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
Respectfully — and mindful that you have made it a point of personal pride throughout your administration never to admit a personal mistake

I was willing to listen to what Barr had to say and then I read this opening.

I no longer give two craps what Bob Barr has to say.

41 posted on 10/13/2005 7:06:38 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NapkinUser
Factoid: How Did the Word "Mulligan" Acquire Its Golf Meaning?
42 posted on 10/13/2005 7:09:20 PM PDT by P.O.E. (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Revolting cat!

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

I highly doubt Harriet Miers wrote anything in that blog.


43 posted on 10/13/2005 7:12:28 PM PDT by NapkinUser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Made in USA
Dubya would never get a known conservative judge confirmed anyway.

It's unacceptable to make this assumption without putting it to the test. That is called pre-emptive surrender. Being openly conservative is not a crime, and it's not anything to be ashamed about, and it's damned well past time we started acting like it.

44 posted on 10/13/2005 7:13:20 PM PDT by thoughtomator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette

President Ronald Reagan had a rule against speaking ill against another Republican. Perhaps all these brains should remember that rule and let Bush have his pick. How many times has he been right? And who else is there to follow him, yet? We need to pick another Bush and it isn't by shooting Bush.


45 posted on 10/13/2005 7:17:00 PM PDT by Thebaddog (Are you a dog, too?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: OneLoyalAmerican

The way I see this, the Senate Judiciary Committer might earn a honest day or two of wages.




How exactly?

By asking a bunch of questions that she nor any other nominee has any intention of answering, then rubberstamping her through because she is the President's pick?


46 posted on 10/13/2005 7:20:47 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 38 | View Replies]

To: oldtimer
"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."

I hope you are right!!!
But, I can look at my own family and, ideologically speaking, there is no resemblance between myself (male) and my sisters.

Thanks for the valuable, if not fully conclusive, information.
47 posted on 10/13/2005 7:22:44 PM PDT by ChessExpert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator

"It's unacceptable to make this assumption without putting it to the test. That is called pre-emptive surrender. Being openly conservative is not a crime, and it's not anything to be ashamed about, and it's damned well past time we started acting like it."

Bravo. Spot-on. I've been trying to say the same thing for over a week, and I did. Problem is, I think, overall, I used 15,000 words. But you get the point.

I WANT to see Janice Rogers Brown under attack from Chuck Schumer. If he knocks her down, she's not worthy anyway. If she stands up for herself and makes a cogent case, she will become a national hero overnight. One who's on our side, by the way.


48 posted on 10/13/2005 7:25:00 PM PDT by John Robertson (Safe Travel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: NapkinUser
I highly doubt Harriet Miers wrote anything in that blog.

Well, look atcha! You just signed up and win a major award already!


49 posted on 10/13/2005 7:25:06 PM PDT by Revolting cat! ("In the end, nothing explains anything!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: NapkinUser
This is turning into a modern day witch trial.

I have always wondered what would have happened if those guys back in Salem, MA had captured, tortured and tried a real witch. I'll bet she would have really made them pay.

50 posted on 10/13/2005 7:31:56 PM PDT by Mike Darancette (Mesocons for Rice '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #51 Removed by Moderator

To: trubluolyguy
rubberstamping her through because she is the President's pick?

We deserve better than lame questions and a rubber stamp. Remarkably, the SJC member from Illinois has shut his stuck on stupid pie hole. It's normally flapping like a dying duck's a$$.

52 posted on 10/13/2005 7:34:26 PM PDT by OneLoyalAmerican (Even if your mother says she loves you, check it out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: JFC

I never met a Texan that I didn't like.


53 posted on 10/13/2005 7:38:58 PM PDT by ANGGAPO (LayteGulfBeachClub.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Revolting cat!; NapkinUser

A little tough on our newbie RC? Welcome to FR NapkinUser, and thanks for the good discussion thread topic.
OLA


54 posted on 10/13/2005 7:40:30 PM PDT by OneLoyalAmerican (Even if your mother says she loves you, check it out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette
This is turning into a modern day witch trial

No kidding and it isn't even Halloween! I usually love many of these pundits, but really wish theyd SHUT UP! They are being totally unfair judgemental drama kings & queens and quite frankly I'm sick of the hysterics over the Miers nomination.

It's ironic, but these conservative pundits are cutting off their noses to spite their faces. Their tantrums are only emboldening the democRATS and RINOs and weakening the GOP and our President. We've heard their rants LOUD AND CLEAR. Enough already, PUHLEEEZ!

Let the hearings begin. If Miers cannot hold her own, THEN complain about her not having the necessary qualifications. These attacks have got to stop. It's a big turnoff to people like myself who want to engage in the political process and help elect conservatives. When conservatives start eating their own, it gives me huge pause and makes me want to disengage.

55 posted on 10/13/2005 7:40:30 PM PDT by demkicker (Life has many choices. Eternity has only two. Which one have you chosen?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: OneLoyalAmerican; NapkinUser

Welcome User, no offense intended! (I'm one myself, occasionally! User, that is.)


56 posted on 10/13/2005 7:43:00 PM PDT by Revolting cat! ("In the end, nothing explains anything!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Revolting cat!
IMHO: A rather unfortunate choice of names.
57 posted on 10/13/2005 7:46:30 PM PDT by Mike Darancette (Mesocons for Rice '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: OneLoyalAmerican

"Welcome to FR NapkinUser"

Thank you.


58 posted on 10/13/2005 7:47:10 PM PDT by NapkinUser (Click my screen name for information about my screen name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: demkicker
Greetings demkicker:

IMHO, Conservative pundits dumped a few barrels of chum into the political waters, just before Miers' swim call.

Guess if Miers out swims the sharks of this feeding frenzy, she's an Olympic class Constitutionalist.

Cheers,
OLA

59 posted on 10/13/2005 7:53:21 PM PDT by OneLoyalAmerican (Even if your mother says she loves you, check it out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: ChessExpert

Re: Specter

I think President Bush tried to save Specter's butt in return for his support on the Judiciary Committee. Specter accepted that support, then went back on his word and stabbed President Bush in the back.

With death knocking on his door, Specter is playing a very dangerous game.


60 posted on 10/13/2005 8:05:32 PM PDT by Hoodat ( Silly Dems)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | 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