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
Lemme guess, you think it's sexist on Ms. Morgan's part??
Please... Harriet Miers has actually been treated with a good deal of personal respect. Both Ann Coulter AND Melanie Morgan this week wrote nice things personally about Miers while pointing out she lacks the experience in constitutional law, any track record to judge her capability to serve in an adequate manner, and there are many other nominees (YES, WOMEN if it must be a female Justice) with more experience, qualifications and demonstrated ability than Ms. Miers. Oh, and those other potential nominees have actually expressed a thought on a law once or twice in their lifetimes.
But of course they indignantly reject any suggestion that the Miers pick itself is "screwing the base."
(sarcasm)"
LOL!!!
I agree! That to me speaks volumes more than the fact that GW has known her for about a decade.
Amen. ;) Me too! It puts Karl Rove in the same political character of Democrats!!
Frum suggested Miers as A JOKE - within a day or two of her nomination he was on TV and radio pointing out he had mentioned her as a pick a few months ago as an example of THE WORST nominee Bush could pick.
She was back right away. She is on vacation.
I hear you. But the White House put out word it HAD to be a woman and that would be the only choice. If you read most of the pro-Miers' columns the Fred Barnes/Hugh Hewitt's of the world make this clear.
So the question is, will the Administration put forth a woman that is experienced, qualified and conservative or not? That's about the only battle that can be won at this point in time.
Since Melanie was hired by and remained on the payroll of a separate entity (The news company) for many years, I fail to see "cronyism".
Yes - HE WAS. Since Frum has explained over and over that he worked with Miers in the Bush White House and found her nice, loyal, hard working, but not exactly possessing the intellectual heft nor any interest/ability/experience in constitutional law to be on the Court.
Uh...I think that was a jab at PRO-Miers people. Haven't you seen "Every time you oppose Miers a kitten dies."?
I agree. And so does Ms. Morgan according to her 'open letter' to Harriet Miers.
Oh I think that's already begun.
You have seen www.StopMiersNow.com haven't you?
The anti-Miers crowd has joined with the democrats and are DEMANDING that the Senate reject Miers because she's not the super-duper-best-candidate-on-the-face-of-the-earth. They're demanding that Miers ideology (which they don't know) be used as a reason to dump her in the gutter. They've joined the ranks of the shrieking harpies on the left. Y'all ought to be proud of yourselves.
EXCELLENT POINT because there was NO conservative outcry against Clarence Thomas, was there? There might have been a doubt raised here and there, but that was it.
It speaks volumes that there is a growing revolt against the Miers nomination from the Right and that even her initial supporters are now pulling back.
The woman should never have been nominated to be on the Supreme Court - at least not at this time - and her nomination really needs to be withdrawn.
I rarely listened to him. Hugh always seemed to take a "voice of reason" position on some pretty basic conservative issues. He often sounded, well, a bit squishy to me at times when aggressive action was required.
Suspicions confirmed.
Stop acting like a bunch of leftist clones.
I think that's a bit unfair. She's "being stupid" for telling Harriet Miers that she (Melanie Morgan) thinks (as one conservative woman to another) that the best thing to do is for Miers to withdraw her nomination?
I don't think that's stupid at all.
You say that Melanie was, "and imagining she was elected to some office" - but again that's awfully unfair. If Melanie were saying she was going to vote against her nomination in the U.S. Senate I'd see your point. Melanie seems to recognize she has no vote, and thus can only call on Miers to do the decent thing... the right thing... and pull herself out to end this ugly ugly fight within our own ranks when such a fight is wholly unnecessary since there are SO MANY qualified, experienced, capable conservative women who could easily be nominated and receive nearly universal conservative support.
The problem is, if we deport all those conservative leaders who are opposed to Harriet Miers there wouldn't be a conservative movement left in 2006 nor 2008.
I appreciate the desire to support the President because he is a good man who we all agree with on many issues, but there are many issues he is not so great on. That doesn't mean we pretend to look the other way and agree with his mistakes. (For example: we will not all be in favor of massive deficit spending just because Bush and congressional Republicans have done so).
The Miers nomination comes after 30 years of conservatives gearing up for this big moment when there would be the vacancies + a GOP president + a clear GOP majority in the Senate + a bench of highly qualified/talented/intelligent/experienced conservative potential nominees.
George Will made an excellent point... if you were to go to 100 of the leading conservative legal scholars and asked them to name their Top 100 candidates for the U.S. Supreme Court Harriet Miers wouldn't be listed once amongst those 10,000 names.
There's a reason that good, solid, conservative legal analysts like Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin and Ann Coulter (the people we all listened to during the Clinton Impeachment saga) are ALL against her nomination. It's because they all recognize the President has made a huge mistake.
So now we have the choice to either stop the bleeding or all go over the cliff together. Melanie's joined the list of people saying "woah, how about we don't go over the cliff and say we did, ok?"
Hmmm... you may be right, I don't know. My own personal opinion is that so far only a very tiny minority know much about Miers and support her. A larger minority knows much about her and opposes her. I would say the rest are in the "don't know" or "I don't know but I'll give the benefit of the doubt to Bush for now" camps.
But, I don't read Melanie's work emails so I don't know exactly what the "base" is saying to her.
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.