Posted on 10/12/2005 6:44:38 PM PDT by Toidylop
|
CWA Responds to Harriet Miers' Qualifications for the Supreme Court 10/10/2005 Chief Counsel Jan LaRue writes memo for constituents. MEMORANDUM THE NOMINATION OF HARRIET MIERS TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT OCTOBER 10, 2005 TO: CWA CONSTITUENTS FROM: JAN LARUE, CHIEF COUNSEL
BACKGROUND:
Concerned Women for America (CWA) initially responded to President Bushs nomination of Harriet Miers on October 3 by expressing our cautious optimism and hope that we would be able to support the nomination. This memorandum expresses our assessment of what has transpired since the President made his announcement and of any new information about Miss Miers.
The media are brimming with coverage about Miss Miers background and qualifications and the ensuing debate over her nomination. CWA staff members have been heavily involved in evaluating information about Miss Miers and in expressing CWAs response.
At this time, CWA cannot endorse the nomination but we remain open to persuasion. We do not believe that we have learned anything more about Miss Miers that justifies endorsement. We have not and will not express any criticism of Miss Miers personally or of the President. A principled position stands or falls on its own merits. Personal attacks serve only to undermine and discredit.
Several good friends have strongly endorsed the nomination. That is their right, and we continue to respect and count them as friends. Some have opined that those who havent endorsed the nomination have succumbed to elitism and sexism or a failure to trust the President. Nothing could be further from the truth with respect to CWAs position.
CWA has never required that nominees we support must have Ivy League credentials. Many of those we have supported for the circuit courts and the Supreme Court did not attend Ivy League law schools, for example Judges Janice Rogers Brown, Michael McConnell, Edith Jones, Michael Luttig, Priscilla Owen and Emilio Garza.
Likewise, it would be unwarranted to withhold endorsement on the basis of an Ivy League education. Our support of Miguel Estrada, Judge Samuel Alito, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas repudiate the notion.
Secondly, we evaluate nominees on the same basis regardless of whether they are women or minorities. We reject the notion that a nominee should be selected or rejected on the basis of sex, race or ethnicity. Neither equal justice under law nor ones judicial philosophy is dependent upon such factors. The symbol of Justice wears a blindfold to communicate that people stand equal before the courts.
We do not agree that conservative activists care only about how a judge will vote on issues but only conservative intellectuals care about the rationale and process by which a judge arrives at a decision. CWA opposes judicial activism whether it is liberal or conservative. No one should use the position of a judge to advance a personal policy preference. To do so disrespects the separation of powers mandated by the Constitution and the role of the judiciary.
A qualified nominee for the Supreme Court must have more than intellectual ability and legal competence. It requires a deep knowledge of and experience in constitutional law. That must be coupled with the ability to stand ones ground as a stalwart and persuasive voice for interpretation of the Constitution faithful to its text and the Founders intent. We believe the best evidence of that is a record of having done so.
White House representatives and other supporters of Miss Miers immediately announced that she is an evangelical Christian. There is continual emphasis on her faith and the advantage of having an evangelical Christian on the Supreme Court. We do not doubt Miss Miers faith in Christwe share it.
Like CWA, most of those emphasizing Miss Miers faith have resisted any attempt to impose a religious test on any person seeking public office. The Constitution forbids it. We find it patronizing and hypocritical to focus on her faith in order to gain support for Miss Miers.
MISS MIERS QUALIFICATIONS:
President Bush continues to express that his reasons for selecting Miss Miers are his personal knowledge of her integrity, character, intellectual ability, her legal career and accomplishments as first woman president of the Texas State Bar, her influential positions within the American Bar Association (ABA), her position as White House Counsel for the past eight months and her commitment to judicial restraint.
The President stated in his press conference in the White House Rose Garden on October 4 that Miss Miers is the best qualified person in the United States. He said he liked the idea that she was from outside the judicial monastery. He promised that when its all said and done, the American people are going to know what I know.
WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT MISS MIERS QUALIFICATIONS THAT CONFIRM SHE IS THE BEST QUALIFIED PERSON FOR THE SUPREME COURT?
At this point we do not know.
We do know that there are several men and women, some of whom are mentioned above, that we believe are much more highly qualified than Miss Miers. They share Miss Miers personal character qualities of integrity, intelligence, a generous spirit and public service but their professional experience is far more extensive than hers.
More importantly, they have records proving that they are committed to textual interpretation of the Constitution and the limited role of a judge. They meet the Presidents criteria for a Supreme Court justice. Many were confirmed after being nominated by him for positions on the circuit courts of appeals.
With all due respect to the President and those who place great weight on selecting a nominee from outside the judicial monastery, we do not agree that those who are bring perspective and life experience to the bench that judges lack.
Judges, like others, were born into a family, attended school, socialize, acquire employment, marry, vote, serve in other branches of government, work in the private sector, experience loss of loved ones, know the experience of being a mom or a dad, suffer health problems and other hardships, interact with ordinary people, watch movies, attend concerts and sporting events, read books that have nothing to do with law and write something other than legal opinions.
Judge Janice Rogers Brown is a classic example of someone who has experienced and overcome some of the most challenging adversities. She is the daughter of an Alabama sharecropper, an African-American single mother who worked her way through college and law school. She was appointed to and re-elected by a large majority of Californians to the State Supreme Court.
During her confirmation hearing after President Bush nominated her to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, her intellectual ability, knowledge of the law and record of judicial restraint were compellingly demonstrated. Her judicial temperament and grace under fire shone like the sun. She is not what some have referred to as Eastern elitist. Judge Brown is notably more qualified to sit on the Supreme Court.
SHOULD THE NOMINEE BE THE BEST-QUALIFIED PERSON?
There is no reason to settle for less when there are so many excellent individuals from which to choose. The President says he knows that Miss Miers is the best-qualified person. We do not presume to know what President Bush knows about Miss Miers, and whether we know does not mean that she is not the best-qualified person.
We believe it is reasonable and necessary to be certain that Miss Miers is at least well qualified for the Court before we can endorse her nomination. That requires credible evidence.
As the Scriptures state, Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.1 Contrary to popular opinion, faith does not mean believing despite any evidence. Biblical faith appeals to evidence. Man should not expect others to exercise faith without evidence2 when God does not do so.
WHAT EVIDENCE DO WE NOW HAVE THAT MISS MIERS DESERVES TO BE TRUSTED WITH A LIFETIME APPOINTMENT TO THE NATIONS HIGHEST COURT?
Until 2001, Miss Miers legal experience was as managing partner of a large corporate law firm. Corporate law, like several other areas of legal practice, does not generally involve constitutional issues. When it does, the lawyer does not educate herself on the issue beyond what is required to adequately represent her client.
QUESTIONS NEEDING ANSWERS:
CWA hopes to learn the answers to these and other important questions.
End Notes
|
Concerned Women for America 1015 Fifteenth St. N.W., Suite 1100 Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone: (202) 488-7000 Fax: (202) 488-0806 E-mail: mail@cwfa.org
|
CWA's question #1 encapsulates my greatest reservation with Ms. Miers' nomination -- the fact that nothing about her professional career suggests the consideration of complex constitutional issues rather than straight-forward contract-business litigation.
Article. III. Section. 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Did you check this article out? Really great points by CWA. Deserves a read....IMO.
I meet all the requirments. Doesn't make me a good nominee.
I don't know who CWA is, but I smell a rat...
"5. Is the Constitution the primary source of our rights?"
I disagree w/ the premise of this question, rights are God given to man and the state. The Constitution defines the limitations on the Federal government to infringe upon those rights.
Mrs. LaHaye is married to Tim LaHaye -- the author of the Left Behind series of books.
Personal attacks serve only to undermine and discredit
IOW, ann coulter STFU.
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.