Loaded for tough questions and armed with sharp answers...let's see her in action.
Now that you mention it...that age thing....naaah!
Posted on 10/09/2005 2:56:58 PM PDT by quidnunc
President Bush again used his informational advantage when nominating Harriet E. Miers to the Supreme Court.
Bush administration members know what both Ms. Miers and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. think about the constitutional issues most likely to come before the court. Democrats in Congress and the public do not, and are not likely to learn more.
By nominating people whose views are known only to administration insiders, the president is best understood as trying to influence the direction of the Supreme Court without having to reveal his constitutional commitments or take political responsibility for advancing a constitutional vision.
The White House almost certainly has intimate knowledge of what Miers thinks about abortion, torture, federal power and other contested constitutional issues. As counsel to the president with particular responsibility for federal judicial appointments, Miers must have revealed her thoughts on the issues coming before the Supreme Court to Justice Department officials and Mr. Bush.
Even less so than Roberts, however, she has never held a position that required her to speak or write about her understanding of the Constitution or the judicial function. She has no judicial experience and only a short term on a city council. What she thinks about gay marriage, executive power to detain American citizens without trial or the scope of the takings clause is a mystery to the general legal community and broader public.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at pittsburghlive.com ...
But if everybody knew what the president knows, Ms Miers wouldn't have a prayer of being confirmed.
Quote:
By taking advantage of his informational advantage, Bush hides his responsibility for the eventual decisions of a Roberts/Miers court. He knows whether Roberts and Miers favor overruling Roe or merely narrowing the decision, whether they believe administration interrogation practices are consistent with federal law and international treaties and whether they think contemporary exercises of the commerce and spending powers are constitutional.
There is more at stake in these SCOTUS appointments than just Roe v Wade, church v. state or immigration issues — a lot more.
The Daffy Duck punditocracy needs to stifle their hysterics before they do even more damage to the GOP, because if they sink her n omination the consewquences will be dire for 2006 and 2008.
And make no mistake about it, when it comes to pushing the conservative agenda forward, the Republicans are the ONLY game in town.
Before he was appointed to the Supreme Court, Bill Rehnquist served two years clerking for Robert Jackson in the early Fifties, two years as John Mitchell's general counsel at the Justice Department ('69 to '71)...and all the years in between in private practice in Phoenix. If you believe he was spending all those years crafting a fine, subtle judicial philosophy instead of doing, you know, actual mundane legal work...I have a bridge over Lake Havasu I'd like to sell you.
Exactly.
I am attaching a good read from President Aristotle's blog
http://presidentaristotle.blogspot.com/2005/10/myth-and-logic-of-miers-pick.html
Loaded for tough questions and armed with sharp answers...let's see her in action.
Now that you mention it...that age thing....naaah!
If the reason for the selection is that the truth of it can be hidden effectively, that is reason enough to oppose it.
It is doubtful W would want to squander his legacy with a bad pick for this important position. IMO he knows what he's doing. What is his record on previous judicial picks?
Thanks to Senate 'Rats, Bush has been forced to adopt this strategy. Republicans need a bigger Senate majority. This shows the need for more conservatives in the Senate, not fewer RINO's in the administration.
"And make no mistake about it, when it comes to pushing the conservative agenda forward, the Republicans are the ONLY game in town."
Are statements like that supposed to make conservatives enthusiastic supporters, or don't you really care?
Do you understand how politics works?
BRAVO!
Again, nothing but lameass namecalling....
"Even less so than Roberts, however, she has never held a position that required her to speak or write about her understanding of the Constitution or the judicial function. She has no judicial experience and only a short term on a city council. What she thinks about gay marriage, executive power to detain American citizens without trial or the scope of the takings clause is a mystery to the general legal community and broader public."
The last line is, IMHO, proof positive that she will make a good judge. If you can't decipher her political bent from anything she has done, then she must be acting in an objective manner.
The President can pick anyone he chooses to nominate for this position. Prior judicial positions are unnecessary. Is there any doubt that anyone who can earn a law degree is capable of reading and understanding the Constitution?
I, for one, trust the Pres to make the right decision. He is keenly aware of the way Souter tarnished his father's reputation, and will not permit a repeat of that debacle.
Why is it that even conservatives sometimes think that the President is not clever or intelligent? Have the liberals done that good of a job?
Doubtful.
Highly doubtful.
But for some practical lessons, watch the Bork nomination again. Sen Hal Heflin (D-Ala) was suspicious of Judge Bork because he had a "funny looking" beard. That was the approximate level of intelligence displayed by the Dumbs during the Bork nomination.
Or watch the Clarence Thomas high-tech lynchings hearings over again. That's the level of rabid desperation you'll see (multiplied by an order of magnitude) if Janice Rogers Brown or Priscilla Owens were nominated.
To this day, I feel the horror of the correctly named high-tech lynching of Justice Clarence Thomas. I still think that the entire membership of the Dumbocrapic Party need to bow down and beg his forgiveness for what their namesakes did to him in that hearing.
The name of the game from the standpoint of the Dumbocraps is to totally destroy the Republican nominations.
I despise them for this. I spit in their direction (possibly followed by gas).
Re: Post #4
When I grow up, I want to be just like her. Awesome Graphic!
Maybe I should have just said what I meant:
I fart in their direction.
She has sufficient credentials for the job, and is the pick of the President. By all standard measures, she should be confirmed, although we should be free to grumble about it.
"Do you understand how politics works?"
Do you? Do you think a substantial number of unenthused cosnervatives staying home next time will help the pubs?
Maybe you should concern yourself with that instead of taking the conservative vote for granted.
Do you think a substantial number of unenthused cosnervatives staying home next time will help the pubs?
Doesn't that depend on the race you're taling about, the candidates involved?
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.