Posted on 10/10/2005 10:35:47 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
Harriet Miers will be confirmed.
As the reality of the Miers nomination and the near-inevitability of her confirmation sinks in, we are left only to look for positive signs that she will pleasantly surprise us. What else is there to do? I am done complaining. (God knows, I have done my share of complaining.)
That said, I have a working theory that Miers may turn out to be a reliable conservative vote on the Supreme Court.
My reasoning goes like this:
The Three Most Critical Considerations
1. President Bush has consistently nominated top-notch conservatives to various benches. His track record is very strong, and most of us can list the names. Bush knows what kind of bona fides he wants in a judge and he has certainly conveyed those preferences to Harriet Miers who reportedly has had a hand in the vetting process of several of Bush's nominations. Miers was apparently in charge of the vetting process for the last Supreme Court nomination which ultimately went to John Roberts.
The point is, Miers knows exactly what kind of judge George W. Bush wants: "A strict constructionist in the mold of Scalia and Thomas". Miers presumably used that very clear criteria during the vetting processes which she handled.
2. Harriet Miers may be a very good lawyer (in fact, I'm sure she is) but her familiarity with constitutional law is likely very scant, especially compared to the familiarity gained by experienced appeals court judges or top trial lawyers who have argued extensively before appeals courts, state supreme courts and the United States Supreme Court.
As a result, Miers will need (and will hopefully seek without trepidation) guidance during her first year (at least) on the Supreme Court. Who will she most likely look to for clues? I believe Miers will look first to the two justices who her benefactor (President Bush) promised the nation she would emulate - - Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Certainly, smart men like Scalia and Thomas understand the benefit of grooming an ally - - they should only be too happy to lend the rookie their sound advice whenever they can.
3. Harriet Miers and George W. Bush apparently have a close relationship going back at least a decade. The President clearly trusts Miers immensely and Miers' progress from Dallas to the halls of power and unquestioned access to the Oval Office are the result of that trust. And now, George W. Bush has elevated his attorney, his confidant, his friend to the very pinnacle of the field of law - - a lifetime appointment to the United States Supreme Court. Miers has accepted the President's nomination with the clear understanding of what George W. Bush expects of her, and what the President promised the nation.
Now, can anyone imagine that Harriet Miers will take her seat at the bench and then begin siding on rulings with Souter, Breyer, Stevens, and Ginsburg? To do so would be the ultimate betrayal, the ultimate stab in the back to the man who trusted her and gave her a place in history.
It won't happen.
Harriet Miers will be what the President promised she will be.
For the reasons noted above, I believe that Harriet Miers will prove to be a "strict constructionist" who practices "judicial restraint", just like the President promised. She will be a reliable vote, joining with Scalia and Thomas on many, if not most, important rulings. In the end, President George W. Bush will have the last laugh, and a lot of us will be eating crow.
Misunderestimated again.
Precisely.
O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter should be good enough examples of how hopes get dashed.
Can anyone post examples of Dumbocrat president's accidentally nominating conservatives to the court?
Great post. Thanks for the ping.
LOL!
The pitch was:
"Vote for me and I will nominate a strict constructionist in the mold of Scalia and Thomas to the court."
Now, I demand one. Miers *may* be one. But, I can't go with *hope*.
I trusted him since 2000 and I got the education bill, swiss-cheese borders, campaign-finance reform, the farm bill, the highway bill, etc. I think I'm all trusted out. Also, it doesn't help when we have GOP senators telling us to "Shut up"when we ask questions.
Also, I'm not totally against this woman, I'm just irritated that it should even be to this point.
Some of the Republicans are not people Bush and Rove recruited and helped put in office.
In a knife fight in the Senate do you think we can count on
Chafee?
Collins?
Snowe?
Spectre?
McCain?
etc.
That gives us 50 votes at best for a highly-charged, die-hard conservative nominee. And we need 60 to block a filibuster.
The MSM bias toward the Demcrats gives them a 17 point edge in any election, according to Evan Thomas of Newsweek.
The fraud in most important elections gives the Democrats a 2-5% edge.
We have to overcome these odds to win. It isn't enough to have a majority of Republicans in the Senate, we need "control" and we can't get control without overcoming a stacked deck. And to overcome a stacked deck, you have to play your cards exceptionally well, with savvy, not just convictions.
Coded language, don't ya see?
You know, like when Mel Martinez promised to be a rip-snortin', fire-breathin' right-winger who was going to put a stop to all that nonsense his Islamist-lovin', tax-raising, baby-abortin', Castro-huggin' Dem. opponent was spewing, then decided that Al Qaeda terrorists detained at Gitmo just needed a big group hug in ordered to be fixed.
How could you possibly miss that?
Wow! Very hard hitting comments echoing the sentiment of many true believers that are very skeptical about this nomination.
All I can say about this woman is, if she turns out to be another ginsberg, the Republican Party is going to take a severe beating.
Nobody knows the future, only time will tell who is right and who is tossed out of office.
Sounds like a plan.
And use it to prep herself perhaps? This argument is very odd indeed. Because she knew what Bush wanted does not make her qualified in and of itself. Shucks, Ted Kennedy knows what Bush wanted.... (shiver).
2. Harriet Miers may be a very good lawyer (in fact, I'm sure she is) but her familiarity with constitutional law is likely very scant,
And this matters how?
Who is to over-rule her? Familarity with past ruleings only matters when you are are in a position to be overruled by a higher authority.
Besides I point out, this familairity with constitutional law has not stood us in very good stead with the liberal judges on the bench. Maybe someone who actually reads the constitution rather than what some prior liberal judge wrote about it will bring back the intrepetation that its supposed to have?
I mention this as a point of discussion, and have not made up my mind on Meirs yet - waiting for the hearings...
I blame Bush and Rove for Specter. We could have had Toomey.
Thanks for reading.
Looks like I'll need to put on another layer of asbestos. I can hardly believe that anybody around here missed my 50+ posts of raw venom about this nomination that I posted on various threads over the past week, but there you go....
1. Trust Bush
2. Trust Bush
3. Trust Bush
Can we have a reason that doesn't amount to that? Can we use our independent reasoning skills to support this nominee one bit? I sure haven't seen it.
I voted for Toomey. He will be back, believe me.
What it really comes down to is this: Bush trusts Miers. Can WE?
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.