Posted on 10/13/2005 10:41:48 PM PDT by goldstategop
Dear Harriet:
I write to you today as one conservative woman to another, asking you to do something that almost no one in Washington, D.C., seems capable of doing: putting your own self-interest aside and withdrawing your name from consideration as a U.S. Supreme Court justice.
Watching from outside the Beltway of Washington, D.C., I see and hear things that are not reported by the mainstream media. As a talk-show host, I hear from our conservative base on a daily basis, and it's not encouraging for your nomination.
By asking President Bush to withdraw your name from nomination to the Supreme Court, you have an opportunity to put the best interests of this administration, the legacy and the legitimacy of the Supreme Court, and the interests of the American people ahead of your own self-interest.
I know this sounds harsh, but please understand this is not meant to be a slur upon your personal integrity, qualifications or desire to join the leading intellectual legal minds of our country.
But, you no doubt have noticed by now that your nomination to the Court has created a firestorm of debate in conservative political circles. And while I'm sure the criticism you have faced has been intensely painful and personal, I hope you know that those who have spoken out against your nomination do not do so out of malice toward you or any of your views. It is driven out of a love and respect for this country and its courts.
I, and others, have reviewed your record of accomplishments and achievements, and it is rather impressive. Many of your colleagues who worked with you for the three decades you served in private practice have praised your skills, work ethic and ability.
I also noted with approval your service as the first female president of the Dallas Bar Association and the Texas Bar Association.
And your service to President Bush and this administration obviously has been noteworthy, given the trust the president has placed in your nomination.
In spite of all of these attributes, you nonetheless are not the right person at this time to be a Supreme Court nominee – at least not now and not without an opportunity to weigh in on the most challenging legal issues of our time at a lower court level. Others have noted that you would be much better suited serving now as a justice on the Appellate Court. In my opinion, you are highly qualified to serve on that court, and you would be doing your president and the conservative cause a great service to serve on that court.
When I look upon the field of potential candidates the president could have picked to fill the seat held by Sandra Day O'Connor, I am struck by the fact that these other individuals have a track record of involvement in constitutional law that is lacking from your resume.
I've reviewed the records of a number of other women who would make excellent nominees to the Supreme Court – as I know you have as well – and their qualifications speak for themselves:
Janice Rogers Brown has an exemplary resume with a diversity of experience. She served as deputy legislative counsel in the U.S. military; deputy attorney general for the state of California; service as Gov. Pete Wilson's legal affairs secretary; service as an associate justice on the California Court of Appeals; tenure as a law professor; service as a justice on the California Supreme Court; and finally service as a judge on the U.S. federal Court of Appeals. Conservatives know she would provide a steady hand in responsibly steering the Court in the path of a constructionist legal approach.
Another possible nominee is Edith Jones. Like you, Ms. Jones served in private practice in Texas. President Reagan named her to the U.S. Court of Appeals in 1985. That's over 20 years of preparation and becoming familiar with many of the same legal questions that today's Supreme Court will have to consider and debate.
And another Texan, Priscilla Owen, was a justice on the Texas Supreme Court and is currently a Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals.
No one doubts the skills, qualifications or understanding of constitutional law that these women possess. Nor does anyone believe these individuals to be malleable to the experiences they would encounter as a Supreme Court justice.
During the news conference announcing your nomination, you made very moving statements about the pride and celebration you and your mother shared when you learned that President Bush would be nominating you to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. That moment when you thanked your family, and particularly your mother, was very powerful and resonated with me personally.
Surely, though, it must weigh on your mind the fact that the assessments from some of the great thinkers and leaders of the conservative movement have not been so kind. Thus far, the chorus of conservative leaders who have spoken out against your nomination includes Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, George Will, Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan, Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol, David Frum, Alan Keyes, Mona Charen, Robert Bork, Peggy Noonan, John Podhoretz, Michelle Malkin and many others.
Republican Sen. Arlen Specter, who ostensibly supports your nomination, nevertheless said of you: "She needs a crash course in constitutional law."
Harriet, these are comments made by individuals from the "friendly" side of the aisle, people who are inclined to support the president and his choices. That so many have spoken out so publicly must make even you pause to question whether you are the right choice for this time.
