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 ...
Here's one for starters: When prolife legislators in SD proposed legislation that would have challenged Roe v Wade directly, NRL opposed it, saying, "The time isn't right."
More examples tomorrow if you like.
Good night.
Thanks..night.
Given her age (56) it is difficult seeing the senate moving far enough right, fast enough, to get her on.
Just like that other liberal, Ronnie "Amnesty for Illegal Aliens" Reagan.
Consitutional Law as it stands today would be unrecognizable to the Founding Fathers.
The Supreme Court specifically and the Federal Judiciary in general has grown into a multi-headed monster. The far left in this country has stacked the Judiciary since FDRs days with very intelligent, very liberal judges and two of the biggest offenders sit on the Supreme Court today.
The issues seen in the Supreme Court today are enormously more complicated than the founders could have ever imagined and their Consitution has been defiled and disrespected by the liberal Judiciary.
So while there are no "qualifications" to sit on the Court, there are certainly qualifications required by CONSERVATIVES on the court.
We need not only the very best and the very brightest, but we need people who can go to war with the extremely intelligent Justices Breyers, Ginsburg and Souter and not only survive the battle but TAKE ground from them.
After hearing arguments they sit in conference and have intellectual battles trying to convince their colleagues they are wrong and should switch their position. It is a very high stakes game and our team should send in our strongest, most talented players.
As to the Founders, Alexander Hamilton spelled out very clearly who should NOT BE ON THE SUPREME COURT:
****************
Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Paper number 76:
******************
"But might not his nomination be overruled? I grant it might, yet this could only be to make place for another nomination by himself. The person ultimately appointed must be the object of his preference, though perhaps not in the first degree.
It is also not very probable that his nomination would often be overruled. The Senate could not be tempted, by the preference they might feel to another, to reject the one proposed; because they could not assure themselves, that the person they might wish would be brought forward by a second or by an subsequent nomination.
They could not even be certain, that a future nomination would present a candidate in any degree more acceptable to them; and as their dissent might cast a kind of stigma upon the individual rejected, and might have the appearance of a reflection upon the judgment of the chief magistrate, it is not likely that their sanction would often be refused, where there were not special and strong reasons for the refusal.
To what purpose then require the cooperation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation.
It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. In addition to this, it would be an efficacious source of stability in the administration.
I hope these random thoughts are coherent (it is quite late here) and can help you better understand why some of us are so passionately concerned about this nominee. I am quite sure Miss Miers is a gifted and talented lawyer and compassionate woman, but she is not our team's best player and we will be doing future generations a great disservice by not demanding that OUR superstars be put on the court to overtake their superstars.
You positive he can afford to do that?
From where I'm standing, it appears as if he's sawing off the last limb that's keeping his administration from tumbling into the void.
I am sorry, I do not understand. Please explain.
I don't find myself attacking others on FR who disagree; usually for other reasons, like a hidden agenda.
Thanks for your informative response.
She should do the right thing and withdraw.
Except for the Democratic Caucus in the U.S. Senate.
They're delirious with glee.
*blush*
Guess that makes two of us lol
I really wasn't trying to flame you and if it came across like that, please accept my apologies.
lol...point taken
While its true he couldn't have known he'd get two picks this close together, I suspect that when it happened, GWB 'n company saw this as an opportunity to both shape the court as he wanted AND prune away the dead wood.
This may have been what he meant by referring to Meirs as "the most qualified"...she certainly didn't have the written record that a lot of others did, but I doubt if anyone was more situated to bring out the howling dog pack within his own ranks like she was.
Again, if this is true, we may be witnessing the kind of "strategery" seldom seen by a sitting president.
Misunderestimated....again...lol. Whether you like GWB or hate him, you have to hand it to him for pure balls, if this is indeed, the strategy.
He'll weather the storm from the base. The "true believers" will stay, as they always do. The dissenters will have a choice...stay or "go away we won't miss you". After all, where would they go?
As far as the Dem/Libs are concerned, he's left them scratching their collective heads. They (at the moment) have no clue.
So in one fell swoop, he'll get his court picks, render impotent the dissent within his own ranks and decapitate the ability of the Dem/Libs to effectively oppose him.
Wow...helluva logic train if it's accurate.
Thanks for the support. I hope the dimz are happy!
Thank you, President Bush.
Once again standing up for conservative principles.
(Sarcasm implied.)
I am just "sick" over this appointment. What a lost opportunity. For Dubya's sake I wish she would withdraw also. However, I don't think that is going to happen.
I really do not think the White House knows how betrayed the conservatives feel. If he did he never would have done this. They seem to think that they can "handle" this. Right now many conservatives are furious and seething with white-hot rage but they are still talking and arguing with the Bushies. I am really afraid that Dubya and the White House do not get this. Many conservatives worked night and day for his Presidency and have defended him to the hilt. They feel "bushwacked" right now. And if the White House keeps blowing conservatives off he just might discover how much he is going to miss us come the 2006 election. If he loses the House what is to stop the DemoRats from launching one investigation and another?
LOL no problem!
get a life
good thought
***
LOL!
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.