This oughtta be a mandatory warning on all Miers threads.
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.
This oughtta be a mandatory warning on all Miers threads.
Like I should pay attention to the ACLU. Dont think so.
This Bob Barr?
Can we get a mulligan on Specter, Jeffords, and McCain?
It is hard to imagine Bob Barr as a DU'er, or ACLUer
Aye, but the Amen Bush crowd on FR will have no such luxury.
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
He opens with one of the democrats' top talking points. Interesting.
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?
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.
recuse herself from all future cases regarding the Bush administration
Such as what cases?
OLA
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.
Kool (Harriet's blog is!) Now we know what Miss Miers really thinks about the Constitution!
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.
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
You are correct sir.
Where does the FReeper Poll sit?
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.