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 ...
So ... after failures such as Souter, I think it is a darn good idea that Bush picked someone that Bush knew very well and trusted to vote the Constitution, straight up. We've had enough of the well recommended outsiders.
Sorry Mr. Krauthammer that Bush didn't have you make the selection. Better luck next time.
As for that fight that folks like Rush Limbaugh have been spoiling for, I'd like a good fight that K.O.'d the 'Rats myself. But Bush never promised us a political fight. Indeed, he has consistently avoided them, especially ones with poor odds, such as we have in the Senate these days. He also never promised us a famous Conservative scholar or Juror for the Supreme Court. He promised us a solid Conservative vote. He may well admire Scalia the most, but he didn't promise us Scalia's twin. He promised us a strict constructionist.
I'm optimistic that he has delivered on his promise to us and this nation. And I wager that Chief Justice Roberts will be delighted to seat Justice Miers on his court.
IMO, having this battle now was not of the President's choosing. What has the anti Miers people screaming about the Scotus pick is that it was the second punch in the gut over the Pres choice. The first was John Roberts. Actually, Roberts was a twofer irritant. They didn't want him in the first place and when he was chosen by Pres Bush for Chief Justice instead of Scalia being elevated they bristled as well. Problem was, Roberts is so darned obviously brilliant they couldn't act out their frustrations without looking sappy and stupid. The Miers choice has opened the floodgates of their frustrations because a candidate of their choosing was not selected. They apparently feel that their own credentials as top notch, top drawer, super dooper conservatives need shoring up. It is high time somebody took the pruning sheers to them. President Bush is just the guy to do it.
I read post 95. And...?
George "No Child Left Behind" "Amnesty for Illegal Aliens" Bush is every much the liberal Krauthammer is.
I was surprised by his bio since I often agree with Krauthammer.
Btw, "snotty" wasn't called for as I did not treat you that way.
Thank you. All the best to you.
Can't wait for the hearings. :)~
Oh PLEEEZZZ! It's all about the balance. Bahahaha
What equals balance on the SC now may not ten years from now.
National Right to life endorsed her. How much more pro-life does an endorsement need to be to convince you?
I've seen National Right to Life endorse phony 'pro-lifers' before.
Since 2000, they've more or less been a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Bush Administration.
They walked away from their own platform and have never looked back...
I've been thinking that all along and just wasn't sure how to put it into words. Thank you!
That's what I'm talking about....the balance.
I imagine she was chosen by the same criteria as by any of the others on the list.
If John Roberts was on the list at one time when he was lawyering, would it make any difference to those who question Miers? I don't think it would. I think they're angry about something and no one can say anything that will be listened to.
At this point only time will tell if Pres. Bush was trustworthy.
The nomination is made, and he is the President. It's not likely his own party will be the ones to undermine the remainder of his presidency.
With all due respect, many conservatives are not interested in balance. We wanted another conservative, strict constructionist on the court. I thought that is what Bush wanted and that is why I worked so hard to get him elected and worked so hard at defending him for the past 5 1/2 years.
The Senate, a barren wasteland
Where only the Left takes a stand
And all Republican spines
Are the jellyfish kind
They are eunuchs, my friend, to a man
Feel free to look it up and let me know.
If John Roberts were on that list at some point in his career, is the list still bad or does that make it good? Or would it only be good for Roberts but bad for others?
Or are we only hearing credentials that we want to hear and rejecting credentials that we don't want to hear?
And is there any value in letting the woman say at least one word before she gets hammered?
I know how you feel. However, we must let the process continue and have the hearings. I can see more problems if her nomination is withdrawn then if we let her have her day at this point.
That would have been fun. Of course, it would have disqualified JRB from the supremes for life, but what the heck we want some red meat.
My personal first choice was Ann Coulter. Now, that would have been entertaining. And when she was rejected, no big deal. She couldn't take the pay cut anyway.
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.