Harriet Miers, Constitutionalist: Can We Ask for More?

The National Ledger ^ | October 10, 2005 | Lee Ellis

[quidnunc]

I suspect that President Bush was shocked to find such an uprising against his choice for a Supreme Court nominee. Why? Because it is coming not from the Liberal Left, but rather from his own base. Even George Will ran an opposition piece against Harriet Miers.

Conservatives have complained, in the past, about the elitists in the Democrat party as being the most liberal group and seemingly in a consistent state of launching snob attacks at everything this “cowboy” (as they call him) does.

I think that the Conservative-Republican cause also has its own share of these elitists, those who look down their noses at anyone who does not graduate from Harvard or Yale or even Stanford. …

-snip-

My personal views:

1. President Bush has "lived” with this woman for many years and knows her heart and soul. She helped him find Judge Roberts and the others potential candidates, so she knows what is needed to save this country and he knows this! No other president has ever been associated for so long or worked so closely with a Supreme Court nominee, so the fact that other presidents have been fooled by past selections does not mean that this can happen to this president!.

2. It is bad enough having the Democrats and fellow Leftists against us; we don't need Republicans, too.

3. It is not as if Bush carried a mandate when elected. There are still letters to the editor claiming that either Gore or Kerry really won the presidency, the latter by a bad vote count in Ohio. The media is trying daily to smear the President or his administration.

4. We don't need a long drawn-out battle in Congress right now with a possible filibuster, especially with all the problems raised by the Democrats and the biased media re Iraq, Katrina, the budget deficit, et al.

5. The President may have to appoint two more Supreme Court judges before his term expires, so there is still an opportunity to put up controversial conservatives for the Supreme Court and have the time to wage war against the Socialists in Congress.

6. We lost one election to William Jefferson Clinton because too many Republicans were mad at Bush Sr. including me, and so we voted for Perot. As a result, we had Clinton for 8 years. Let's not make that error again. Do you really want eight years of Hillary and her court nominees?

7. Did the Democrats condemn Clinton when he was impeached? No! They blamed everything on those “mean nasty Republicans” who thought that having sex with a young intern in the Oval Office during business was bad. Some Republicans joined the Democrats. Do the Republicans constantly back President Bush? No! If he is not 100% perfect, we want to punish him. Even 90% perfect is not good enough.

8. No baseball team could win a game if the team was run by what the fans in the park demanded instead of what the coach saw as a winner. Nor, could employees successfully run a corporation if the CEO had to follow their rules rather than what he (or she) knew best. We elected a boss. Back him. The next time, we had better get a stronger mandate (more voters) if we are to obtain an even stronger hold over Congress in 06 and 08!

-snip-

[Wiseghy]

I think is has been more than well established that Meirs is no Souter.

[DakotaGator]

...We elected a boss. Back him...

Concur!

Court nominees are the President's choice, no one else's. I see nothing to disqualify his latest choice. Therefore I support the President in his choice.

It doesn't matter if I wanted someone different. What matters is he is the President and he's doing his job. If I failed to support the President in this case I would be as hypocritical as a Democrat.

[sinkspur]

But is she intellectually strong enough to resist the leftist pull of the media/Beltway cocktail set?

I don't get the impression that Miers is part of that set right now. No reason to think she'll start partyin' hardy as a Supreme Court Justice.

You guys talk as if Miers is a drooling idiot, unable to know her own mind.

I'm 54, and I don't give a damn what anybody else thinks of me. I sure wouldn't care if I had a job guaranteed for life.

[marsh_of_mists]

Well, okay, but I don't think the only thing we have to worry about are her basic beliefs (conservative vs. liberal), but how strong and unflappable (vs. apathetic and squooshy) she is in them.

[Hendrix]

"In nominating Miers, Bush bypassed a rather large stable of judicial candidates with a strong history of documented conservative philosophy. For what? What is the positive case for Miers?"

