Posted on 10/07/2005 2:38:48 PM PDT by JohnHuang2
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush on Friday predicted White House lawyer Harriet Miers would win confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court despite conservative complaints including some calls to withdraw her nomination. "She'll be confirmed and ... people will see a fantastic woman who is honest, open, humble and capable of being a great Supreme Court judge," Bush said. Continues...
================================================================
Experts hopelessly stuck in Harriet Quag-Miers
"I'm disappointed . . . I'm depressed . . . I'm demoralized," the Weekly Standard's William Kristol wrote. My goodness. Get back on your meds, bud. Kristol says he's depressed because he "expected President Bush to nominate someone with a visible and distinguished constitutionalist track record . . . " Someone President John McCain would pick. Or President Colin Powell.
Bush chose White House Counsel Harriet Ellan Miers. Had a hunch it wasn't gonna be Alan Dershowitz. She was born and raised in Dallas, Texas. She was educated at Southern Methodist University. Bush betrayed Harvard! Yale Law School! Bastions of conservative legal thinking.
It's a missed opportunity to pick someone from the cloistered, insular world of the judiciary. Now we're stuck with someone with real-world experience and Texas values. How unhealthy. 'This is the best qualified person for the job.' Yeah, sure (har-dee-har-har). Oops -- that was Bush's dad nominating Clarence Thomas.
She's White House Counsel, Bush's chief adviser on judicial nominations; was Bush's Deputy Chief of Staff, top domestic policy adviser; she headed up the process which gave us John Roberts. She supports restrictions on federal funding on embryonic stem cell research, is a patron of a Texas pro-life group, attends a pro-life evangelical church, opposes gay marriage . . . gee, wonder if she leans right or left -- any idea?
As head of the Texas bar, she fought the ABA's pro-abortion stance, urging the ABA's policy-making committee to put the abortion issue to a vote. Which means Miers wants voters deciding the issue of abortion. The N.O.W. gang will love her. "Surely this is a pick from weakness," says Kristol. Bush's "weak" because of Katrina, Michael Brown, and charges of "cronyism." So he picks a "crony" in "capitulation." Makes perfect sense now.
Sen. Patrick Leahy blasted Miers for her notorious reputation of "being loyal to this president," pointing to her mile-long rap sheet of "serving as a close (Bush) adviser and in working to advance his objectives," rather than working to advance Leahy's objectives.
Bush chose Miers the same way he chose Cheney. I wonder how that turned out.
The case against Miers per the Kristol camp: She's a Bush loyalist. She gave Al Gore's '88 campaign $1,000 for inventing the Internet. She's not a Bush loyalist. Too old and inexperienced. Safe pick. We know nothing about her. Other than a long and distinguished career, no track record. Dangerous pick. She's a stealth candidate. We know everything about her. That's how we know she's no conservative. OK, she may be conservative, but only 'cuz she's surrounded by conservatives. No telling what'll happen once she sits on the bench next to Roberts, Thomas and Scalia. Bush says she's conservative. But what does he know? He didn't consult with William Kristol. 'Sides, you never gamble on someone you've known for only over 10 years. You go with Kristol's solid advice. He doesn't know her.
Anyway, Bush didn't need a "stealth candidate." Not with Senate Republicans in charge -- Republicans like John Warner, Arlen Specter, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Chuck Hagel, George Voinovich, Mike Dewine, Lincoln Chafee, John McCain. Real fighters! You can always count on that crowd.
But some Democrats are happy about this pick -- a sure sign Miers is really a liberal.
Sen. Joe Lieberman said he thinks this "is a credible nominee, and not one that, as far as we know now, has a record that in any sense could be described as extremist."
Sen. Mark Pryor said his "sense is, so far, so good."
According to a report in the Omaha World-Herald, Sen. Ben Nelson "said he will wait to decide how he'll vote until after the Senate's confirmation hearings," but "he sees nothing now that would derail" the nomination.
Sen. Harry Reid praised the nominee, telling reporters that "the President has chosen someone with suitable legal credentials."
Sen. Dianne Feinstein was ebullient, telling CNN that, from what she's heard, she's convinced the nominee is "qualified, yes. I don't think (the nominee is) an extremist."
Sen. Barack Obama was effusive, noting that the candidate "clearly has the legal background and intellect to serve."
Sen. Jon Corzine was effusive, too: "I think the White House did its homework. They found an individual that is brilliant, clearly capable as a jurist."
Sen. Dick Durbin heaped praise on the nominee as someone "legally skilled, a very bright" individual who "has no questions related to . . . honesty or ethics that I'm aware of. And a good temperament."
Oh, wait -- all 8 quotes above were about John Roberts. Back in July, before the hearings. Sorry.
The New York Post's John Podhoretz writes that "it is highly unlikely that (Miers) will be a good Supreme Court justice, because there is no indication in her 35 years in professional life that she has intellectual interests, that she has committed herself to the study of Constitutional theory and practice or even that she can write a decent English sentence. And it beggars reason to think that a person at the age of 60 can suddenly emerge as an intellectual powerhouse."
I see. It takes an "intellectual powerhouse" to look at the Constitution and find that gay marriage isn't in there. Sorry, Charlie. To paraphrase William Buckley, I'd rather be governed by the first hundred names in the Texas phone book than 100 Harvard "intellectual powerhouses."
