Incorrect. Miers has been advising GWB non-stop since he became governor of Texas back in 1994.
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.
Incorrect. Miers has been advising GWB non-stop since he became governor of Texas back in 1994.
ROFLMAO!!!!!
Good impression of the koolaiders.
2. So who gets the credit for the judges...Gonzalez or Miers?
That is like saying that you can't wait for your wedding to end your engagement to an insufferable fiance. The hearings, and God forbid, confirmation, are just the start. And unlike a bad marriage, we have no way of getting out of it.
President Bush plus his entire selection committee.
Most of the Miers detractors do not care, and some here will actively promote that lie.
The Captain is scuttling his own ship. Maybe if he's lucky, the S.S. Hilary will pick him up on the way to the Presidency.
mark
Good answer!
"CQ, with little effort on their own part, could easily research to find that Miers picked Judges Janice Rogers Brown, Bill Pryor, Owen, and other staunch right-wingers for the federal bench. She led the President's research committee for those judicial openings."
"Do you have a source for that? It is my understanding that Gonzalez chose thost nominees."
This piece is from another blog and speaks to your question:
Should Miers Get Credit for Bush's Appellate Nominees?
Over the course of the past few days, I have read several justifications (by conservatives) for supporting President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, several of which have already been artfully addressed by my good friend Jeremy. One he did not address, and which has really begun to stick in my craw, is the assertion that we should support Harriet Miers because she gave us Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, Bill Pryor, and other stellar appellate court nominees. A little research reveals that this is blatantly false at worst, deceitfully misleading at best.
Harriet Miers has held the position of Counsel to the President since February 3, 2005, when the previous occupant of that office, Alberto Gonzalez, was confirmed by the Senate to be US Attorney General. Since that time, President Bush has made twelve nominations to the US Circuit Courts, all of them on February 14, 2005, eleven days after Ms. Miers became White House Counsel. Eleven of these nominees were originally nominated during Bush's first term but never received a vote in the Senate.
Terrence W. Boyle (Fourth Circuit): Originally nominated 9/4/2001
Janice R. Brown (D.C. Circuit): Originally nominated 7/25/2003
Richard A. Griffin (Sixth Circuit): Originally nominated 6/26/2002
Thomas B. Griffith (D.C. Circuit): Originally nominated 5/10/2004
Brett M. Kavanaugh (D.C. Circuit): Originally nominated 7/25/2003
David W. McKeague (Sixth Circuit): Originally nominated 11/8/2001
William G. Myers (Ninth Circuit): Originally nominated 5/15/2003
Susan B. Neilson (Sixth Circuit): Originally nominated 11/8/2001
Priscilla R. Owen (Fifth Circuit): Originally nominated 9/4/2001
William H. Pryor (Eleventh Circuit): Originally nominated 4/9/2003
Henry W. Saad (Sixth Circuit): Originally nominated 11/8/2001
Sources: Federal Judicial Vacancy Archives (December 1, 2004 and November 6, 2002)
Should Harriet Miers receive credit for Bush's renomination - on her twelfth day on the job - of a slate of appellate nominees from his first term? Nominees who were originally vetted and nominated while Miers was pushing papers as a staff secretary? The answer is obviously no.
Thanks, jwalsh07.
My Mother heard John Fund on one of the regular radio programs. She asked me who he was, that he sure sounded "full of himself". Needless to say, she was not impressed. That is the reaction of a non-internet, non-activist, beyond the beltway, GWB supporter to all of this.
PS. It wasn't on Hugh Hewitt either. I read the trascript of that interview and I think HH made JF look foolish simply by asking him basic questions.
Some of the conservative media HAS struck me as elitist and sexist. I wish it wasn't so, but that is how they are coming off. That doesn't mean that they are that way, it's the way they are sounding to many I know and that was before anyone tried to blame the RNC for it.
Besides, what about all of the conservative women who oppose this nomination? Are they sexist too?
Misdirection. You know she has been one of his closest advisers for years.
Not good enough.
Perhaps working closely with her for the past 10-12 years was enough demonstration for GWB?
Now, I realize that you thought his pledge meant publicly demonstrated, but that isn't stated or even implied.
"Remind me again. Which party controls the White House?"
___________________________________________________________
The NON-SEXIST Party!
That's simply incorrect. Not only was she on the committee that selected those conservative judges, but she has been advising the President since back when he was Governor of Texas.
""Was Roberts part of the judicial monastery?"
Yes. Harvard is an elite school that turns out elite judges.
Roberts is an elite intellectual. The "common man" he is not."
I didn't see any mention of elite by Bush. He used the term "judicial monastery."
According to my dictionary, a monastery is
1. A community of persons, especially monks, bound by vows to a religious life and often living in partial or complete seclusion.
2. The dwelling place of such a community.
The entire connotation has to do with religion.
Hello yourself! Hey it looks like tomorrow is your anniversary. Congrats!
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.