There are four reasons Bush picked this woman:

1. To reward a loyal member of his staff with a perk (this is the biggest reason).

2. Because she does not have a paper trail.

3. Because she is a woman and Bush bought into the diversity nonsense.

4. Because some of the democrats recommended her and Bush wanted to appease the democrats with a non-conservative pick to "keep the balance" of the court.

[flashbunny]

and you're begging to sound like a robot.

[ez]

Court nominees are the President's choice, no one else's. I see nothing to disqualify his latest choice. Therefore I support the President in his choice.

It doesn't matter if I wanted someone different. What matters is he is the President and he's doing his job. If I failed to support the President in this case I would be as hypocritical as a Democrat.

Bravo!

[flashbunny]

beginning, begging, what's the difference really?

[Neville72]

"Babyish, desperate ad-hominem attacks aside."

Who are the desperate ones? Seems like you, the moonbats are.

"It's not a serious defense of Miers, in fact I don't think I've seen one of those yet."

Then you, like those at the Democratic Underground are blinded by your recently acquired moonbatitis.

Hugh Hewitt, Powerline, Leonard Leo, the head of the Federalist Society, Jay Sekulow, Nathan Hecht and others have offered well reasoned opinions of her nomination.
Remember the saying, "there are none so blind as those who will not see"

[Hendrix]

"Well, okay, but I don't think the only thing we have to worry about are her basic beliefs (conservative vs. liberal), but how strong and unflappable (vs. apathetic and squooshy) she is in them."

I agree, and I have found that people without strong beliefs (the kind that don't care about politics or religion) tend to be swayed easily. Like the old saying, if you don't stand for anything, then you will fall for anything (something like that).

[ez]

Well, okay, but I don't think the only thing we have to worry about are her basic beliefs (conservative vs. liberal), but how strong and unflappable (vs. apathetic and squooshy) she is in them.

So those with judicial track records...Souter, Kennedy, and O'Connor all swung left. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. I would nominate a CROSSING GUARD if I thought she would break that trend. Give Miers her chance...

[bray]

Wow, your a mindreader too!! You must have a very large brain. Give us a real reason she's not qualified. These sound pretty petty. Do you feel because you voted for him you have the right to denegrate the President of the United States?? How about a trial before the execution?

Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters

[Hendrix]

Please point me to those well-reasoned articles (only the ones that go to her qualifications as a conservaitve--not the ones that make excuses why we have to accept her because we could never get a conservative through the senate) because I have yet to read one. I admit that I have not read everything, so there may be something that convinces me, but so far this seems like a very bad pick to me.

[deport]

Is this a joke? None of these are coherent reasons..

---

LOL...... at least they are as good as your Souter comparison.....

[Mulch]

The same type of mentality that levels the "elitist" charge is the same as that which call anyone opposed to illegal-immigration "racists".

[Cboldt]

6. We lost one election to William Jefferson Clinton because too many Republicans were mad at Bush Sr. including me, and so we voted for Perot. As a result, we had Clinton for 8 years. Let's not make that error again.

The author voted for Perot? And what is this "put the burden on the voter" stuff? The party has to earn voters and votes. GWB's actions have consequenses.

[ez]

Hugh Hewitt, Powerline, Leonard Leo, the head of the Federalist Society, Jay Sekulow, Nathan Hecht and others have offered well reasoned opinions of her nomination. Remember the saying, "there are none so blind as those who will not see"

Thomas Sowell also says she should be supported. Sister Bertrille has been spouting off that he/she/it has seen no proof all day because h/s/i doesn't WANT to see it.

[Hendrix]

"Give us a real reason she's not qualified."

She is not a conservative, and that is why she is not qualified. She was a democrat just a few years ago. That alone should disqualify her as far as I am concerned.

[Cboldt]

If she's confirmed, Harriet Miers could turn out to be the High Court's first justice in a long time to pack heat.

I read that she did some target shooting and supports the right of citizens to defend themselves, but that she was never a "routine" packer of heat.

[marsh_of_mists]

I'm going to; I'm planning to reserve judgement till after her hearings. I still say it's a somewhat disappointing pick though. Also, I don't think all this conservative turmoil is worth it, when there were other, more popular possible nominees just as good or better.