Skip to comments.White House Pours More Gasoline On The Fire (Captain's Quarters Blog)
Posted on 10/11/2005 12:49:28 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite
White House Pours More Gasoline On The Fire
It's either feast or famine at the White House with the Harriet Miers nomination. Given the chance to lay out a positive, substantial case for her nomination to the Supreme Court, the Bush administration has remained largely silent. However, given an opportunity to smear the base that elected them, the administration has seized practically every opportunity to do so. The latest comes from the normally classy First Lady, who again promoted Ed Gillespie's barnburner accusation of sexism among the ranks of conservatives:
Joining her husband in defense of Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, Laura Bush today called her a "role model for young women around the country" and suggested that sexism was a "possible" reason for the heavy criticism of the nomination.
"I know Harriet well," the first lady said. "I know how accomplished she is. I know how many times she's broken the glass ceiling. . . . She's very deliberate and thoughtful and will bring dignity to wherever she goes, certainly the Supreme Court." ...
Asked by host Matt Lauer if sexism might be playing a role in the Miers controversy, she said, "It's possible. I think that's possible. . . . I think people are not looking at her accomplishments."
Perhaps people haven't looked at her accomplishments because this White House has been completely inept at promoting them. We have heard about her work in cleaning up the Texas Lottery Commission, her status as the first woman to lead the Texas Bar Association, and her leadership as the managing partner of a large Texas law firm. Given that conservatives generally don't trust trial lawyers and the Bar Association and are at best ambivalent to government sponsorship of gambling, those sound rather weak as arguments for a nomination to the Supreme Court. If Miers has other accomplishments that indicate why conservatives should trust Bush in her nomination, we've yet to hear that from the White House.
Instead, we get attacked for our supposed "sexism", which does more to marginalize conservatives than anything the Democrats have done over the past twenty years -- and it's so demonstrably false that one wonders if the President has decided to torch his party out of a fit of pique. After all, it wasn't our decision to treat the O'Connor seat as a quota fulfillment; that seems to have originated with the First Lady herself, a form of sexism all its own.
Besides, conservatives stood ready to enthusiastically support a number of women for this nomination:
* Janice Rogers Brown has a long run of state Supreme Court experience, got re-elected to her position with 78% of the vote in California, and has written brilliantly and often on constitutional issues. She is tough, erudite, and more than a match for the fools on the Judiciary Committee, and would also have made minced meat out of any arguments about a "privileged upbringing", one of the snide commentaries about John Roberts in the last round.
* Edith Hollan Jones has served on the federal bench for years, compiling a record of constructionist opinions. She is younger and more experienced than Miers, and has been on conservative short lists for years.
* Priscilla Owen has a record similar to Brown's on the Texas bench and has demonstrated patience and judicial temperament that would easily impress the American people to the detriment of the opposition on the Judiciary Committee.
* Want a woman who litigates rather than one from the bench? One could do worse than Maureen Mahoney, who has argued over a dozen cases at the Supreme Court, clerked for Rehnquist who also later named her as Chair of the Supreme Court Fellows Commission, has been recognized as one of the top 50 female litigators by National Law Journal, and even worked on the transition team in 2000-1 for George Bush.
How does endorsing that slate of candidates equate to sexism in opposition to the unremarkable Miers? It doesn't, but as with those practiced in the victimization smear, the facts really don't matter at all. This kind of argument we expect from the Barbara Boxers and the Ted Kennedys, not from a Republican White House.
It's enough to start making me think that we need to send a clearer message to George Bush. The White House needs to rethink its relationship to reality and its so-far loyal supporters.
UPDATE: Michelle Malkin notices this, too.
At least that nick would have accuracy going for it!
Have you seen this buzz? http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1500781/posts
You might enjoy this one: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/1500781/posts?page=24
Sadly, I agree with you.
Tried. Stymied by RINO Congress. Took what he could.
He produced a set of numbers during the debate which we all knew were way underestimating the cost. Now they admit that.
Sure looks that way. Could be politics, you think? Prescription drug benefit was gonna happen. Bush's was far less expensive than the Democrats plan. Remember that?
He did not promise to sign McCain Feingold. Prior to signing it, he even said he believed it to be unconstitutional...yet he signed it anyway, hoping that the courts would take care of it.
