Posted on 10/12/2005 9:40:01 AM PDT by West Coast Conservative
President Bush said Wednesday that Harriet Miers' religious beliefs figured into her nomination to the Supreme Court as a top-ranking Democrat warned against any "wink and a nod" campaign for confirmation.
"People are interested to know why I picked Harriet Miers," Bush told reporters at the White House. "Part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion."
Bush, speaking at the conclusion of an Oval Office meeting with visiting Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski, said that his advisers were reaching out to conservatives who oppose her nomination "just to explain the facts." He spoke on a day in which conservative James Dobson, founder of Focus on Family, said he had discussed the nominee's religious views with presidential aide Karl Rove.
Because she is Bush's crony.
No one said Miers has to hide her religion. What I said was that the Constitution forbids President Bush to use it as a point of consideration, either in favor or as a disqualifier. If her religious faith is the main character consideration he can cite in her support, then the Senators voting on the nomination are BOUND BY THE CONSTITUTION to disregard it.
What does that leave us with? A) She's a she. B) She's Bush's longtime friend and employee. C) She vetted other candidates. D) Lots of D.C. insiders know her. E) She has had some early experience at breaking glass ceilings.
If the President has some evidence of her being the most qualified candidate he can find, then its past time for him to start trotting it out. Maybe she is, but I have seen nothing to show it yet. Without some tangible proof that Miers is a legal thinker on the level of Scalia and Thomas, I cannot support her. (as if that matters, anyway)
What do you think picking Gonzales would do to the GOP?
It would make the circular firing squad over Miers look like a debate over where to go for lunch.
"What do you think picking Gonzales would do to the GOP?
"
Indeed. The fireworks would REALLY begin if that happened.
I'm against her nomination because she was picked not on the basis of merit, but:
1) Her proximity to W.
2) Her sex.
3) Her unquantifiable philosophy.
4) Confirmability
The charges of sexism are hollow because the only people putting a spotlight on her sex is the White House. The President tells us she was "the most qualified", but doesn't tell us that those automatically disqualified had the misfortune of possessing an appendage that I don't have to name.
Let's forget about the cronyism charge. A crony can still be a great judge. But great judges do exist, and have paid mightily for the privilege of being considered for SCOTUS. They are eminently more qualified for the position. Yes, ANYONE can be a Supreme Court justice, just like ANYONE can be named Pope, even a layperson. But is that the best pick for the court? Logic dictates that if I'm going to have surgery, I'm going to ask for a surgeon, not a pharmacist. A pharmacist, with time, may learn how to be a great surgeon, but he's not qualified to operate on me because he can cure a headache.
Lastly, confirmability is code for "capitulation" when some of the most obvious choices aren't even invited to the table (Luttig, McConnell, Alito, Garza, etc.)
And when I refer to her "sex", I mean the exclusion of men from consideration.
The terms for ritual suicide by slitting one's abdomen are seppuku or hara kiri , whereas simple suicide is jisatsu or muri shinju when a parent (usually a mother) kills herself with a child/children. Let me consider the exact context of the situation in your question.
There are enough men on the court.
A. She has not done the type of legal work that would indicate she is qualified.
B. Many individuals with experience in the process of Constitutional law and the SCOTUS did not consider her to have the requisite qualifications for the SCOTUS.
C. She has not been identified as a person with such surpassing skills and a brilliant legal mind that lack of practicing qualifications as a judge would be secondary considerations.
To put it in sporting terms, the vast majority of major league baseball players spend time in the minors developing their skills before being promoted to the big leagues. A very select few superb talents can bypass the minors and go straight to the bigs. Miers hasn't played in the legal "minor leagues" that precede a SCOTUS justice-ship, and she hasn't demonstrated the skills and intellectual underpinnings one would expect in someone who bypasses the normal preparatory stages.
There may not be a known phrase for that act -- but it seems like there should be.
Wow. Okeydoke.
Everyone knew he would pick a woman. Unfortunately he picked a white woman.
What if the person simply hasn't been blessed with your exposure to the Gospel? Say, a guy in the Amazon jungle who doesn't necessarily believe in a god but lives a virtuous life as he understands it? Is he an agent of Satan, too?
You see, the Church has never said that a single soul is in hell. Maybe you've judged some atheists as hellbound, but not even Rome dooms them. Perhaps the Rev. Billy Graham was an agent of Satan, by your standards. After all, he was a great friend of President Clinton.
>What I said was that the Constitution forbids President Bush to use it as a point of consideration, either in favor or as a disqualifier. <
I find it quite funny that all of you "Constitutional Scholars" here on FR don't even understand the meaning of no religous test.Yet you feel qualified to judge the quality of Meirs scholarship.A consideration is not a test.Go look up the legal definition of "test" and then go back to chanting no more drug laws with the other libertarians.
I would have been happy with Edith Jones, Karen WIlliams, Sykes, maybe even Callahan, etc. They are at least debatably as good, if not better, candidates as Luttig, Garza, etc. But to exclude men from consideration so that Harriet Miers - Bush's personal lawyer - could be picked is something out of the playbook of Bill Clinton.
To be followed by ritual seppuku by his mindless followers a la' Hale-Bopp!
Geez...is this THE best example of Lemmings you have EVER seen?
On the positive side, this has served to weed out the "Cultists" from those of character and principles...no matter HOW DEEP their "Fearless Leader" digs, they marvel at the technique and DEPTH of the hole!
"BbbbbAAAAaaaaah!": Learn it or be accused of disloyalty!
LOTS OF LAUGHS
Proving to us that SHE IS QUALIFIED is YOUR and DUBYA's job NOT MINE
So far you are both flunking lunch.
Here is THE reason she is not qualified for the SCOTUS. SHE IS THE PRESIDENT'S ATTORNEY! WHOSE JOB CONSISTS OF SAYING, YES BOSS, RIGHT AWAY BOSS, GREAT IDEA BOSS, and HOW HIGH BOSS.
What evidence to you have that she has ANY thoughts of her own about ANYTHING????
Your original request was a five-word reason for opposing her nomination. I stated that she was not qualified. Because of the brevity you requested, I didn't provide the full context of my stated objection. I've done that now.
I daresay you would have been as appalled as I if the President had nominated Scott McLellan (White House press secretary) for the SCOTUS. If I am correct in that surmise, explain why you would have been appalled. If I'm wrong, explain why McLellan is just as qualified as Miers to be on the SCOTUS.
That's precisely the problem.
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.