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

Skip to comments.

President ought to take mulligan on Miers pick
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution ^ | 10/12/05 | Bob Barr

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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: bobbarr; cheese; miers; noob; scotus; zot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-68 next last
To: NapkinUser

This oughtta be a mandatory warning on all Miers threads.

21 posted on 10/13/2005 6:26:15 PM PDT by martin_fierro (< |:)~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trubluolyguy
It is hard to imagine Bob Barr as a DU'er, or ACLUer.

I disagreed with Ann Coulter in the case of Roberts, but I think she may be right in the case of Miers.

George Bush is a great war time President. So was his father. But that doesn't mean that neither makes mistakes. Senior Bush said "read my lips - no new taxes," then reneged in response to a Democrat "promise" to cut spending that was never realized. The Democratic promise to cut taxes was as transparent as the N. Korean promise (to Clinton) to use nuclear reactors for peaceful purposes only. A Miers appointment may make "read my lips - no new taxes" look like an insignificant mistake.

After Souter and Kennedy, conservatives have every right to be skeptical of unproven nominees to the Supreme Court.

These are just my opinion of course. I look forward to an enlightened response. There are two types of responses that I would like to head-off (in vain I realize). These are the ad hominum responses, and the "you've got to support President Bush" responses. In my view, these types of response have NO merit. Ad hominum, attacking the person, responses are never right. I have some sympathy for the support President Bush responses. He is a great leader, in my view. He has given great speeches on the war; go to WhiteHouse.gov. But I think he has really blown it here. I'm entitled to my (conservative) opinion.

Thanks guys and gals.
22 posted on 10/13/2005 6:28:32 PM PDT by ChessExpert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: cksharks
Greetings cksharks

Like I should pay attention to the ACLU. Dont think so.

This Bob Barr?


23 posted on 10/13/2005 6:29:38 PM PDT by OneLoyalAmerican (Even if your mother says she loves you, check it out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: NapkinUser

Can we get a mulligan on Specter, Jeffords, and McCain?


24 posted on 10/13/2005 6:32:31 PM PDT by Hoodat ( Silly Dems)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChessExpert

It is hard to imagine Bob Barr as a DU'er, or ACLUer




I agree, and I was being facetious.

I enjoyed your entire post. I agree this pick is too important to waste on an unknown.


25 posted on 10/13/2005 6:37:25 PM PDT by trubluolyguy (Dude seriously, if you don't quit being so poor I'm gonna start huckin' rocks at ya!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: NapkinUser
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.

Aye, but the Amen Bush crowd on FR will have no such luxury.

26 posted on 10/13/2005 6:38:06 PM PDT by VRWC For Truth (Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GladesGuru
Greetings GG:

There is a time to hold and a time to fold.

Actually, this Miers nomination might be a blessing in disguise.

Imagine the Senate Judicial Committee actually doing their job, vetting the qualifications of the nominee, instead of spewing partisan talking points and threatening a filibuster.

OLA

27 posted on 10/13/2005 6:38:26 PM PDT by OneLoyalAmerican (Even if your mother says she loves you, check it out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: NapkinUser

He opens with one of the democrats' top talking points. Interesting.


28 posted on 10/13/2005 6:38:56 PM PDT by alnick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NapkinUser
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?

Using that logic, Mr Barr....none of the nominees mentioned by pundits is the single most qualified person to replace O'Connor so really, why are you whining?

29 posted on 10/13/2005 6:39:27 PM PDT by jess35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NapkinUser

30 posted on 10/13/2005 6:40:14 PM PDT by Revolting cat! ("In the end, nothing explains anything!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Earthdweller

One major compelling reason Miers should be rejected is that she will have to recuse herself from all future cases regarding the Bush administration where she acted as the President's legal advisor.


31 posted on 10/13/2005 6:42:46 PM PDT by subrosa sam (subrosasam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Revolting cat!

http://harrietmiers.blogspot.com/2005/10/new-to-blog-rolegays.html


32 posted on 10/13/2005 6:45:07 PM PDT by NixonsAngryGhost (WARNING- Arlen Specters Brain is Radioactive)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: subrosa sam
Greetings subrosa sam:

recuse herself from all future cases regarding the Bush administration

Such as what cases?

OLA

33 posted on 10/13/2005 6:47:12 PM PDT by OneLoyalAmerican (Even if your mother says she loves you, check it out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat
I wish we could.

But remember, it was just a few years ago that GW supported Specter over Toomey (a conservative) in the primaries. Was that smart/realistic or not so smart/realistic? I lean toward the not so smart/realistic. But to be fair, Bush is under tremendous pressure from our one party (Democratic party) press, college professors, Hollywood, etc. In my opinion, the man is a giant for standing up to the Marxist inspired left the way he does. I can imagine him taking the easy way out from time to time, as in supporting Specter. But there is the spectre that he is attempting to take the "easy" way out again in the case of Miers.
34 posted on 10/13/2005 6:50:56 PM PDT by ChessExpert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

She doesn't have to be the "most qualified" anything. It's the President's pick, per the Constitution. If she doesn't pass muster in the hearings, then he gets another pick.


35 posted on 10/13/2005 6:51:12 PM PDT by Hattie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: NixonsAngryGhost

Kool (Harriet's blog is!) Now we know what Miss Miers really thinks about the Constitution!


36 posted on 10/13/2005 6:52:29 PM PDT by Revolting cat! ("In the end, nothing explains anything!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Hattie

That's true. I have said the same in about as many words, but we're supposed to have our guts in a turmoil over this or we're not proper Conservatives. I don't think we can know what we are going to get until we see what we got.


37 posted on 10/13/2005 6:58:40 PM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: trubluolyguy
Greetings trubluolguy:

I agree this pick is too important to waste on an unknown.

Agreed this is an important pick. However, I've not been convinced by pundits, even the ones I personally admire, that this choice is a waste. The way I see this, the Senate Judiciary Committer might earn a honest day or two of wages.

OLA

38 posted on 10/13/2005 7:01:37 PM PDT by OneLoyalAmerican (Even if your mother says she loves you, check it out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: trubluolyguy

You are correct sir.


39 posted on 10/13/2005 7:01:48 PM PDT by SoDak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: JFC
Looks like the against are stacking up.

Where does the FReeper Poll sit?

40 posted on 10/13/2005 7:02:24 PM PDT by Mike Darancette (Mesocons for Rice '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-68 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