Posted on 10/09/2005 7:18:45 PM PDT by quidnunc
From my experience in the Thomas court nominations, I recall many of the accusations now being hurled at Harriet Miers. (See, most recently, this attack by Bork and this story; Specter chimes in.) Thomas, for whom I was a special assistant (1986-90) when he was Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, was called a lightweight scholar, an affirmative action appointee, and even a dangerous thinker for proposing that the Declaration of Independence gave meaning to the Constitution. Those were conservative criticisms. Thomas supporter George Will referred to his "half-baked" natural law theories.
There were grimaces when the first President Bush called him the most qualified nominee — which of course he was. (I dissent somewhat from Confirm Them’s account, which confirms me in the flaws of conservative criticism of Meirs.)
But he defied all these criticisms to become the best originalist justice on the Court and the leading conservative government official in America. Does the Thomas nomination offer a guide to understanding Miers?
As I have argued before, President Bush has a strategy with the Meirs nomination, to create a Roberts Court in a different image (hoping he can have at least another appointment). Most of Thomas’s supporters and critics regarded him as a black conservative instead of a bold thinker who saw the need to preserve freedom by undoing the bureaucratic state. To have said that openly would of course have been fatal to his nomination prospects. (See No Left Turns.)
We have a better view of Bush’s ambition for Miers in Senator Cornyn’s defense of her, calling her a justice who would bring the “dangerously out of touch” court “back down to earth.” This means not just replacing one justice with another but altering the public perception of the court as well. Hence Meirs’ faith plays a political role. To tame the Court we need a combination of skills: Thomas’s originalism, Scalia’s rhetorical brilliance, Roberts’ legal skills, and now Miers’ practical experience, producing a plain reading of the Constitution.
At first it seems odd that conservatives seem to be the ones ready to filibuster (led by Trent Lott?) over a lost intellectual feast/food-fight. In fact, it reflects the narrowness of conservative thinking, which has focused on replacing one justice with another, instead of considering changing the entire institution. Still the White House must have a campaign strategy for her, and she needs to impress.
-snip-
Go to the source document, it's full of embedded links.
George F. Will's Oct. 5 column on Harriet Miers suggested that some kind of Gnostic knowledge is required to interpret the Constitution.
The greatest commentator on our Constitution, Justice Joseph Story, served on the Supreme Court while simultaneously holding the Dane Chair of Law at Harvard. Here's what he said about interpreting the Constitution:
"Constitutions are not designed for metaphysical or logical subtleties… . They are instruments of a practical nature, founded on the common business of human life, adapted to common wants, designed for common use, and fitted for common understandings. The people make them; the people adopt them; the people must be supposed to read them, with the help of common sense."
The idea that understanding the Constitution is a task beyond the ken of ordinary citizens is inimical to the idea of republican government. …
-snip-
(Rebecca R. Teti in The Washington Pos, October 9, 2005)
To Read This Article Click Here
We KNOW Miers is in favor of affirmative action and has been every time the issue has come up whereas Thomas vehemently opposes it.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1499592/posts?page=51
Locke Liddell PAC (Miers Law Firm) Contributions to Democrats, Hillary Clinton, Dick Gephardt, Shiela Jackson Lee- and 11-12 others.
They are not a team, they are nine individuals each of whom must people able to defend their position against the other 8 if need be. And they each need to be able to write decisions worthy of the position of the Supreme Court.
All I can hope for now is that she hires J. Michael Luttig, Michael McConnell and Janice Rogers Brown as her clerks.
should read:
each of whom must be able
No. And neither did Miers.
You need to keep up.
It's basically the Leftist argument "Look you peons, you NEED one of us to do this for you. You are too dumb to understand this." But when you point that out, the "Conservative pundit" has to be physically restrained or posts a hundred posts whining about being called "An elitist" . Just mind boggling how the hardest "Conservatives" spend all their time siding WITH these people! What HAPPEND to Reagan's Conservatives?
We will be fortunate if Roberts/Miers moves the court even slightly to the right of O'Conner/Rehnquist.
"As I have argued before, President Bush has a strategy with the Meirs nomination, to create a Roberts Court in a different image "
Now that clears it all up. He wants to create a Roberts Court in a different image.
For starters, I have no idea how Roberts might vote on anything. And so we want to take that and create it in a different image.
Yea, that's the ticket. That's what the conservative base worked so hard for these last many years.
How many times have we heard about that? These law firms contribute to both sides typically. It's kind of a "gentlemen's agreement" in law firms and I suspect in other firms as well.
My attorney brother has contributed to the Dems but is a card carrying Republican conservative. He just holds his nose and does it when absolutely necessary.
As a fan of sarcastic zingers, I salute you!
"Gentleman's Agreement" of "Protection Money". You decide!
Gentleman's Agreement" of "Protection Money". You decide!
ttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt
Oh I agree. I find it distasteful and I tell him so. But it's better than what goes in unions where members do not even get a chance to decide where their dues money goes to.
Thank you, but sadly it came from a deep concern for the future of the Supreme Court.
She had nothing to do with the invitations. Did you not read the link?
The Claremont Institute, the big government "conservative" think-tank. You know you have to destroy the constitution to preserve it, just like their idol Abe Lincoln.
Rolls eyes.
How can we believe she will read the Constitution according to the original intents of the founders when she doesn't seem to be able to follow recent statutes according to the intent of Congress? She has been involved in allowing women to be put near combat in Iraq without notifying Congress as is required. Congress has never authorized women to participate in ground combat, but it seems Miers doesn't care. I was reading that Michael Luttig thinks a future Supreme Court may actually use these actions as a basis for striking down laws excluding women from potential military drafts.
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.