Posted on 10/08/2005 1:34:59 PM PDT by beyond the sea
Krauthammer: Withdraw Miers Nomination
http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/10/8/130600.shtml
President Bush should withdraw his nomination of Harrier Miers to fill the Supreme Court seat of retiring justice Sandra Day O'Connor, says Washington Post columnist and Fox News commentator Charles Krauthammer.
In a blistering Post column Friday Krauthammer, normally a strong Bush supporter, wrote that if Miers weren't a Bush crony, "her nomination to the Supreme Court would be a joke, as it would have occurred to no one else to nominate her."
Noting that there are 1,084,504 lawyers in the United States, Krauthammer asked: "What distinguishes Harriet Miers from any of them, other than her connection with the president? To have selected her, when conservative jurisprudence has J. Harvey Wilkinson, Michael Luttig, Michael McConnell and at least a dozen others on a bench deeper than that of the New York Yankees, is scandalous."
The columnist called the fact that Miers has been chosen by a conservative president "particularly dismaying. For half a century, liberals have corrupted the courts by turning them into an instrument of radical social change on questions – school prayer, abortion, busing, the death penalty – that properly belong to the elected branches of government. Conservatives have opposed this arrogation of the legislative role and called for restoration of the purely interpretive role of the court. To nominate someone whose adult life reveals no record of even participation in debates about constitutional interpretation is an insult to the institution and to that vision of the institution."
Krauthammer predicted that Miers will "surely shine in her Judiciary Committee hearings," but explained that she will do so "only because expectations have been set so low. If she can give a fairly good facsimile of John Roberts's testimony, she'll be considered a surprisingly good witness. But what does she bring to the bench?"
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
I have that pic, too ~ great stuff, my kinda guys! ;)
I need to be standing there with my Ruger Mini 14 BullPup with the 90 rd drum magazine. >:-}
DOWN WITH THESE ELITISTS!!
Oh get over yourself. You don't have one-tenth the brain pan of any one of them......and you haven't done squat for Conservatism as that lineup has done (for years, mind you).
I'm rapidly sickening of this "Agree with Bush on this or you're a LEEEEEEEEEEEBRAL!" bullshit.
There once was a lawyer named Miers
Dubya's Souter-pick like his sire?
Well, there's no way to know
How she'll go on Roe
On the bench from which she can't be fired!
It could be Harriet had a real change of heart and went from ProAbortion to ProLife. Or she decided to fool her new Republican employers with her moral move to the right.
Will she continue to try and fool us in the confirmation hearings? How can we tell?
My bottom line is that if she couldn't tell that killing babies was wrong as a 40 year old, she sure as heck shouldn't be a Supreme Court at 60.
And what EXACTLY is your beef with my post? You're talking croneyism and I wasn't. So......your point?
By whom, and what were the criteria? On what basis was she chosen? (HINT: Could be 'visibility' or 'popularity' more than ability.)
"...AND she really will do well."
Ya think? Why do you think so? What's your basis for saying that?
Look, people. Start thinking like adults here. She MAY turn out to be the greatest thing since sliced bread on the SC. Maybe. I have no idea; don't know that woman or anything about her or her philosophy of Constitutional law.
Therein lies the problem for many. It's a valid point. To question the choice is perfectly understandable and reasonable.
I, too, am a big Bush supporter....have been for a long time......but on this one, and I think I DO know his strategy here (it's transparent as hell if 'strategy' is what you do for a living), he was too cute by half.
You put it a nutshell. Very well said.
Indeed. You are either for a Meritocracy or you are for Affirmative Action, you can't be both nor neither.
Forgot the sarcasm tag.
Thanks.
Agree 100% with your post. The argument that she is somehow the best we could hope for is ludicrous. Regardless of the anticipated outcome of a credentialed conservative being confirmed, Bush could and should have given at least given it a shot. What a disappointment.
Thank goodness these many big name critics were not here when Abe Lincoln ran for President.
"Oh get over yourself. You don't have one-tenth the brain pan of any one of them......and you haven't done squat for Conservatism as that lineup has done (for years, mind you).
I'm rapidly sickening of this "Agree with Bush on this or you're a LEEEEEEEEEEEBRAL!" bullshit."
LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I guess I should have added the sarcasm tag to my post, because thats what it was!
I agree. I am still shaking my head over Bush's decision. Don't get me wrong I am Bush man but this nomination was just plain dumb and wrong.
Exactly right. I can not argue with you there.
Hellooooooo...I forgot the sarcasm tag. Come on, didnt you detect the slightest bit in there? It was obvious to me, oh well i wont make that mistake again because I've been flamed unnecessarily!
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.