THE LAST LAUGH (Why Miers will be a very good justice)

Vanity | 11 October 05 | Lancey Howard

[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.

[Lancey Howard]

The article writer indicates he is not certain about her experience as regards Constitutional Law.

Thanks for your kind comments. I appreciate the depth of knowledge available here from the other posters at Free Republic, and I appreciate your comments about Miers' knowledge of constitutional law. You made good points. (btw, I was the article writer.)

[Lancey Howard]

Thanks for your comments. I sometimes wish that I could exercise "posting restraint" as well as you, lol.

Regards,
LH

[Lancey Howard]

Thanks for your kind comments.

[CalRepublican]

Excellent points. And I would add, re: points 2 and 3. . .would you apply the same standard to a Democratic appointee in the future?

That is, would you be up in arms if someone was appointed just because they were a reliable vote that the President knew well personally?

[1035rep]

"They ignore one thing: that Bush has always regarded LOYALTY as one of the highest manifestations of honor and right action. Bush IS loyal to his base. And Harriet Miers will be a first-class Justice."

"I believe that Harriet Miers will prove to be a "strict constructionist" who practices "judicial restraint", just like the President promised."

My thoughs exactly...Goodnight

[1035rep]

thoughs=thoughts

Spell check is my friend...........:)

[Mo1]

I don't think the President picked Meirs due to loyalty to him .. but I do think he picked her because he believes she will be loyal to the Constitution

There are many theories going around .. some are just out there and I won't even give them the time of day ...

And then there are some that could very well be possible and I wouldn't rule out

We do know that Owens asked to have her name pulled from the short list ... we know that Miguel Estrada couldn't even make it out of the Sen. Judicial Committee .. how many others didn't want their name on the short list

It is also possible the President wanted others to stay on the bench right where they are because the play an important role on the appeals level

We also know that because of a few in the Senate ... we don't have the votes for a well known hard core Conservative justice nomination

So it doesn't matter what kind of fight we put up ... that nominee wouldn't get a passing vote and it won't effect these Senators, because a number of them come from safe blue states

Another one of the complaints about Souter was that others suggested him for the bench and that Bush 41 didn't really know Souter, but relied on others for their opinion

This President Bush knows his pick and her thinking with regard to the Constitution and yet there are now complaints of croynism

We've been told that Meir is a strong evangelical christian women who likes guns and is pro-life

This normally would send the liberals into a snit .. but yet they are quietly sitting back as they watch conservatives rip each other apart in hopes that we will kill this nomination

Here is a thought for the libs that are lurking ... what if .. given the right case to review .. Meirs actually does votes to over turn Roe v. Wade??

[beyond the sea]

She will be a reliable vote

Agreed. Ms. Miers will be competent and correct, imo.

***

Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. – A. Einstein

Common sense ain't common. –Will Rogers

[maryz]

In a knife fight in the Senate do you think we can count on

That group we couldn't count on in a pillow fight!

[Proud_texan]

" Senate Republicans had stood up for JUST ONE of President Bush's filibustered nominees"

Ya think that could be because he's never vetoed anything they've sent him and they aren't afraid of him?

Political "power" in Washington is pretty much a perceived thing. You think that maybe because Bush has let congress go wild with spending and trampling the constitution all the while ignoring promises such as SS reform and appointing strict constructionist has only emboldened them?

Again, purely hyothetical and I doubt none of us will ever know, but it is curious that Bush seems to have far less power than even Clinton.

[Yosemitest]

Here's the reason Miers was nominated, ... because these spineless Democrats in disguise wouldn't support a true conservative. And Spector is another Democrat in disguise that needs to be in the unemployment line.

NOT ONE PENNY!!!

I'm angry enough to pledge money to real conservatives who will run against these RINO's and replace them. How about $100.00 a head?

I encourage everyone to attack!

Lincoln D. Chafee of Rhode Island
Office Locations

United States Senate
141A Russell
Washington, DC 20510
(202) 224-2921

170 Westminster Street
Suite 1100
Providence, RI 02903
(401) 453-5294

320 Thames Street
Room 272
Newport, RI 02840
(401) 845-0700

Susan M. Collins of Maine
Senator Susan M. Collins
172 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

Phone:


Washington, D.C. Office (202) 224-2523

Augusta Office (207) 622-8414
Bangor Office (207) 945-0417
Biddeford Office (207) 283-1101
Caribou Office (207) 493-7873
Lewiston Office (207) 784-6969
Portland Office (207) 780-3575


Olympia J. Snowe of Maine
Senator Olympia J. Snowe
154 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
(202) 224-5344

John W. Warner of Virginia
Contacts for all offices Washington Office Address:

225 Russell Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

Telephone:
(202) 224-2023
(202) 224-6295 FAX

Office Hours: Monday-Friday 9:00a.m. to 6:00p.m.