I want to share with you a personal story that I believe in some ways relates to the current situation you are in.
At the age of 24, I was selected for a temporary assignment as an on-air reporter with the ABC television affiliate here in San Francisco. The station was – and is – a powerhouse affiliate in the fourth largest TV media market in this nation.
I was a candidate to take the permanent on-air position, but lost out to a more experienced woman. I felt robbed. Not only did I feel robbed, but I also felt like ABC was hurting themselves by not hiring me. Despite the experience and abilities of the woman that ABC selected, I felt my drive, determination and hunger compensated for my rather scant record of experience in on-air reporting for major affiliates.
Harriet, it turns out I was wrong. It took years of hindsight for me to realize that the person they selected was exactly the right choice and that I would have been a marginal selection – despite the fact that I so badly wished to have that job.
I think perhaps you are in a similar place. And I say that with the best of intentions as that statement can be made. This is not the time for Harriet Miers to be serving on the Supreme Court of the United States, and there are other potential nominees who are ready to hit the ground running to serve the people of this nation admirably.
Take joy and comfort in knowing that you have served your president and this country well. And I believe you are capable of amassing a record of distinction on the U.S. Supreme Court someday. But, in my own humble estimation – now is not that time.
I feel confident that all of the same conservatives who are speaking out against your nomination today would wholeheartedly support your nomination to the federal Court of Appeals – perhaps taking the place of either Janice Rogers Brown, Edith Jones or Priscilla Owens as they move to the Supreme Court.
Please, Harriet, do the right thing. Put the interests of this president, this nation, the Supreme Court and our shared conservative philosophy ahead of your own personal desire to serve on the Supreme Court today.
Withdraw your name as a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Respectfully Yours,
Melanie Morgan
There is no basis to extend a "cronyism" accusation to the President; he was elected. Melanie Morgan, on the other hand, got her job due to her husband being the program director. Do you not see the difference?
I admit that she rubs me the wrong way at times. To me, she drags the show down. I understand that you disagree about that.
Would Melanie be Lee's sidekick if she were not married to the program director, Jack Swanson? I doubt it.
I'm not sure what your point is re: "you can try to tune the SC out, but it might come back to get you". I don't want to tune it out; I want our President to nominate candidates whose qualifications extend beyond "I know her heart, she is an Evangelical Christian, and that's enough for me". Geez, if that were all that was necessary, he could appoint ME to the Supreme Court.
Bush nominated Miers to avoid having to rely upon the Gang of 7 for support.
Can't say that I blame him for it, at least not as much as I blame the McCain-led Gang of 7.
And McCain wants to be President, eh?
Funny how conservatives would rather drown a lame duck than go after the gorilla that stands in the way of having right wing *extremists* on the court.
Bush sucks, go McCain isn't much of a helpful stance.
I can see the Frum smears aren't going to stop, and calling attention to any just makes you guys pile more on.
Well, I guess I'm not on the list of 'distinguished conservatives'.
I call on Harriet Miers to STAND HER GROUND!
Bump to support Harriet Miers!
It's called freedom of association, and it's as American as the Boy Scouts.
So we have someone who doesn't understand freedom of association casting judgement on the Constitution and whether Miers will be able to interpret it.
They're not there. Just the same list of names you posted. Could they be non-existant?
I'm not going to knock Starr though: his "support" for Miers is obviously lukewarm and constrained, and I respect the guy for "taking one for the team" during the Clinton years. He obviously doesn't want to take another position that'll get him in hock with another WH.
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011936.php
Who's Cracking Up?
Liberals everywhere are convinced that their hour is at hand. The latest voice of left-wing triumphalism is Newsweek's Howard Fineman, who announced "The Conservative Crack-up" today:
The “movement” – that began 50 years ago with the founding of Bill Buckley’s National Review; that had its coming of age in the Reagan Years; that reached its zenith with Bush’s victory in 2000 — is falling apart at the seams.
