----And how did that election for governor in Louisiana work out for you?----
My guy got 48%. Not that you'd know anything about it.
-Dan
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.
Regards,
LH
The Dems power is in the broadcast media.
The Dems power is in big cities, where they can swing elections with voter fraud.
The Dems power is in the teachers' union and university professorships and brainwashing the next generation.
The Dems power is in "underprivileged" populations.
Their grip on the flow of information and unchallenged propaganda is loosening.
Gore's yelling about the accuracy of counting the Florida returns in 2000 has led to some changes that make it harder for them to commit egregious fraud. A circumstance that was not lost on Gephardt when he yelled at Gore for doing that and decided not to run again.
The testing accountability in No Child Left Behind is forcing teachers to spend some of their precious propaganda time "teaching to the test" instead.
The underprivileged populations have aborted a lot of reliable Democrat voters, and Hispanics unreasonably don't like remaining underprivileged...gaining a different view as they move up the economic ladder through hard work. They also seem to like their religion.
When it comes to organizing the Senate, I never would prefer to see a Dem than Spectre.
We set the agenda when we have a majority. That's important.
If Spectre dies, you'll get your wish. And that vote will ALWAYS vote Democrat.
I saw a C-span retrospective speech that Miers gave last Spring in which she was defending Owens and Brown and deploring the terrible things that had been said about them, saying they were wonderful women and very accomplished.
Thanks for your information regarding point 1.
As for the rest, man you need to go get a beer. Then, when you have consumed half of it you can get all depressed because your beer is half empty.
We have the majority, but still are truly a minority.
Even without Specter, we would have 54 supposed Republicans. So, I don't see the point.
Also, I am not so willing to concede that Toomey would not have won the General.
BUMP what you just said. Great post.
Jeffords and Snowe voted for Roberts because the Democrats gave them cover.
I doubt you could count on Snowe for a die-hard conservative judge.
There's nothing like a little history of judicial conservatism to quell people's doubts about a Supreme Court nominee, and to offer us a little more security than the President's (paraphrased) words 'I know none of you out there know her, and she has no judicial experience, but just trust me'.
YIKES!
I, too, get sick of hearing that same irrational presumption. Cripes, I can't even remember who Specter ran against in the general, but the "glass-half-empty" crowd is positive that whoever it was would have beaten Toomey.
And how did that election for governor in Louisiana work out for you?
What are you talking about? Are you alright?
Some people want blood spittin, knock down drag em conservatives nominated but they don't have a chance in hell to get approved !
My guy got 48%. Not that you'd know anything about it.
-Dan
Did ya expect something else?
So far President Bush's appointments to the appealate court etc. have shown excellent conservative jurists, 143 plus I believe. There's your track record. Stop listening to sound bites. Look at his record on judges!
I do hear a lot of complaints about the President saying she is the best person for the job. Well, I don't think he could stand up and introduce her by saying "This is the best person I could get the Senate to confirm, and by the way several judges wouldn't accept because of the confirmation process."
Politics deals with reality, and I appreciate your attempt to deal with this disappointment in a positive manner. I have disagreements with the President, too, although I don't often say anything here. I would like to see a harder line with Iran and Syria, I wsth that the education reform bill had not been so expensive, and I wish he had vetoed the highway bill. However, I don't have all of the facts, so I don't get on my high horse about things that don't work out the way I want. I just accept disappointment as a part of the political process.
I think you are right about Miers. She will be a strict constructinist. That's enough for me.
Gisburg was no surprise. The Republicans gave Clinton his due
on judicial appointments. Everyone knew she was radical left.
Everyone talks about Bork being such a mastermind of constitutional theory but he was sooo smart that he talked himself out of the supreme court.
Do you need to be a pointy head intellectual to figure out constitutional law? Probably not. Many posting here know precisely Ms. Meiers qualifications to be a supreme court jurist. I'll take someone from a public universty sans bar admission with common sense anytime.
The consevative elitist are sickening. Sorry Anne,
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.