Posted on 10/13/2005 5:31:15 PM PDT by NapkinUser
Respectfully — and mindful that you have made it a point of personal pride throughout your administration never to admit a personal mistake (I know you said recently that you "take responsibility" for problems encountered during the federal response to Hurricane Katrina, but that's not the same as admitting you made a mistake) — I urge you to pull the nomination of White House counsel Harriet Miers to serve as a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
I accept your characterization of Miers as a smart lady. But come now, Mr. President, can you really continue to claim that of all the nearly 300 million people in this country (including millions of illegals who you refuse to take serious steps to round up and deport), Miers is really the single most qualified to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor?
I listened carefully when you said you had spoken with many U.S. senators, and some, so you claimed, suggested it might be cool (I know you didn't use that word, but it's what you meant) to appoint someone who lacked judicial experience.
This would, I suppose, be sort of like a manager picking someone who had never pitched in the majors to pitch the opening game of the World Series.
As a former owner of a major league franchise, you can relate to that analogy. The problem is, while it might be interesting — even fun — to try a move like that, it virtually guarantees you won't attain your goal, which is winning.
I know there have been lawyers who have served with distinction on the Supreme Court — men like Lewis Powell, Abe Fortas and even the outstanding Louis Brandeis — whose first judicial job was on the U.S. high court. The parallels really don't hold up well, Mr. President, because all of those justices actually had well-known records of serving in professional and academic venues in which they were called on repeatedly to issue opinions on complex matters involving constitutional and judicial issues.
Miers, despite have blazed a pioneering trail as the first woman head of the Texas Bar Association, is not possessed of such a record. Indeed, even though her defenders in your administration have noted that her duties as White House counsel necessarily include dealing with matters involving constitutional issues, you have already made it clear you will refuse to allow public or even Senate access to White House documents relating to her official duties.
Thus, even if there existed a paper trail irrefutably establishing that Miers' legal reasoning were every bit as profound as Justice Brandeis', we'll never know, because you refuse to show us the proof.
Moreover, the issues on which your counsel's constitutional bona fides might be established necessarily would relate to a fairly narrow range of matters, and all would necessarily involve justifications for your exercise of certain powers (torture, suspension of habeas corpus, defense of executive privilege). After all, that's what White House counsels are paid to do — find ways to justify whatever power a president wants to claim.
We know also, Mr. President, that you are possessed of an uncanny ability to look into and know men's souls (and women's, of course). While I am sure your many years of knowing Miers has imparted to you an extremely detailed picture of her soul, frankly, we've heard that refrain before. Need we remind you that you weren't exactly on the money in deciphering Vladimir Putin's heart, or that of your friend south of the border, el Presidente Vicente Fox?
Perhaps most important, Mr. President, the one thing that appears to be at the core of your decision to nominate Miers is the single most critical reason she should not serve in that capacity. You obviously have picked her because she believes the sun rises and sets around you.
While such blind loyalty might constitute an understandable reason why you would want her or someone else to serve as one of your close advisers, it is most decidedly a quality none of us should count among the desirable attributes of any judge, much less a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Please, sir, would you not agree that judges should be critical thinkers; capable of objectively looking at different sides of often-complex issues; and then reaching a correct decision based on a sound and consistent judicial philosophy and temperament? Do these qualities not perfectly describe Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, two current Supreme Court justices you have said you admire? Were these not among your stated reasons for nominating Chief Justice John Roberts to that post?
Please then, Mr. President, pull this nomination and give us a truly qualified nominee. We won't even demand that you admit you made a mistake.
Another worthless opinion from one of the more outspoken new members of the ACLU. Some will go a long way to get noticed, especially if they used to get more attention.
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.”
.
Yea we all know Bush is surrounded with only those who agree with him, oh, wait a minute, that was Clintoon, not Bush.
WHAT CRAP
Yep, Bob Barr..closet DU'er from waaaay back! LOL
Or sexist, he might be elitist...doesn't mean he's wrong.
If Miers becomes the swing vote that upholds all the past activist liberal rulings, the GOP big tent will implode.
If not, then what have we to lose?
The Atlanta Urinal-Constipation remains another useless liberal paper.
Great day to sign up. You'll fit right in with the Bush bashers.
Your either with us or against us.
Looks like the against are stacking up. Oh Well, those of us who are loyal and trust W will remain to the end.
All others can take the Coulter train to nowhere.
I call it the fishwrap.
This idea that the job ought to go to the most qualified, or the most qualified qualified, is simply a mechanistic idea, and totally fallacious if the most qualified also happens to be, e.g., a Marxist. The nominee may have been selected, at least partly, on another basis besides a pageful of words.
Like I should pay attention to the ACLU. Dont think so.
We'll try very hard to remember who you were.
If Miers becomes the swing vote that upholds all the past activist liberal rulings, the GOP big tent will implode.
-----
Agreed - she and Roberts should work full force to turn over that ruling -- VERY BAD and a horrible anti-Constitutional precedent.
Has Bob Barr joined the ACLU?
Hey Bob Barr...STFU and go back to the anti-Christian ACLU.
Imust disagree with you. Bob Barr was a good man whosupported teh Consttituion. Moreover, he was right on he money with the miers thing. There is a time to hold and a time to fold.
Time to fold and bring out a real originalist like Brown or Luttig.
Instead, he has given them still another stealth candidate and confounded everybody.
I honestly do not believe that we will be disappointed when Justice Miers is confirmed.
Her brother is my physician, and if she is half as Conservative as he is, GWB has hit still another grand slammer.
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.