Fineman's theory is that one by one, the "constituent parts" of the conservative coalition are "going their own way," which is to say, turning their backs on the Bush administration. He goes down the list; in most cases, however, his analysis is dubious at best:
About religious conservatives, Fineman writes:
The Harriet Miers nomination was the final insult.***[W]hat really frosts the religious types is that Bush evidently feels that he can only satisfy them by stealth — by nominating someone with absolutely no paper trail. It’s an affront. And even though Dr. Dobson is on board — having been cajoled aboard by Rove — I don’t sense that there is much enthusiasm for the enterprise out in Colorado Springs.
I expect that any GOP 2008 hopeful who wants evangelical support — people like Sam Brownback, Rick Santorum and maybe even George Allen — will vote against Miers's confirmation in the Senate.
With all due respect to Mr. Fineman, this is the dumbest bit of political analysis I've seen in a long time. I am not aware of a single religious leader who has in any way objected to the Miers nomination or called it an "affront" to religious people. I know a great many religious conservatives, and not a single one of them adopts this view.
The idea that "religious types"--do you get the feeling that Fineman is writing about a group with whom he has little personal experience?--are "frosted" because Miers is a "stealth" candidate with "absolutely no paper trail" is mystifying. Miers has no paper trail as a judge or legal scholar because she has spent her career as a (circumspect) practicing lawyer, but one area where she is anything but "stealthy" is her religious life, about which a great deal--too much, in my opinion--has been said.
So Fineman's analysis makes no sense, and is supported by no data or even anecdotal observation. Here's a prediction, the exact opposite of Fineman's: not a single Republican Senator--least of all a Senator associated with the religious right--will vote against Miers.
The second group Fineman addresses is "corporate CEOs," who, he says, consider the federal government's response to Hurricane Katrina "a mortal embarrassment to their class." Huh? This rather weird claim is supported by a single CEO whom Fineman met at a "typical CEO haunt." I suspect, however, that a large majority of CEOs understand that the federal role in disaster response is limited. In any event, if Fineman thinks that top corporate executives constitute a major part of the Republican Party, he hasn't been paying attention.
So far, we have two categories of people who supposedly have abandoned the President, with the evidence adduced consisting of exactly one human being. Fineman's next group is "smaller government deficit hawks." Here he is finally on to something, although "spending hawks" would, I think, be more accurate. There are two significant issues on which the Republican base is upset with the administration: illegal immigration and out-of-control domestic spending.
But does Fineman seriously think that small-government types will start turning to the Democrats? I don't. And he may not have noticed that, while the administration is still AWOL, Republicans in Congress seem to have gotten the message from the party's faithful, and serious efforts to cut Katrina spending, and find offsets elsewhere in the budget, are underway.
Next, "isolationists," who Fineman says "are back." Nonsense. Fineman's claim that concern about illegal immigration is the new cause of the "isolationists" is a complete non sequitur which is supported only by Fineman's reference to Pat Buchanan, one of the few actual isolationists who is, or once was, a Republican. Virtually all actual isolationists--bring the troops home from Iraq now, and who cares about the consequences?--are already Democrats.
Next, "neocons," by which Fineman apparently means anyone who supports the war in Iraq. These people, Fineman asserts, "seem to have given up on the ability of the Bush Administration to see that vision through."
Again, this is an assertion with no apparent support, save for a reference to the Weekly Standard. As a contributor to the Standard, I will say that if Fineman actually believes that magazine's writers and editors have abandoned the administration, let alone jumped ship to the Democrats, he is deluded.
And finally: "supply siders," Fineman acknowledges, "have yet to be disappointed" by the administration. However, he predicts that the President will call for a tax increase, thereby making the conservative crack-up "complete." I think the chance of that happening is close to zero, and I think Fineman and many others underestimate the depth of support among Republicans for a President who cuts their taxes.
The question remains, though, what is fueling this liberal triumphalism? The answer, no doubt, is President Bush's falling poll ratings. Another one came out today, showing the President at a record low for his Presidency. It seems that Bush's poll numbers have been in a steady decline almost from the day of his second inauguration. This, fundamentally, is what has the left dancing in the streets.
But are Bush's numbers really that bad? His current Real Clear Politics average stands at 41.7% approval. That is at or about the low point in nearly five years in office. How does it compare to other presidents' lowest poll ratings? Actually, it's not bad. Here are the low approval ratings for the last seven presidents:
*Johnson: 35%
*Nixon: 24%
*Ford: 37%
*Carter: 28%
*Reagan: 35%
*Bush I: 29%
*Clinton: 37%
Yes, that's right: Every president since 1963 has had approval ratings, at one time or another during his administration, at least five points lower than Bush's current nadir.
