Posted on 10/11/2005 6:14:59 AM PDT by Sometimes A River
COVINGTON, Louisiana (Reuters) - First lady Laura Bush joined her husband in defending his nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday and said it was possible some critics were being sexist in their opposition to Harriet Miers.
"That's possible, I think that's possible," Mrs. Bush said when asked on NBC's "Today Show" whether criticism that Miers lacked intellectual heft were sexist in nature. She said Miers' accomplishments as a lawyer were a role model to young women.
...
Mrs. Bush, who had publicly supported the nomination of a woman to the high court, noted that Miers had been president of the Texas Bar Association.
"I know Harriet well, I know how accomplished she is, I know how many times she's broken the glass ceiling herself. She is a role model for young women around our country," she said.
I am painfully aware of history and the legacy of Reagan's two SC nominees and don't require a history lesson from you.
In fact, the last seven of nine nominees from Republicans going back to Eisenhower, ALL turned out to be Liberal. It is a history I and other conservatives don't want repeated with President George W. Bush who is no less fallible then the other four Republican Presidents (Nixon, Ford and the Sr. Bush being the other three) who appointed those nine. The consideration of this abysmal record would dictate we be less, not more trusting.
But Now, that I've gotten yet more data on meetings between the press and Laura Bush.. here's my latest take.
She likes George Bush's broad shoulders. mmm-mmm. Maybe she had "sex" on her mind.
Darnit. I've just gotta stop these rumors.
What, pray tell, was she to answer when asked, "Is it possible. . . .?" Would she have received less criticism for saying, "No, absolutely not!" Common sense tells us she would not have been criticized less, perhaps more. The fact is, many are looking for opportunity to criticize, and need no provocation.
As far as the Miers nomination goes, my post on another thread included the following comments about those who are inserting themselves into the nomination process, before the President's nominee proceeds to the next step in the Constitutionally-prescribed process.
They claim a genuine label of "conservatism," which, generally is understood to include a devotion to preserving the principles of the Constitution.
But, if we have a devotion to the Constitution, then we must recognize that it is the Constitution itself which prescribes the authority and process for nominations to the Court.
On the one hand, we claim this great dedication to it and to a highly-qualified new justice who will interpret and abide by its provisions. On the other hand, many of us ignore its prescribed prescription and process for selection of justices, preferring to pretend that the Constitution (which we may not understand) does not give citizens a role in assisting the Executive (President) in the actual naming of nominees to be considered by the Senate.
Federalist No. 76 explained very carefully for citizens the Framers' reasoning when it came to making the President the sole authority for appointing justices, with approval of the Senate. They understood human nature, and they understood politics, and they deliberately chose not to include us in the process. To the contrary, they explained very carefully why persons with special party interests should not be able to exert their pressures in the process.
It is the President who is putting his role in history on the line. Like America's Founders, his concern must be with how future generations will judge his decision--not how a fickle 'base' regards him now. Posterity will either judge of him that he furthered the cause of liberty with this nomination or that he did not.
If today's "conservatives" (whatever we may interpret that term to mean) truly want our Constitution to be honored and preserved, then we should be willing to live by its prescribed processes ourselves.
Else, we destroy our own credibility!
Agreed. Though I like them both, that kind of rhetoric is over the top. A strong case for their position regarding Miss Miers, can be made without it. They would be wise to save it for the Dems.
Yours: An excellent insight!
I felt awful writing it. But I felt "behooved" to point out this observation that I just knew no one would notice. :)
.. it was all the "more cowbell" posts which behooved me.
Well, that's special...but JRB can't make it past the Senate and everyone knows it. The Republicans in the Senate ought to be on their hands and knees thanking God that the President isn't sending them someone who will test their weakness and establish the fillibuster on ideological grounds as a nominee killer vs a straight up or down vote. The Senate is the problem, not Miers, not the President. I thought Coulter and Malkin were smarter than they've appeared lately but obviously I was wrong.
*************
Not for me. For me it's all about whether or not she's an originalist. There should be no political agenda on the court. It's all about the US constitution. Period.
With the eyes of the nation upon them, the Senate was going to approve JRB, a sharecroppers daughter and the first Black female nominee to the Supreme Court. They would have appeared racist and horribly mean-spirited if they hadn't.
Many of the Senators, including Specter, yelled and screamed and beat their chests to frighten President Bush away from nominating JRB. Unfortunately, Mr.Bush and people like yourself believed their bluff.
In my book a conservative judge is an orginalists.
The Senate democrats don't give a rip what color she is and the democrats are automatically given a free pass by the media and the rest of America when it comes to bashing Uncle Tom candidates/nominees. If you were correct, Thomas would have sailed through the Senate instead of being confirmed 52-48.
This is a definite slam to the conservatives out there who have questioned her nomination.
I think the Bushes are shocked and upset that they're not as worshipped as they thought.
She agreed with the charge of sexism.
She certainly is casting stones.
It is one thing when Ed Gillespie voiced these sentiments. Quite different coming from the First Lady. I am not pleased.
Are you kidding me?
Her mental acuity, foresight, keen reasoning, and idiosyncratic-but somehow perfectly orthodox-judicial philosophy put to shame the justice who enshrined the concept of judicial review into this country's body of jurisprudence.
sarcasm off>
Approval ratings don't matter, but I wonder how low we go. Bush is at 37% right now, I think. These charges of sexism and elitism directed at base voters an movement figures, can only depress support further. I think Nixon's lowest point was 23-24%. We may beat it yet.
I'm actually kinda surprised by this. I thought Laura had more class.
If I were insulated in that bunker and all I heard for an explanation was "it's sexism" which is clearly what the WH folks are saying, I might believe it too. The question I suppose needs to be asked why anyone in the WH is even thinking that, much less saying it. It's pretty troubling.
Rush, who today said "Don't think; I'll tell you what to think?"
Right.
Other than Roberts - could Kerry have been any worse?????
It's really like something a Democrat would say.. Pretty troubling indeed..
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.