If you think Miers is a David Souter, here's what you have to believe. Miers knew George W. Bush would run for President someday, so she fought the ABA on abortion, faked her evangelical Christian conversion, pretended to be a conservative, tithed from her income, gave to pro-life causes, taught Sunday school for 10 years, got active in GOP causes, attended church regularly, secretly contacted Souter for tips -- all of this to infiltrate the Bush inner circle and keep Bush from moving the Court to the right. Years and years of laboring as a mole -- then voila! Bush names her for SCOTUS. The plan worked. Abortion's now safe! Podhoretz says Miers probably can't "write a decent English sentence," but boy is she a Machiavellian genius!
Here's the genius of the Bush Team: Before the nominee was announced, the White House floated lots of trial balloons of possible nominees -- names garanteed to scare the bejesus out of libbies. This goes on for weeks. Libbies create a run on antidepressants. Then -- just when liberals expect Bush to name Michael Luttig or Pope Benedict XVI to the bench -- Bush introduces this soft-spoken, genial and reassuring individual. His name is John Roberts. Libbies seem relieved. We won! It wasn't the Pope! Some conservatives worry he's another Souter. Why pick a stealth candidate? Bush has a record of appointing excellent conservatives to the bench, so why trust him now? Then out come the John Roberts White House memos. Conservatives are relieved. Democrats are split.
Let's see now, before the Miers announcement, lots of trial balloons were floated of possible nominees. Democrats create another run on antidepressants. Then -- just when libbies expect Bush to name William Bennett to the bench -- Bush introduces this soft-spoken, genial and reassuring individual, Harriet Miers. Liberals seem relieved. We won! It wasn't William Bennett! Conservatives worry she's a Souter with boobs. Why a stealth candidate? Stay tuned. Libbies are about to blow their gaskets.
Anyway, that's...
My Two Cents...
"JohnHuang2"
Are you serious??? If you are a Constitutional expert you KNOW what's in it and what's not without having to reference it, so you can knock down any stupid arguments based on what's not in the document, because you know from memory it's NOT in the Constitution. If you think it's a bad idea to have a person on the court who has studied the Constitution for 35 years, not sitting on a bench ruling from up high, sometimes based on what the person thinks and not what's IN the Constitution, then THAT is how you get a souter or o'conner or kennedy. Miers has proven that she's a conservative and has been for many years, even voting for Reagan and Bush in '84 and '88 while she was still a conservative Democrat. This argument against her has really become silly and not worth arguing. I'm to the point I will just wait a few months till after she's ruled with Scalit and Thomas and Roberts on issues, and then come back with quite a few "see I told you so's".
It isn't very hard to tell that it isn't right for the government to take land from private property owners and give it to another...
But, If you ask 5 of the supreme constitutional experts of our land.... they seem to think it is just fine.
I trust a ham sandwich more than a "constitutional expert"
'Nuf said.
That very case proves WHY someone like Miers is needed on the court. Look who did that. ginsburg, souter, breyer, stevens, and o'conner for pete's sake. The four of those five have NEVER upheld what they know the Constitution really says. And no one has ever accused them of being evangalical Christians. And how many of them have been registered Republicans for many years, and worked in a conservative Republican administration in the White House? There is just no facts that support the opinion that she will be a liberal or even a moderate on the court. That's further disputed by all the people who have known her for so many years who have states what her belief system is like. What she believes is totally incompatable with a liberal mindset. And the fact of the matter is, when Reagan put up o'conner, he didn't know her before that. And Reagan didn't know kennedy before that. And when H. Bush put up souter, he didn't know him before that. Well W. Bush has known Miers for over a decade, and she's been with him all five years of his Presidency so far. His promise to put conservative constructionist judges has been by far the most strictly vigorously kept promise of his administration, and he has not given any reason to doubt his continued committment to that promise. Name me one Judge Bush has put up who has proven to be anything but conservative in their judicial findings. There isn't one. Miers won't be the exception.
I'm all for her because the fact she isn't a judge... I know that she is a lawyer, but she is from the outside..... that is why I support her. I'm always a fan of the outsider coming in and displacing kings.
Sweet music to my ears, Sir John!
*****
GWB: HBS MBA
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1070924/posts
The American Thinker February 3, 2004 | Thomas Lifson
*****
One final note on George W. Bush’s management style and his Harvard Business School background does not derive from the classroom, per se. One feature of life there is that a subculture of poker players exists. Poker is a natural fit with the inclinations, talents, and skills of many future entrepreneurs. A close reading of the odds, combined with the ability to out-psych the opposition, leads to capital accumulation in many fields, aside from the poker table.
By reputation, the President was a very avid and skillful poker player when he was an MBA student. One of the secrets of a successful poker player is to encourage your opponent to bet a lot of chips on a losing hand. This is a pattern of behavior one sees repeatedly in George W. Bush’s political career. He is not one to loudly proclaim his strengths at the beginning of a campaign. Instead, he bides his time, does not respond forcefully, at least at first, to critiques from his enemies, no matter how loud and annoying they get. If anything, this apparent passivity only goads them into making their case more emphatically.
you may like this ............ ping
That means that she gave us Miguel Estrada, Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owens and John Roberts and every other hard line conservative Appellate Court nominee that Bush sent to the Senate. Has Bush sent us any Souters? Has Bush sent us any Anthony Kennedys? No. In fact most of Bush's appointments have been to the right of Rhenquist. But nobody seems to trust the person who counseled Bush to make all these nominations. Somehow everyone thinks that a person who would advise the president to appoint Janice Rogers Brown would be stupid enough to vote like Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Give it up people. Miers is the best candidate for the job. She may not be the best lawyer in the world, but she earned the nomination by earning the trust of the President. That's good enough credentials for me.
That's our President ~ Bump!
BUMP!
Even Ellen Ratner sees this. Of all people.
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.