Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Sounds of Silence (The White House isn't saying much about Harriet Miers.)
Weekly Standard ^ | 10/12/2005 | Edward Morrissey

Posted on 10/12/2005 3:20:54 PM PDT by indcons

IT HAS NOW BEEN TWO WEEKS since George W. Bush touched off a conservative civil war by nominating his White House counsel, Harriet Miers, to the Supreme Court. Miers, who has worked with Bush for over a decade, received the appointment based, we're assured, on the confidence the president has in his attorney.

Part of the reaction to Miers's nomination comes from bewilderment as to why Bush selected Miers ahead of a talented field of well-known and well-respected conservative jurists, legal scholars, and practitioners. While backers of the Miers nomination point to her work as managing partner of a prominent law firms in Texas and her pioneering position as the first woman to head the Texas Bar Association. And that's about all we're getting from the White House

Well, that's not exactly true. When the depth of conservative disappointment and frustration became apparent, the White House dispatched Ed Gillespie to calm the waters and explain the thinking behind the surprise decision. During a meeting with Paul Weyrich, Grover Norquist, and other conservatives, Gillespie tried to lay out the case for Miers as the best choice for the Court opening. When it became apparent that the argument failed to convince the gathering, Gillespie accused the critics of sexism and elitism--eliciting howls of disapproval that caused Gillespie to back down, claiming he intended that criticism for the broader debate on Miers.

Then, on Tuesday morning, the Bushes appeared on the Today Show, prompting this exchange with Matt Lauer:

Matt Lauer: Some are suggesting there's a little possible sexism in the [conservative] criticism of Judge Miers. How do you feel about that?

MRS. BUSH: That's possible. I think that's possible.

Sexism? That seems like an odd charge to toss at conservatives, especially since the entire exercise of this nomination appeared to revolve around the gender of the nominee. The first lady had campaigned for a woman to replace O'Connor, creating the impression that the same Bush administration that had only mildly challenged a University of Michigan affirmative-action program had suddenly adopted a preference system for the Supreme Court.

In any case, the conservative critics had several ready answers to the charge. Most of them wondered why, if the Bush administration seemed set on selecting a woman, Janice Rogers Brown wouldn't have been considered. Brown, whose fearless writing has made her a favorite across the conservative spectrum, could have provided a solid and established conservative voice on the Court and would have made matters just as difficult for Democrats on the Judiciary Committee as John Roberts did. Her scholarship and erudition would have easily overmatched Senators Schumer, Kennedy, and Biden.

If the White House considered Brown too controversial, then what about Edith Hollan Jones? Priscilla Owen also came to mind. If the idea was to pick a working attorney rather than a sitting jurist, Maureen Mahoney would appear to have all the qualifications that Miers lacks--she has argued over a dozen cases at the Supreme Court, clerked for William Rehnquist, had a long career in constitutional law, recognition from the National Law Journal as one of America's top 50 female litigators, and was chair of the Supreme Court Fellows Commission.

After having developed a slate of female candidates with such impressive credentials, accusations of sexism called into question just how much thought went into the Miers nomination in the first place.

DURING HIS PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGNS, Bush promised to nominate conservatives to the Supreme Court in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Now the bill has come due, and the response the president's supporters have received has been: "trust me." Some have noted similarities between this nomination and the last "trust me" Republican nomination to the Supreme Court, David Souter. Bush the Elder told conservatives that Souter would be a "home run."

In the past few months, Bush has had two opportunities to fulfill his own election pledge. The president instead selected a brilliant, but largely untested, Rehnquist acolyte and his personal attorney. Conservatives want to know how Miers fulfills his election pledge. Instead of getting any clear evidence of a conservative scholar or action in support of conservative judicial initiatives, the Bush administration has kept its lips silent after demanding trust.

The worry for them is that in 2006 the Republican base may keep quiet, too.

Edward Morrissey is a contributing writer to The Daily Standard and a contributor to the blog Captain's Quarters.


TOPICS: Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: gwbush; harrietmiers; miers; scotus; stopmiers
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-157 next last
Instead of getting any clear evidence of a conservative scholar or action in support of conservative judicial initiatives, the Bush administration has kept its lips silent after demanding trust.

The worry for them is that in 2006 the Republican base may keep quiet, too.

1 posted on 10/12/2005 3:20:58 PM PDT by indcons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: indcons

we now know why Harriet was selected. All the other judges took their name out of the SCOTUS hat.


2 posted on 10/12/2005 3:23:59 PM PDT by MAD-AS-HELL (Put a mirror to the face of the republican party and all you'll see is a Donkey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: indcons
The worry for them is that in 2006 the Republican base may keep quiet, too.

Yeah, that'll work...for MoveOn.org

3 posted on 10/12/2005 3:24:17 PM PDT by rhombus (h)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stellar Dendrite

Ping


4 posted on 10/12/2005 3:25:37 PM PDT by indcons (Let the Arabs take care of their jihadi brothers this time around (re: Paki earthquake))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: indcons

True conservatives dont like Ouiji Board Supreme picks.


5 posted on 10/12/2005 3:27:42 PM PDT by samadams2000 (Nothing fills the void of a passing hurricane better than government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MAD-AS-HELL
we now know why Harriet was selected. All the other judges took their name out of the SCOTUS hat.

That means the next vacancy, if there is one, will be filled with a nomination that is as much a ciper as Miers. If the nominee is promised to be openly conservative for the next vacancy, then Miers is not the most openly conservative available for this one, and the reason "she's the most openly conservative available because the openly conservative ones don't want to be dragged through the mud" would be exposed as an expedient political lie.