John McCain of Arizona
contacts
241 Russell Senate Ofc. Bldg.
United States Senate
, Washington DC 20510

Phone: (202) 224-2235
Fax: (202) 228-2862

Phoenix
5353 North 16th Street
Suite 105
Phoenix, Arizona 85016

Phone: (602) 952-2410
Fax: (602) 952-8702

Tempe
4703 S. Lakeshore Drive
Suite 1
Tempe, Arizona 85282

Phone: (480) 897-6289
Fax: (480) 897-8389

Tucson
407 W. Congress Street
Suite 103
Tucson, Arizona 85701

Phone: (520) 670-6334
Fax: (520) 670-6637

Lindsey O. Graham of South Carolina
contacts for all offices
Washington Office
290 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
(202) 224-5972 phone

Upstate Regional Office
101 East Washington Street, Suite 220
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
(864) 250-1417

Midlands Regional Office
508 Hampton Street, Suite 202
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
(803) 933-0112 phone

Pee Dee Regional Office
McMillan Federal Building
401 West Evans Street, Suite 226B
Florence, South Carolina 29501
(843) 669-1505 phone

Lowcountry Regional Office
530 Johnnie Dodds Boulevard, Suite 202
Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina 29464
(843) 849-3887 phone


Piedmont Regional Office
140 East Main Street, Suite 110
Rock Hill, South Carolina 29730
(803) 366-2828 phone

Golden Corner Regional Office (part-time)b 135 Eagles Nest Drive, Suite B
Seneca, South Carolina 29678
(864) 888-3330

Senator Mike DeWine, an Ohio Republican
contact for all offices
Washington, D.C. Office
140 Russell Senate Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-2315
Fax: (202) 224-6519
TDD: (202) 224-9921

[maryz]

Has a date been set for the hearings yet?

[ARCADIA]

The RINOs in the Senate make this appointment necessary.

That makes no sense; they will be gone in a few years and Miers will remain for decades. Why compound the problem by institutionalizing it?

[patriciaruth]

My guy got 48%

Do you think the vote count in New Orleans were correct?

[Non-Sequitur]

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.

So you are agreeing that Ms. Miers does not have the qualifications needed for a Supreme Court justice? Sorry, but I don't think that the Supreme Court is a place for on-the-job training. I have no doubt that Ms. Miers would make an adequate judge at the Circuit or Appellate level.

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

Here's the essence of future Republican campaigns: "Vote GOP and get the judges that the President is comfortable with!" That'll fire up the base!

LH, what flavor of Kool-Aid did you drink last night?

[jaime1959]

Christ, yet another vanity about Miers.

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

Your points only raise further questionst.

If a President was so confident of his pick, why did he choose someone with no paper trail to speak of? He is requiring of us an implicit faith.

He may know who and what she is, but what bearing does that have on her judicial philosophy? We just don't know. And quite frankly, I doubt that he knows either.

Attorneys at the WH do not have to be experts in OonLaw. They are actually engaged most of the time in rather mundana and routine matters.

Finally, how has the President been so loyal to his base that he deserves our blind faith?

[patriciaruth]

We would also be better served by having Democrats on the defensive.

After all this time, you still believe the Democrats will go on defense?

Did they go on defense when the Republicans shut down the government in order to get a better budget?

I recall the MSM made sure everyone believed it was the Republicans fault they had to turn back with their kids after showing up at a National Park.

Did they go on defense when President Clinton was impeached?

I recall that the MSM made sure everyone believed it was all about sex, and his private life, and all those women were trailor trash and liars out for money.

Did they go on defense when they lost the Senate in 2000?

I recall Hillary had a book publisher offer Jeffords a very lucrative book deal so he could set up a trust fund to care for his retarded kid, and we lost control after 4 months when Jeffords became an Independent, and left the Republican Party.

Did they go on defense when President Bush made one of the best speeches in the life of this country 10 days after the worst terrorist attack in this country and soared to 90% approval rating?

I seem to remember Hillary Clinton 10 days later showing up on the floor of the Senate brandishing a newspaper with the large headline--BUSH LIED.

And my sincere prediction is that if we'd humiliated them by eeking through a victory for Luttig or some other known die-hard conservative, that they would have made our lives hell by obstructing every single thing we wanted or needed from then on.

And in the process, we'd run the deep risk of having the MSM spin the story so that much of the country was too angry with Bush trying to shove a mean spirited Neanderthal onto the bench to listen to his reasons for staying the course in Iraq and Afghanistan or his reasons for wanting social security reform, or his reasons for vetoing a defense bill loaded with a socialized medicine program, and most definitely they wouldn't listen to his reasons to make the tax cuts permanent.

Senators voting for the nominee who are in vulnerable states would need lots of mark-ups to make the folks back home happy so they'd be forgiven for their Supreme Court vote. These, of course, would make the deficit worse, and make it even harder to get the tax cuts permanent, which would destory the economic progress we've made under Bush's tax cut.

And with a deeply divided country, made worse by an angry partisan battle in the Senate, the national will to stay the course in Iraq would be weakened.

There is a lot to consider when you pick a fight. Sam Houston kept running away from Santa Ana till he got him where he wanted him...far from supply lines, overconfident, with his army divided and half sent elsewhere, and on the downslope of a battlefield of Sam Houston's choosing...on 'good ground'.

Bush, like Sam Houston, is a student of history.

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

Your conversion is suspicious. I guess that in the end you just trust the President and that's it. What will you say when she and he let you down? Because they will.