influences than a cloistered Judge.
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.