[KMAJ2]

I came across this blog op ed, and it is a well reasoned piece. This is for those with an open mind, the closed minded will not be swayed by anything. Though still waiting to see how she handles herself in the confirmation hearings, I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt. I do hope she has a thick skin, the attacks of some on the far right have been abhorrent, taking up the tactics of the fringe left to smear her because she is not who they wanted. Would such embittered vitriol targeted at her by some conservatives determined to eat their own make her rethink her positions ? I hope not, but they will have themselves to thank if she does. Meanwhile, the democrats sit back and laugh as they let the conservatives do their work for them, divide and conquer. This is a case of political stupidity due to ideological entrenchment, the old "if I can't have my way, I will take my bat and ball and go home." I have to shake my head at the immaturity of these tactics. If she blows up at the hearings, or something monumental is exposed, in the process, then, by all means, she should be defeated. Anything else is simply whining about not getting your way.

[Artemis Webb]

Great Post!
Thank you.

[oblomov]

None of the deleterious outcomes you mention, such as division among conservatives, would have happened had someone more qualified been nominated.

[justche]

You've got to be joking, a fair - well thought out - well documented piece - it'll still get ripped to shreds by a few vocal folks, if it hasn't by the time my post actually shows.

While I disagree with Bush on plenty of things - he is who I voted for President, and I will support him on his nominee.

Thanks for the post.

[oblomov]

The only efforts to define Miers' philosophy have been on the issues of abortion, homosexual rights, and gun control.

What about the all-important issues of economic regulation, property rights, and states rights? I've seen nothing that gives me any comfort.

[saveliberty]

I enjoy reading President Aristotle --

Here are a couple more links that are great reads

http://presidentaristotle.blogspot.com/2005/10/why-right-judges-go-wrong-note-on.html

http://presidentaristotle.blogspot.com/2005/10/barking-dogs-of-texas.html

Also, Hugh Hewitt's interview with renowned law professor Lino Graglia, who co-wrote the Bork book and said that he was surprised by Bork's rejection, given what Bork had just written

http://hughhewitt.com/archives/2005/10/09-week/index.php#a000340


Also an interview with John Fund. He points out that a big issue was bad communication with the WH and bypassing the formal vetting process.

Fund indicates that he does think that she will be confirmed and he also concedes the point that no beltway conservative has ever gone wobbly on SCOTUS

http://www.radioblogger.com/#001056


Of course, Beldar is great. Here are two
http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2005/10/a_westlaw_romp_.html

http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2005/10/miers_versus_ro.html

[Dane]

Pop, pop, goes the heads of the Meirs/Bush haters.

[KingKongCobra]

Thanks for the post.

[Conservative Coulter Fan]

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.

[winner3000]

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.

[Plutarch]

I came across this blog op ed, and it is a well reasoned piece.

It is unique that this pro-Miers piece actually provides positive factual reasons to support her.

Nothing about sexism, or that she provides M&M's, or damning her critics as elitists, etc.