Harriet Miers will bring to the Supreme Court her knowledge of the critical issues facing our country today and fully informed view of the political branches on these issues. We need a judge on the Supreme Court who brings these new perspectives to the table, and together with her stellar accomplishments in her legal career it is obvious that she is a well qualified candidate.
Nobody has mentioned the importance of having somebody who is familiar with the issues involved in the War on Terror on the SCOTUS.
Let's face it, the WOT is more important than Roe v. Wade.
Roe v Wade is terrorism if you're an unborn child.
"Let's face it, the WOT is more important than Roe v. Wade."
I have to agree with you on that, since overturning Roe v. Wade won't necessarily end abortion. I am hoping she will work out all right, but am waiting to see.
The parallels between Bush 41 and 43 are considerable. In both cases, Bush betrayed his conservative base. In both cases, that conservative base left him. In both cases, it was no single decision, but a raft of anti-conservative decisions.
The article above relates many of Bush 41 mistakes, but I would like to add one more: he supported the Brady 3 day waiting period and background check (this has since been replaced by the NRA-supported instant check). He defended the Jack Booted Thugs (the ATF), and he generally supported Sara Brady.
In the case of Bush 43, the firestorm of Hariet Meirs is not about a single issue, IMHO. It is simply the straw that broke the camel's back. Perhaps that is why Bush is surprised; he didn't realize that his base was doing a slow burn because:
1. He has failed to secure the borders against illegal immigration.
2. No child left behind and consequences.
3. Spiraling government spending and consequently, debt.
4. Medicaid prescription drug benetit and huge cost increases.
5. Huge spending to rebuild New Orleans, even though it is crazy to build a city below sea level in a hurricane prone area.
After a while, we have just had enough.
And, just like Bush 41, we will simply stay home.
"Let's face it, the WOT is more important than Roe v. Wade."
I have to disagree. Abortion is just one facet of the real danger to America, the left. It's not easy fighting terrorists, hiding themselves even amongst us. But, we have people working to defeat America from within the halls of our towns, our colleges, our congresses; the list goes on and on. That's an even harder fight.
If we get a justice who understands the issues with the war on terrorism, that's great. But we need a justice who understands the importance of the Constitution. Hopefully we'll get both, but I would take the latter before the former.
Totally unrelated since the right candidate would understand both issues. It's not an "either-or" proposition.
I hope the "common man" Miers gets in the Court and shakes the hell out of a body that just decided "eminent domain."
Perhaps she's SO familiar she'll be recusing herself from those important cases.
Miers will have to recuse herself from a lot of WOT cases, because she has been involved in them.
Believe it or not, there is a connection. Europe had made their Muslim future assured by their low birth rate. The United States is hovering around replacement rate. We have to depend on immigration to sustain us. Our abortion is going to seriously damage us longterm in the WOT.
I don't know why you think we need to choose between the War on Terror and ending Roe v. Wade. They are actually related, because until we turn back the Culture of Death and the leftist occupation of all the seats of power in our country, we will continue to fight the War on Terror under great constraints, and always in danger of being forced to pull out if there is the slightest slip or miscalculation.
The real bulwark of the leftists at the moment is our corrupt courts. Roe v. Wade is an egregious example of that corruption: making constitutional "law" out of whole cloth at the pleasure of liberal judges.
If you are worried, for instance, that the courts will declare that it is unconstitutional to imprison or interrogate our terrorist enemies, then we had better set about putting some outstanding conservatives on the court, people who are conservative across the board and don't think the constitution can be bent at pleasure, or because it has become fashionable to do so.
[Barney] brings different perspectives to the table and a view like few others because of [his] varied past experiences. And a real appreciation for diversity should include strengths associated with living in the real world.
They most certainly have and "THEY" have also mentioned she will be obligated to RECUSE HERSELF from any case involving the WOT that comes before the court if she was in any way involved with the White House on those issues.
How is putting a Justice on the Court who cannot hear nor decide cases dealing with the War on Terror going to advance the President's positions on what is indeed one of the most serious issues facing the safety and freedom of this country?
Lessee:
30 million unborn killed since Roe v Wade
vs
GWOT cases that Miers may have to recuse herself anyway since she is a member of the administration.
really.....you might get 45 million and counting arguments from little souls if they could have been heard
Bot=Free Republic cultural moderate
*with a few exceptions
Scholars are drawing comparisons between Miers and various former justices. Lewis Powell, Abe Fortas, and Brandeis were all lawyers with no judicial experience at the time of their nominations. Powell was president of the American Bar Association. Fortas was Lyndon Johnson's personal lawyer prior to being named to the court.
Stefanie Lindquist, a professor of law and political science at Vanderbilt University says in the Oct. 7, 2005 issue of CSMonitor that Brandeis was an academic lawyer writing some very influential law review articles while he was in private practice. So "he established intellectual credentials to serve on the court before he was elevated.That is something we are missing with Harriet Miers. We really don't have any paper trail that establishes any intellectual credentials." The elitist argument.
Lindquist says, "Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's role as a swing voter moderating the impact of conservatives on the court makes her retirement more pivotal than that of Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Her retirement will mobilize the left and place President Bush in a political box." The fact that she attended Southern Methodist University rather than a top-tier law school like Harvard or Yale is seen by some as a mark against her. David Yalof, a political science professor and expert on Supreme Court nominations at the University of Connecticut says that although a high number of justices attended elite law schools, not all justices did.
Lewis Powell went to Washington & Lee. Warren Burger attended the St. Paul College of Law. Thurgood Marshall attended Howard University. Hugo Black (history as a Klan member)went to the University of Alabama, and Chief Justice Fred Vinson held a series of Administration positions during World War II and was a graduate of Centre College in Kentucky.
Yalof says the debate over who is most qualified for the Supreme Court is a false debate. Just because Miers isn't on someone's list of 100 most qualified candidates for a high court post doesn't mean she isn't qualified to do the job, he says. "No one could possibly have thought in 1956 that William Brennan was on the top 100 list of people to become a justice of the Supreme Court," Yalof says. "At the time of his appointment, William Brennan had been a little-known state supreme court judge in New Jersey for seven years. He was far and away not considered the most reputable justice on his own court," Yalof says. "Was he qualified?" Judge Brennan, appointed by President Eisenhower, went on to become one of the most influential justices of the 20th century.
In contrast, some high court nominees never measure up. Charles Whittaker was an experienced litigator and corporate lawyer. He served as both a federal judge and an appeals court judge. But was unable to adjust to life as a justice. "He was one of the great failures in Supreme Court history," Yalof says. "He was overwhelmed by the job and quit after just five years." Some justices learn and grow on the job, as do some Presidents.