Posted on 10/11/2005 2:29:37 PM PDT by KMAJ2
Thanks for the post.
Even if Brown and Owens said "no", there is a deep conservative bench on the federal judiciary to choose from.
"Why pit Senate Yorkies against Pitbulls and Rinos?"
Don't have much faith in your own party, do you? Why should I?
Response to 1 – The assumption is made that President Bush knows Harriet Miers through his relationship with her given she is his “personal” attorney. I disagree; however, given the impossibility that he could know her views when even her own brother said he didn’t know and to conjecture that her views would be unchanged for the next 20 years. Furthermore, and more importantly, her views are unknown to the American people. Conservatives should not consent to the nomination of people personally involved with the President (cronyism), nor to unknown jurists that could easily become liberal votes (as Souter and O’Connor have proven), and we should instead look to veteran jurists with known tested views that conform absolutely to the judicial philosophy of Originalism.
The second part of the argument is more confusing and merely boils down to pure conjecture. Harry Reid’s endorsement of this nominee is very troubling and his motives shouldn’t be excused as concession. Obviously, he must see a reliable “moderate,” another O’Connor, or worse he sees another Souter. The President owes it to his conservative base to present a well-qualified conservative nominee that adheres to original understanding. He turned; sadly, an opportunity to correct a horrible injustice that was done to Robert H. Bork and rather than re-nominate him, Bush looked no further than personal attorney.
Response to 2 – The argument for why Harriet Miers is unlikely to be another Souter is not only unconvincing, but is deliberately mistaken. The argument goes that the three republican nominees turned liberal votes on the high court were personally unknown personally, but that can be said of every justice that served on the high court. Hamilton, and other founders, didn’t want the chief executive appointing friends and loyalists. Ann Coulter made the point, “…Bush was still boozing it up in the early '80s, Ed Meese, Antonin Scalia, Robert Bork and all the founders of the Federalist Society began creating a farm team of massive legal talent on the right.” There are plenty reliable, proven conservative jurists, all snubbed, and Bush impulsively selects Miers. It should be an outrage to every conservative who has labored for change on the High Court. I would hardly blame “conservative experts,” a frivolous invocation, for justices O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter.
Response to 3 – Joseph Farah best summed up Miers as, “a trial lawyer, a state lottery official, a blank slate, a personal crony, a nominee unlikely to buck the establishment.” Her nomination looks more like payback and reward for services rendered and loyalty as opposed to her having a quite conservative judicial philosophy unknown to all but the President. There is plenty of evidence that Miers is far from being a conservative, quite to the contrary, there is evidence she has something in common with Ginsburg…
Response to 4 – In a report submitted by Harriet Miers to the ABA (1999) included recommendations for an international criminal court and the enactment of laws and public policy providing that sexual orientation be dropped as bar to the adoption of children. Miers has taken positions as white house counsel that violates the ban on women in combat. She also supports homosexuals in the military when she endorsed the “don’t ask; don’t tell” policy of Clinton. As a city councilwoman, she said Dallas had the responsibility to pay for AIDS education and patient services. She courted the Lesbian/Gay Coalition of Dallas in her successful 1989 campaign by addressing them and saying, as other radical liberals have, that homosexuals and lesbians should have the same rights and privileges as straight people or in other words legal recognition of the sexual perversion and special rights. Conservatives may be distressed by her vote for a 7% increase on property taxes. Many Americans believe the lottery is immoral because it is a temptation, especially poor people, into a lifestyle of gambling that corrupts the American dream.
To be fair to the President, the anger toward the nomination of Miers has more to do with perceived betrayal than anything to do with this specific nomination. President Bush allowed Kennedy to write the education bill. He didn't allow a conservative to do it. He never vetoed one spending bill and spent like a drunken sailor...a far cry from the fiscal conservative we were hoping for. Then he nominates someone that Reid told him to nominate. It just seems to us conservatives that President Bush listens to our enemies more than to us. The only difference is that on judges Bush does seem to be rock solid in his social conservative convictions, based on his prior nominations. I'm therefore willing to cut him some slack on this one and let history judge his pick.
You hit the nail on the head, but the specific nominee matters as well. The AEI, a conservative think tank, has also made light of the fact that President Bush has presided over the largest expansion of the federal government in the entire history of the United States of America...is this what the conservative movement is all about?
How does anyone know who said no? How many will willingly go up against Senators that took notes on "the politics of personal destruction"?
My only point is that we don't know who was asked and turned it down.
PS. Thank you for the calm discussion. I'm enjoying this as FR has been unbearable lately.
There's a difference between Republicans and consevatives. And with Republicans like MaCain and Specter, who needs Democrats. It's called reality.
Exactly! Instead their seems to be unity among pretend conservatives, republican party loyalists, "moderate republicans," and the left led by the democratic leader of the Senate. They support the nomination while the principled conservatives, quite a few of who voted for Bush solely because of the issue of nominees to the high court, are outraged over such a nomination.
Yeah what principle, you mean the principle of your hero ann coulter to go on bill maher's show to make elitist snarky remarks about Ms. Miers?
This thread is just an example of blind shilling...you won't have any comfort. The most you'll get is a "trust me." Conservatives have every right to be skeptical, or even worried about nopminees to the high court, and we shouldn't resign ourselves to be rubber stamps that'll support future Souters, O'Connors, and Kennedys.
Such as refusal to answer questions, dodging, changing topics, pointless rehearsals, etc. I doubt the hearings will do much to enlighten us.
Good point. But it's hard to believe that there was no one higher on GWB's list with a thick set of conservative credentials who was willing. Miers may turn out to be an OK justice, but the nomination just seems too risk-averse to me. This is an unfortunate pattern so far in Bush's 2nd term, other examples being the backing away from the Social Security Reform debate and the drop-everything-and-spend response to Katrina. I'm not sure if Bush has become more sensitive to criticism, or if he has just gotten wimpy political advice lately.
Whatever the case, I'm not especially angry, just disappointed. I'd love to see some bold moves and have my confidence restored.
PS. Thank you for the calm discussion. I'm enjoying this as FR has been unbearable lately.
I agree. Thank you, too.
LOL...you throw the word "elitist" into the mix to describe Ann Coulter...that's not just slanderous...it is absurdly comical. That's an unqualified attack. I hope she goes on every show that'll have her to oppose Miers. Go for it! I can't stomach Bill Maher, but I can when Coulter is on.
I think it was a Thomas Sowell article where he said Specter warned Bush even before he had been sworn in for his 2nd term not to pick anyone that would upset the Senate. I believe there are some nasty politics going on.
Miers may turn out to be an OK justice, but the nomination just seems too risk-averse to me.
Yes. It's a worry. I'm anxious to hear her.
I'm not sure if Bush has become more sensitive to criticism, or if he has just gotten wimpy political advice lately.
It's hard for us, out here, to know what's going on in DC. It's not like the press is going to tell the truth either. My suspicion is a lot of backroom politics and maneuvering.
We agree to disagree.
Please don't take this the wrong way but I've got to say that statement is pretty funny given the current firestorm.
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.