Posted on 10/12/2005 5:26:46 PM PDT by StatenIsland
WE ARE REPUBLICANS AND CONSERVATIVES who supported the election of George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. Today, we respectfully urge that the nomination of Harriet Miers to the United States Supreme Court be withdrawn.
The next justice of the Supreme Court should be a person of clear, consistent, and unashamed conservative judicial philosophy.
The next justice should be a person of unquestioned personal and political independence.
The next justice should be someone who has demonstrated a deep engagement in the constitutional issues that regularly come before the Supreme Court — and an appreciation of the originalist perspective on those issues.
The next justice should be a person of the highest standard of intellectual and legal excellence.
For all Harriet Miers. many fine qualities and genuine achievements, we the undersigned believe that she is not that person. An attempt to push her nomination through the Senate will only split the Republican party, damage the Bush presidency, and cast doubts upon the Court itself.
Sometimes Americans elect Republican presidents, sometimes we elect Democratic presidents. Whatever the differences between the parties, surely we can at least agree on this: Each party owes America its best. There is a wide range of truly outstanding legal talents who share the president’s judicial philosophy. We believe that on second thought President Bush can do better — for conservatism, for the Supreme Court, for America.
Maybe Dubya is wearing an iron mask. But he's still not going to reverse course. It's not in him.
Because the hearings tell us SQUAT since Ginsburg.
HM won't answer question one about her "judicial philosophy".
Don't you guys realize this yet?
The time to stop this mess is NOW.
How's the weather in Fantasyland this time of year, Johnnie?
I think you're missing my point. Given George Bushs other appointments, nominees, and assuming they are pretty conservative (which I do), why do you think this one isn't? From what I've read everyone who knows her says she'll be a good Justice. Granted she didn't pratice con-law, but a lot of this stuff ain't rocket science.
No flame intended.
Oh, sure she will. She'll keep repeating Roberts' platitude that the "judges shouldn't make law", which, devoid of any hard context, is an utter throwaway line.
Everything a politician does has to be subject to verification. He has an interest in keeping his base happy, so he does things that the base can see that they approve of. That is not earning trust, that's just making himself accountable.
It's like if I always pay for what I take from the store when being supervised, I can then be trusted to pay for it unsupervised, with nobody at the cash register? They can just trust me to drop right amount of money in the box in exchange for whatever I take?
For what it's worth, I'm persuaded that Roberts will be a fine justice. I just don't know about Miers. She's the real enigma.
You misunderstand me. By "up to the job" I don't mean that she isn't smart enough. I mean that I don't know if she can be counted on to be a real, conservative, strict constructionist judge of the kind needed to put a stop to our drift into liberal judicial tyranny.
I certainly don't think that Souter is up to the job. As a constitutional judge he's a moron, whatever his IQ may be.
If repeated often enough, will it get legs? I am not holding "my" breath.
"Given George Bushs other appointments, nominees, and assuming they are pretty conservative (which I do), why do you think this one isn't?"
With the other nominees there was a papertrail, they had proven records. Meiers doesn't. Why would he pick someone that doesn't have a papertrail? Either because he is rewarding a loyal friend, or he is scared of fighting democrats and liberal Repubs.
"From what I've read everyone who knows her says she'll be a good Justice."
Everyone who knows her? Gee ya think they might all be friends and work buddies? Whats next, her mother is going to tell us how she always picked up after herself as a kid?
Now you are going to think I don't trust George W Bush. You would be correct. I don't. I voted for him because he was the moderate in a race between a moderate and a socialist. If the Democrat had been a Zell Miller type, I would have voted Democrat for the first time in my life.
If we don't have principles, who are we?
Knowing little to nothing about Miers or her critics such as Frum & Coulter. I did a google search. And Harriet Miers is not a light weight choice...Her background shows a tenacious, talented individual who has risen on stubborn ability not intellectual glibness(compared to Frum & Coulter). There's a justified argument to be made that she has no "known" legal philosophy towards the Constitution. But, an argument that she's unqualified or selected solely on the basis of "cronyism" does not appear justified. President Bush has historically selected talented individuals for key positions. Certainly & absolutely, President Bush's personal knowledge of her legal perspective, combined with her solid (although not spectacular) credentials made her a viable nominee (given Specter et al) for the Supreme Court.
Also, I was a bit surprised to find this on Frum during a google search: In January 2003, he released The Right Man: The Surprise Presidency of George W. Bush, the first insider account of the Bush presidency. Frum is widely cited as having authored the phrase "axis of evil," which he discusses in his book. As the title suggests, Frum also discusses how the events of September 11, 2001 redefined the country and the President. Frum writes, "George W. Bush was hardly the obvious man for the job. But by a very strange fate, he turned out to be, of all unlikely things, the right man.
Perhaps in a few years Frum will write a similar sentence on Justice Miers..."hardly the obvious selection for the job. But by a very strange fate, she turned out to be, of all unlikely things the right selection". I'm hopeful that the confirmation hearings will set any lingering doubts I have to rest...although that assurance probably won't come until after she sides with Scalia & Thomas on some key decisions.
But, an argument that she's unqualified or selected solely on the basis of "cronyism" does not appear justified.
From what I understand the A-list candidate don't want to go through what the democrats and RINOs in the senate would put them through. Just look at Roberts, and he was pure as the driven snow, and they smeared him.
Don't try to bring reason into the discussion, please.
From what I understand the A-list candidate don't want to go through what the democrats and RINOs in the senate would put them through.
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.