One of the potential pieces of political fallout the "disappointed in the nomination" folks here warned about. Hiding conservivism, stealth conservatism, is not a winning strategy, on many levels.

Is there really concern about losing seats in 2006 over this? The pro-Miers nomination posters here seem to disagree withthat speculation.

6 posted on 10/12/2005 3:28:58 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MAD-AS-HELL

That misinformation was nailed today!


7 posted on 10/12/2005 3:29:41 PM PDT by indcons (Let the Arabs take care of their jihadi brothers this time around (re: Paki earthquake))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
I am sure Ben Stein, my first pick, would do a great job. I'd just love to see him question people! bueller? bueller?
8 posted on 10/12/2005 3:30:21 PM PDT by MAD-AS-HELL (Put a mirror to the face of the republican party and all you'll see is a Donkey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: indcons

REally???? where did you see/red that???


9 posted on 10/12/2005 3:31:00 PM PDT by MAD-AS-HELL (Put a mirror to the face of the republican party and all you'll see is a Donkey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: indcons
Matt Lauer: Some are suggesting there's a little possible sexism in the [conservative] criticism of Judge Miers. How do you feel about that?

MRS. BUSH: That's possible. I think that's possible.


Thanks Laura.
10 posted on 10/12/2005 3:31:04 PM PDT by Mulch (tm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: indcons
the Bush administration has kept its lips silent after demanding trust.

Trust but don't verify.

11 posted on 10/12/2005 3:31:24 PM PDT by AdamSelene235 (Truth has become so rare and precious she is always attended to by a bodyguard of lies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhombus

You're right...Pres. Bush should have thought of that when he nominated Harriet Miers. If the Republicans lose in 2006, Pres. Bush will have to take a major part of the blame.


12 posted on 10/12/2005 3:31:52 PM PDT by indcons (Let the Arabs take care of their jihadi brothers this time around (re: Paki earthquake))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MAD-AS-HELL

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1501301/posts


13 posted on 10/12/2005 3:33:27 PM PDT by indcons (Let the Arabs take care of their jihadi brothers this time around (re: Paki earthquake))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: indcons
Matt Lauer: Some are suggesting there's a little possible sexism in the [conservative] criticism of Judge Miers. How do you feel about that?

MRS. BUSH: That's possible. I think that's possible.


And how is your demanding that a woman be nominated not sexist?
14 posted on 10/12/2005 3:34:25 PM PDT by Mulch (tm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: indcons
. If the Republicans lose in 2006, Pres. Bush will have to take a major part of the blame.

What no blame for RINOs who won't support your favorite "REAL" conservative?

15 posted on 10/12/2005 3:35:15 PM PDT by rhombus (h)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: indcons
Not if nominating a known Judge who is on the record for overturning Roe v Wade would have ended in his / defeat anyways.
16 posted on 10/12/2005 3:35:35 PM PDT by clawrence3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: rhombus

EXACTLY!!!


17 posted on 10/12/2005 3:36:14 PM PDT by clawrence3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: indcons
The Sounds of Silence (The White House isn't saying much about Harriet Miers.)

Because they have nothing they need to say. As has been pointed out to you before. Burden of proof is on the critics. The WH picked, the Senate Advises and Consents, the people screaming "this is the wrong pick" have to sell us on why we should trust them over the President. I think a lot of the knee jerk Bush critics are finding it more then a little upsetting to discover that they do NOT speak for the Conservative Base. Sorry you were not aware that we are not the Conservative Pundits hand puppets. THEY need to sell their position to US, not vice versa. So far the critics are losing, badly.

18 posted on 10/12/2005 3:36:19 PM PDT by MNJohnnie (I'll try to be NICER, if you will try to be SMARTER!.......Water Buckets UP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MAD-AS-HELL; Petronski; mhking
we now know why Harriet was selected. All the other judges took their name out of the SCOTUS hat.

BINGO!

They don't want to subject themselves to it. It's an anal exam. It's a judicial and media anal exam. You don't want to subject your family, and that's what they're saying a lot of these qualified female nominees -- the names are Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, Edith Jones, and there are some others on the list, too, but not as many women as men." But since Dobson said that this -- that Rove told him the nominee had to be a woman -- that cuts the list down to about 80% of the people that we know who are on it. Then when you say, "Well, none of the others really wanted it," what does that say? Well, unfortunately, what it says is that (sigh.) This is so hard. There's only one conclusion. There's only one conclusion. If none of the others would accept it, it means that there were others asked prior to Harriet Miers, okay? Number one. Number two: if those others who were asked before Harriet Miers said no, it means that. (sigh) Well, put 2 and 2 together and you get 4. It means that Harriet was not first choice -- if this is true. Now, I've met Dr. Dobson on a number of occasions. I cannot say that I know him well, but I just cannot imagine that Dr. Dobson would come out on his show and lie. To associate the word "lying" with Dr. Dobson, you just can't do that. That's not something that I would ever associate. So you have to assume here that that's what he was told, and if he was told that, then essentially what he was told was, "Hey, this is the best we can get right now -- not the best we can get, but the best we can get right now." But it's not her fault and not Bush's fault because none of the others wanted this. (sigh)

From Rush Limbaugh on 12 October 2005 SOURCE


If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
They're going fast!

19 posted on 10/12/2005 3:36:28 PM PDT by rdb3 (Have you ever stopped to think, but forgot to start again?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: indcons

Do you so called learned conservatives know just how tired just plan old conservative are of hearing you crying.Bush is the President not you.


20 posted on 10/12/2005 3:38:08 PM PDT by MamaK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-157 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson