Most or all of them have been confirmed. That's hardly "sickening" to conservatives...
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.
Personal attack? Your SOP. Classy!!
I see the same thing in my section of flyover country.
My own mother, who worships Anne Coulter as the daughter I should have been, actually flicked her off (changed channels) saying "she must be menopausal"
They just aren't coming off well in their complaints about her 2nd tier law school, her 2nd rate clerkship, etc.
Most of us in flyover country don't go to Ivy League schools either and that arguement is really elitist and offensive out here.
We gave them open borders. We gave them medicare prescription drugs. We gave them campaign finance reform. We even conceded the need for 25,000 federal agents crawling up our backsides every day in the airports of America.
BUT: I don't think they look at it that way.
"Don't get into facts, and timelines and all that ....you're just elitist!"
You found me out.
"Don't get into facts, and timelines and all that ....you're just elitist!"
You found me out.
Most or all of them have been confirmed. That's hardly "sickening" to conservatives...
Well at least we all agree on this: GWB can't be trusted simply to do the right thing
Has Brent Kavenaugh been confirmed?
No, you said earlier that with some very easy research, GQ could confirm that Miers picked federal judges for Bush. All I am seeking is a source, which I presumed that you had, since the research was so easy for you.
Taking shots at me personally won't save your failing argument. You'll have to do better, and I'll give you a friendly helping hint: mere appeals to emotion (e.g. something that suggests conservatives "get mad") won't cut it.
As if you ever did...
Gas prices are the dems fault.
The problem is the Gop can't get anything done because of the dems fillabuster threats.
Anwr has been stalled for years because of the dems.
Additional drilling off our shores and more refinery space has been blocked by the dems. The bill just passed in the house for more refineries was voted on by not one single democrat.
The 90's sucked we built up the dot com bubble which clinton created, we did nothing about terrorism and did nothing about energy. If you remember Clinton vetoed Anwr 8 years ago. Clinton's anwr veto is one of the reasons why gas prices are so high.
Gop has no power, you can't get legislation in the senate done without 60 votes. The problem is the dems block the gop agenda.
The Gop majority is not a majority when you can't break a fillabuster. Gop wanted MTBE litigation dropped to help gas prices, dem threatened a fillabuster.
If your answer is for Nancy Pelosi to be speaker of the house you will be sorely mistaken. Charles Rangel and John Conyers having subpena power is just what this country really needs.
Look at the house the gop passes legislation there because they have a majority. In the senate they don't have a fillabuster proof majority to get anything done.
Let's stop this myth at once that the gop has power in congress. You have no power in the u.s congress without 60 senate seats.
As I read that I remembered some old black and white news footage I caught once of some old lady trying to smash a bottle against the hull of a ship. After about 8 futile tries the captain reached over and smacked the bottle with a metal rod.
I think Bush has been her captain.
I support Miers but sexism is a stupid argument.
IMHO, the detractors are mad because Bush did not perfectly adhere to their various desired scenario. They wanted X and they got Y.
Well, too bad...he makes the choice and they do not.
Better we should rail at him over his ridiculous immigration policies then jealously undermine his judicial selections.
That would be the Socialist party.
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 devotion 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!
Owens, at least, withdrew her name.
"Thank you for reminding me that so many great conservative judges are still waiting for confirmation.
It's sickening. If Bush fought for these nominee's like he is fighting for Miers, it would be great."
By going along with the gang of 14 deal, Bush got a few good judges confirmed, but at the expense of many other worthy and deserving conservatives.
Bush is now subject to the will of the Gang of 14 or the "Mod Squad" [mod stands for moderate] as some have dubbed them, on all his future federal court picks. In fact, McLame has referred to himself as a "card-carrying member of the Gang of14." Bush needed to confront the Mod Squad and kick their ass, but he picked a crony with no record that can be used how she might perform as a judge.
Even the fact that her gender is considered a point in her favor by the administration is offensive and betrays those working for true equality in this country.
Haven't we yet gotten to the point where gender (and race) don't matter in evaluating someone's professional qualities?
When I saw Laura Bush say that about sexism and not appreciating how accomplished Harriet was, I burst into flames again!!!
There goes my blood pressure...
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.