Objectively, the evidence for a "conservative crack-up" is thin, at best. The reality is that the Republican base is holding remarkably firm, in the face of a media onslaught against the Bush administration that has no parallel in modern history, and following months of little but bad news: gas prices, hurricanes, and casualties in Iraq (the only news most people hear from that part of the world).
Things could change, of course, but my guess is that the next year's news will be better for the administration and for Republicans than the past year's. The price of gas has likely peaked; Iraq will continue to stabilize, and troops will come home; absent more natural disasters, the economy will resume its steady growth; Harriet Miers will be confirmed and start voting with conservative majorities on the Court. Most likely, liberal dreams of the end of the conservative era will have to be deferred again.
Posted by John at 07:41 PM | Permalink
I didn't read any statement in there that she was qualified to sit on SCOTUS---did you? I can talk all day about what a fine husband and dad you are, and still pass you over for promotion.
Me too. His deal was a power grab to try and leverage himself into the Oval Office in '08, at Bush's expense.
Strange that conservatives would rather kill a lame duck like Bush than go after a presumptive candidate that stands in the way of having right wing *extremists* on the court.
Yes, she most certainly does have such qualifications. That is the fallacy of this whole argument.
This argument is not about Ms. Miers abilities. It is about power. The so-called conservative punditocracy and its thundering herd of reactionary followers want the power to determine the nominee. They want to strip the President of his Constitutional power to make his own choice.
Furthermore, by calling for her to withdraw prior to the senate hearings, they want to strip the senate from its Constitutional power to advise and consent.
It is purely about power. One of the annointed whom the so-called conservative punditocracy had on its short list was not chosen. So they are having a hissy fit.
If that's the best defense the pro-Miers camp has then it's pretty obvious that Miers is not the right pick for the Supreme Court.
Did you see they brought out Alberto Gonzales to be one of her cheerleaders!!?! They thought he would excite the conservative base?
Also on your list - Thomas Sowell did say she could be good, but he also criticized her selection, but said we shouldn't 'nuke' her nonetheless.
I will say this, both Fred Barnes and Michael Medved have been enthusiastic about urging her nomination.
Hi there... not sure where you heard that from, but here is David Frum's online column:
http://frum.nationalreview.com/
And here's what he said in his recent essays:
"IF I WERE HARRIET MIERS ... I really would ask my friends to keep their mouths closed. Every time they speak up, they only remind the country of what is wrong with this unwise nomination."
"There has not been a moment since October 3 when I have not felt sick and sad about this Miers battle, but today may have been the worst day yet. This morning, the president mobilized Laura Bush to join him on national television and accuse critics of the Miers nomination of "sexism." Reading the transcript of the interview, you can feel this kind and gracious woman's disinclination to speak an untruth. "It's possible," she says. "I think it's possible."
"What a terrible and false position to put the first lady in! And what a sign that the White House has finally understood that it has lost the argument over this nomination."
"Under these circumstances, the least bad solution is for the president to withdraw this nomination now, before he does himself and his party further and growing harm."
.
Hope that helps... Mr. Frum does not seem that supportive of Ms. Miers nomination to me.
What I get a kick out of is the argument by some of Miers' supporters who have said basically, 'if this nomination is withdrawn, Bush will probably retaliate against the conservative base by nominating Alberto Gonzales.'
So their argument is that we are supposed to accept Bush's "trust me" defense because if we don't like his pick he'll 'screw us.' The lack of logic and reasoning from many of Miers' defenders drives me nuts!
It sounds like you are conceding that Bush's pick of Miers was cronyism.
I'll remind you that while Melanie's husband IS the Program Director, the General Manager of the station is the one who calls the shots. He FIRED Melanie if you'll recall until the station was swamped with calls, emails and FAXes demanding Melanie's reinstatement.
The fact that Miers said that the Federalist Society was too extreme, but the NAACP was not, disqualifies her from being put on the Supreme Court by a Republican President.
Membership in the Federalist Society should be a REQUIREMENT!
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.