Posted on 10/11/2005 9:08:44 PM PDT by freedom4me
Depends on which problem you are referring to; the onerous, humiliating and disgraceful confirmation process that the SC nominees are subjected to, or the problem of the President nominating an unknown entity devoid of any judicial record with which to identify or deduce her positions on the most important, (and most divisive), issues of our times.
During the campaign President Bush stated that he would appoint SC Justices "in the mold of Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia", which he did with Judge Roberts. But in no way can anybody compare Harriet Miers to either Scalia or Thomas because she was never a judge and there is not much else to compare. There is, however, a record hinting that Miers was a feminist and had some liberal leanings. Personally, I wonder what was going through her mind during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings, when the feminists tried to torpedo his nomination with wild accusations of "sexist" escapades. We'll never know.
Unfortunately, when the President appointed Roberts to replace Rhenquist, conservatives probably didn't gain much ground and may have even lost some. (Rhenquist was viewed as a staunch conservative while many people view Roberts as a 'moderate conservative'). Since Roberts stated that he won't be bringing his (Catholic) faith to work with him, that his beliefs will "play no role" in his decisions, I too wonder about how conservative he is. Meanwhile, the bothersome question remains, "Who is Harriet Miers, and will she be a steadfast conservative or just another moderate like Sandra Day O'Connor"? If Miers proves to be a moderate then SCOTUS may look more liberal than it did before Rhenquist died and O'Connor retired, and we will have gained nothing.
So far, apart from rumors and gossip, the only reassurance we have is, "don't worry, she's a Christian and you'll like her". I just think conservatives deserve a little more assurance than that.
Jim, I was thinking about this "recess appointment" angle with Miers. I think the resignation of O'Conner stated it was effective when a replacement was "confirmed". That might be the stumbling block to a recess appointment.
Hey, look, we don't disagree at all. I do think we deserve more than that just as I think we deserve more than the out of the box attack on her education, the irrelevance of her experience and accusations of mediocrity before the woman has even spoken at any length.
While I agree that President Bush should have taken the fight to the Dems and nominated an openly conservative nominee, I'd define "conservative" as someone who interprets the Constitution as it's written, leaving "pro-life" as something that merely follows from that, as appropriate.
But regardless, what galls me is exactly what you said...the move he made is WEAK. With all due respect, even if she turns out to vote pro-life, this nomination has strengthened the opposition and is a bad one.
True. But the battle really boils down to the liberals and RINOs rejecting ALL nominees who are suspected as being pro-life.
That's why I say we should take the battle to them...make them try to shoot down a GOOD nominee who happens to be pro-life. If we focus on the real honest reason to have a justice (i.e., follow the Constitution), then it puts the lefties in the position of attacking on the pro-life issue against a good candidate--showing them as purely partisan against the good of the country and Constitution.
The cynical part of me says, "yeah, right...as if anyone cares about the Constitution anymore..." but if we believe that, then what are we fighting for?
"I think this could be the basis for the buzz in the blog tonight that Miers was a last minute pick because the first or second picks nixed Bush.
I think this information is consistent with the information in this story, http://www.freerepublic.com/ focus/bloggers/1500781/posts?page=69 which states that part of the Miers pick seems to be a confused process and a rush job, which adds credibility to the rumor of a last minute back out."
This is not just to you. It's to everyone who has instantly said, Oh, Rove said it, it must be true.
Here's the scenario. You're a female federal judge. You're an accomplished, professional adult, and a conservative by nature and character. You have many admirers on the conservative side, and many who want to raise you up to the Supreme Court. Your place in history, in other words.
The president calls you. That's THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, by the way....
Janice, this is President Bush.
Hello, Mr. President.
Janice, I want you on the Supreme Court. You are my first choice. Your country needs you. I am asking you, as your president, to please accept this nomination.
Mr. President, I am more honored than you will ever know to have been chosen. Of course I will accept the nomination, and serve my country.
It'll be some tough going, Janice.
Mr. President, I am pleased to begin the process.
Thank you, Janice.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Does anyone here really believe that solid, conservative women federal judges actually wilted when their president called on them with this offer?
I don't believe it for a second. And I'm really getting cheesed off at the STREAM of crap coming from the WH. Sexism. Elitism. Inside the beltway-ers. And now: What the F, Conservative Base, nobody wanted the damned job anyway.
Well said. I'm in perfect agreement.
You are truly a wise man. I mean this sincerely.
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.