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-

[Ol' Sparky]

LOL...How in the world do we know what Miers judicial philosophy is? I'm not even sure she knows.

The only thing we have is Bush's word on it, just like we had Reagan's word that Souter and Kennedy were conservative and just like we had Bush 41's word Souter was.

Blindly trusting Republican Presidents and playing Russian roulette with these nominations is STUPID. It's no wonder that things never change on the Supreme Court.

Compare that to the Clinton strategy of finding justices with proven track records and nominating. Worked every time it was tried for Slick Willie. As much as I may dislike Clinton, he and his followers are infinitely smarter than a good number of conservatives.

[Hendrix]

Reagan proved himself that he converted; she has not (several of Bush's staff have been democrats). Zell Miller is a republican who calls himself a democrat. You are what you believe--not what you call yourself.

[MarcusTulliusCicero]

This is one of the weakest support articles yet. But, let's (hopefully for the last time) put a nail in the insulting "her critics must be elitist" charge. From the list of people actually qualified to sit on the Court (and who actually have an established originalist judicial philosophy): Judge Michael Luttig: U. of Virginia Law School; Judge Emilio Garza: U. of Texas Law School; Judge Edith Hollans Jones: U. of Texas Law School; Judge Michael McConnell: U. of Chicago Law School; J. Harvie Wilkinsen: U. of Virginia; Edith Brown Clement: Tulane; Judge Karen Williams: U. of South Carolina Law School; Judge Alice Batchelder: U. of Akron Law School/ U. of Virginia Law School; Judge Priscilla Owens: Baylor University Law School; Judge Janice Rogers Brown: U. of California Law School/U. of Virginia Law School; Judge Emilio: Yale Law School.

Eleven judges, one "Ivy League" law school. We're hardly a bunch of elitists. We just expect someone actually qualified to sit on the Court to be named to fill openings. We also expect that the President demonstrate the same loyalty to his conservative base by honoring his campaign promises to appoint judges "in the mold of Thomas and Scalia".

The best the White House can offer in support of this nominee is to demean the critics (a Liberal tactic, not coincidentally) or to offer up her lover as a character witness. Oh...and of course, the "Trust me" gambit.

[Ol' Sparky]

President Bush has "lived” with this woman for many years and knows her heart and soul.

So, that means Bush must be a supporter of affirmative action since Miers is.

[goodnesswins]

"As much as I may dislike Clinton, he and his followers are infinitely smarter than a good number of conservatives."

YEAH, and Clinton had the MSM on HIS SIDE. Think about that.

[Cboldt]

Next we'll hear she waitressed at Hooters.

LOL. -bump- That's funny.

[Neville72]

This ought to get you started.



http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/

http://www.hughhewitt.com/

http://bench.nationalreview.com/archives/078273.asp

http://bench.nationalreview.com/archives/078284.asp

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/marvinolasky/2005/10/06/159570.html

[sanemom]

"We elected a boss. Back him."

Sorry, I'm not like the Clintonites who will defend every single decision the president makes without reason. I will wait to see how the hearings go before coming down with a final opinion, but we have every right-indeed, every responsibility-to hold our elected officials to the standards by which we elected them in the first place.

[teawithmisswilliams]

LOL...How in the world do we know what Miers judicial philosophy is? I'm not even sure she knows.

Well, according to PoliPundit she's apparently fine with so-called affirmative action:

Miers is a documented supporter of “diversity,” a codeword for racial discrimination. She seems to have helped create the White House’s split-the-baby position on this issue in the University of Michigan cases in 2003, that helped keep affirmative action legal.

Looks like Sandra Day O'Connor is indeed being replaced.

[Bush 100 Percent]

Souter was "known". Kennedy was "known".

Where did that get us?

[Stellar Dendrite]

"No self-respecting Christian would be associated in any way with the state lottery. Next we'll hear she waitressed at Hooters."

but, but..."she cleaned up the place!" is the talking point i frequently hear. it's not an excuse-- what if she worked at a strip club or porno shop and just "cleaned up the place".

[Hendrix]

Thanks. I will read them. I would love to find something that will change my mind because I really want to back this candidate, but I will not do it blindly or on trust alone.

[A.Hun]

Reagan proved himself that he converted; she has not (several of Bush's staff have been democrats)

Ludicrous statement. White House council for George Bush..right...

[ridge]

Exactly. Miers is a democrat and a relativist. She is a "good enough" nomination to satisfy the Rhinos in congress. And the President surrendered his right to appoint a candidate that he promised to satisfy that minority segment. What would they do vote against an excellent candidate. bah. Join Democrats to Bork them on personal indiscretions. bah.

More, Miers built a career on appeasing people. She seems to sway every which way. She was a tool at a law firm that appointed her leader. Then diluted her power with a merger.

The trail of cash contributions makes little sense. A leader and inspirer of values would have walk out. And if her reputation is so strong, she would have built a new firm. And that brings up the final point, what inspiration is Miers to others?

[A.Hun]

You left off the sarcasm tag..I hope.

[Hendrix]

Souter was "known". Kennedy was "known".

Neither was a known conservative. Presidential advisers labeled them as conservative and told us to trust them that they were indeed conservative.

[teawithmisswilliams]

We (conservatives) have been burned too many times to blindly accept a nominee with a history of RAT campaign contributions and no proven conservative philosophy. Conservatives are willing to walk through hell for Janice Rogers Brown, Michael Luttig, Samuel Alito, Priscilla Owens, Emilio Garza, Miguel Estrada or Edith Clement. Instead, we get a former Lottery Commissioner.

Preach it, brother!

[Hendrix]

Ludicrous statement. White House council for George Bush..right...

LOL. You are kidding right? Bush has appointed plenty of rat duds to his administration. You must not follow politics much.

[Ol' Sparky]

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.

Anyone think Bush has backbone to do that anymore? His buddy Alberto Gonzales will probably be the next nominee.