Didn't happen that way, obviously. Had to support CFR because it was the hot button of the 2000 election. It is easy to look up John McCain's comments. Specifically told RINO congress that if they passed it he would sign it. Even if it stunk up the constitution. What did the freakin Repub Congress do? And what did he do? Exactly what he said he would do. The fact that the Supreme Court is dumber than Congress is not George W. Bush's fault.
He also promised to appoint judges in the mold of Scalia and Thomas
As far as you know, or anyone else for that matter, he has. You might want to reexamine your medication.
That is absurd. Hamilton never said anything about qualified friends merely unqualified. Anyone who knows anything about Hamilton knows that his entire career was made possible because of his long relationship with General Washington.
Give her points for not blaming a "vast Right wing conspiracy".
You should go a little farther back in the history. Sunday a.m would probably work.
I give posters the respect they deserve.
I am and will remain a thorn in your side and your cohorts.
It is false that Bush has mounted any offensive based on sexism charges. But this is typical of those who have been jumping to conclusions about this nominee all along. A response to a loaded question has now become a Pattonesque attack under liberal banners. Ridiculous.
Thank you, Cboldt! That's what I've been telling him/her. Someone/many someones have been telling big fibs about Miers' qualifications.
Ms. Miers and G Bush have had an employer/employee relationship for at least 10+ years is also made clear by your post. This is obviously not the best way for the employer to get inside the employees' mind.
Certainly not a resume to bring to the HIGHEST court in the land for LIFE from her BOSS.
"Trust me" is not good enough anymore.
Oh, the Cult of Personality Lie sticks up its ugly head.
Lol now you're blowing up the malcontents to almost 50% of the voters? Try 5.
"Last paragraph of Federalist 76, do you really want to use this in your argument?
"To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. In addition to this, it would be an efficacious source of stability in the administration."
The answer is: Yes, I really would want to use Federalist 76, and the section you quote merely reinforces the point I was trying to make. It is the Senate who is to be the check, not the President's party advisors. In addition, as with any of the Framers explanations of the provisions of their Constitution, Federalist 76 must be taken as a whole, and in context, in order to be meaningful.
Let me reiterate my original point. The Founders' Constitution delegated the authority to the President, with a prescribed process for exercising that authority, which was to include the cooperation and concurrence of the Senate.
In the case now before us, the President has exercised his authority to name the nominee, and the process involves the Senate's hearings and vote (concurrence) in order for the nominee to become a justice.
Nowhere is there a constitutionally prescribed place in that process for citizens to "force" (or even influence) Presidential withdrawal of that nomination prior to Senate action. Federalist 76 explores reasons, as mentioned in my original post, for their reasoning that the authority is to rest with the Executive, with cooperation and concurrence of the Senate.
My further point was that, as citizens who hold to the principle that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and that we, as "conservatives," say we want justices who will abide by its prescriptions so that it may be "conserved," or preserved in all its integrity, then we should be willing to respect and abide by the process it prescribes and let the Senate handle the matter.
Many so-called "intellectuals" among the "talking heads" don't seem to be willing to do that, but would use their media status to try to force the President to withdraw the nomination, some on the grounds that he owes it to his political 'base.'
As individuals, we possess the right to criticize as much as we wish, but pressure from partisan groups to interject their will on a constitutional process is not seemly for those who claim devotion to the Constitution.
Now his shows are filled with silly irrelevencies without the brilliance he once showed. Can't expect such high level of performance forever now he is a member the Elite and hobnobs with the rich and powerful. If he wants to become a caricature that is his right.
Your opinion on a ruling cannot be disputed but I think it rather risky to make such positive conclusions based upon one case. Legal reasoning by individuals can have them taking positions not consistent with a particular ideological viewpoint. Occasionally Scalia and Thomas are different sides of a question but that does not make one less than an Originalist than the other.
It is ironic and provoking. I like good arguments.
Still auditioning Stand Up?
A heaper of incentive, moi? Hardly I cannot compete with your friends invective is all you have. Its your whole life.
Me, too, Texas! Anyone seeing the whole replay would have to realise the context of Matt's question. Laura was paying close attention, and knew Matt was referring to those of us who are extremely upset with her husband's nomination of a close friend and employee. We are the only ones who have reacted with, "What? You've got to be kidding me!"
These are the same words, 'sexism, elitism' that what's his name pulled on the conservatives he was meeting with last week, to cool them down! Laura is not being fair. And she is far too bright to not know precisely to whom Matt was refering. She could have responded properly.
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.