Posted on 10/13/2005 1:39:16 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite
President Bush last week expressed his confidence in the constancy of Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, saying that "20 years from now she'll be the same person, with the same philosophy," as she is today. White House aides making the case for Miers, meanwhile, have been insisting that she is a reliable conservative. Since she has no judicial record and has had little to say about constitutional law, we can only guess at what her judicial philosophy might be, if indeed she has one at all. But if she is a political conservative, then she has not remained constant over the past 20 years.
We base this on a look at her testimony in Williams v. Dallas, a voting-rights case from 1989, when Miers was an at-large member of the Dallas City Council. Read over it and the impression that emerges is of a left-leaning centrist, not a conservative. (The testimony is here, as a five-megabyte PDF file, but we're not 100% confident that our server will be able to handle it. If it disappears, check back here for a new link as soon as we're able to provide one.)
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Conservatives dont like OUIJI BOARD sup picks.
Ironic, I think, that some of the same beltway elites who are dumping all over Miers are the same ones who held their noses at RR back in the 70s. No national experience --- a B-Grade actor, intellectual light weight, affable dunce, "divorced," tut, tut, tut......
They are her words, but they are not writings. They are testimony. They are not prepared testimony, but are answers to questions.
One could imagine that a lawyer who filed briefs with appelate courts has the capacity for better communication than what is found in this transcript of testimony.
If you want to say that you hope she would be able to answer questions better on her feet, I will support that, except that this was 16 years ago, so I think I'd rather see how she does in the committee hearings.
I read the opinion columns Brooks referenced. He suggested that they were legal writing, and that they weren't well-written legal writing.
But they were not legal briefs. They were messages from the head of an organization to its members in a newsletter, and that is how they were written. They were folksy, personal, and effusive. They were exactly what you would expect. There was nothing wrong with them, at least the 8 that I read.
Miers Ping #2.
Wow! THAT's how she writes???
AMEN!
bttt
Eh....Ahem.....15 years or less is more like it. She was still a very active Dimocrat in 1990.
Let's all quit the chatter here. Bottom line - She is NO conservative & she sure needs more knowledge, more mental power & probably more deep ingrained conservativism to go against the Washington elites. GW, do the correct thing. Get her to bow out & next time use some better judjement & put a proven in. Otherwise get out & let someone else lead. Opposite of RUSH here but this nomination will weaken the conservative position for the pubbies. This is the defining moment& if a proven is not sitting on the SC Bush is toast the rest of his RINO term.
Oh.....a Buchanan supporter?
Why were we supposed to believe she is conservative, again?
LOL, you never know. PB has come close to embracing some "unconventional" theories, shall we say. He seems smart enough, however, to know that outright bigotry would exclude him from almost any respectable media outlet. Still, he is persona non grata at many conservative publications.
The other day, a FReeper objected to my labeling PB a holocaust denier. After I supplied him with PB's own writings, he then claimed that the writings were "hit pieces on Buchanan." LOL....Buchanan is so clever now.....he writes his drivel and then condemns them himself!!
Transcript? So this is or is not a verbatim expression of her words?
PB has followed the example of Westbrook Pegler (lib-slanted article, I know, but a good summary of Pegler's descent).
Obviously, such commentators do far more harm than good for conservative causes.
Conservative base is putting the pressure on Bush
The thing to watch is the democrat base ( abortionists-- gays --anti wars--environmental wackos--anti religionists etc )reaction
They CAN NOT be happy with a devout BORN AGAIN nominee BUT since they conservatives are against her they must be in a quandry as to what position to take
Mr. Sessions (R)Mr. Sessions affirmative…. “My conversations with Harriet Miers indicate that she is a first-rate lawyer and a fine person. Her legal skills are proven and her reputation throughout the legal community is excellent. It is not necessary that she have previous experience as a judge in order to serve on the Supreme Court. It’s perfectly acceptable to nominate outstanding lawyers to that position. I look forward to the confirmation process and to learning more about her judicial philosophy.”
Mr. Cornyn (R) Mr Cornyn…affirmative "The President has announced his nominee to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court of the United States: Harriet Miers, currently serving as White House Counsel. As he did with Judge John G. Roberts, Jr., the President has chosen an outstanding nominee for our nation's highest court. The Senate should consider this nomination in both a thorough and expedient manner.
"Harriet Miers is a brilliant legal mind. She is a woman of outstanding character who clearly understands what it means to follow the law. She is deeply committed to public service, and has a distinguished history of professional achievement. It is clear that her past experiences have well prepared her for the honor of serving our country as a Supreme Court Justice. I strongly support her nomination.
"It is important that we put aside partisanship, and that the Senate fulfill its constitutional responsibility of advice and consent. This fine nominee must be treated with civility and respect, not as a political pawn. I hope that we in the Senate can move forward in a manner worthy of the American people."
Mr. Coburn (R) Mr.Coburn..affirmative. “Harriet Miers deserves a fair and thorough hearing and confirmation process. I look forward to learning more about her qualifications and judicial philosophy in the coming days,” Dr. Coburn said, adding that he plans to meet with Miers this week.”
.
Yes, they should be the correct transcription of her extemporaneous response to questions she was asked in 1989 when she was a councilwoman.
We know almost nothing about Miers and what little we do looks pathetically poor. The bottom line is that Bush blew an opportunity to decisively change the balance of the court in an originalist direction -- an opportunity that may not occur for another generation. It's tragic that he overlooked a score of prospects with judicial temperaments, constitutional expertise, and proven originalist judicial track records in favor of a third-rate political crony who - if confirmed - will have to have on-the-job training in constitutional law. Miers isn't just unqualified compared to the many prospects who have stellar qualifications -- she's almost embarrassing as a nominee. Bush has insulted his conservative base and ignored the best thought among conservatism -- John Fund, George Will, Rush Limbaugh, David Frum, Ann Coulter,Pat Buchanan, to cite just a few. But then again many conservatives have long known that Bush is no true conservative. Bush's sole defense of his crony: trust me. Doesn't that give us conservatives an unpleasant reminder of someone else who once said, "read my lips"? Sadly for his legacy and the nation, Bush has proved himself unequal to the task.
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.