How encouraging."
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
HELLOO IT IS A JOKE!!!
i thought it'd be obvious, it is mocking the pro miers crowd
I think you're going a bit overboard. Harriet Miers isn't as bad as Ted Bundy... but, if you wish to join those opposing her nomination, welcome to the camp nonetheless ;)
Be nice... I would hope you would still take calls from Harriet Miers if she had to withdraw because of the intense criticism from Republicans over her nomination?
No. He's a nice guy. I agree with him on a lot of issues. I voted for him. But I don't trust his 'personal' judgment for Harriet Miers over the established record of rulings and arguments and constitutional analysis offered by more highly qualified, more able, and frankly - intellectually more capable - potential nominees.
Bush said to trust him on Putin of Russia because Bush looked into his heart and saw a good man. I think Bush was wrong about Putin just as he is misguided in nominating Harriet.
Last I checked Melanie Morgan IS an American citizen and that is who wrote the letter that this thread is about. Unless you have info. on Melanie I am not privvy to!?
If you randomly select a person from a phone book they would NOT have "proven conservative credentials" AND you would "know very little about her."
Make sense?
Sorry, but Bush has a pretty mixed record of appointing people to serve him. If you haven't noticed the Administration has devoted a great deal of time to discrediting former members of the Administration who criticize Bush/Cheney and obviously never agreed with their ideology or approach to governance.
At the end of the actual World Net Daily website where the article appeared they have 2 links related to Melanie Morgan:
and...
You can also "Google" her name...
Google Search on Melanie Morgan - CLICK HERE
Melanie's become one of the leading conservative grassroots leaders in the nation over the course of the past few years. She also started the Recall Gray Davis movement in California that led to the historic recall of California's Democrat Governor... the first time we recalled a statewide officer here in California IN HISTORY.
How encouraging."
I was talking about David Frum.
Maybe you would have a point if these talk show hosts had nominated Miers.
But they didn't, Bush did that. So if anyone has "undermined" Bush it's the President himself. And that's what is so sad about this. Bush shot himself in the foot and now the entire Administration is running around and trying to find an alibi for it... (our critics are elitist, our critics are sexist, our critics just don't know how much of an old-time-religion-evangelical she really is). No, the President just made an atrocious pick for what is perhaps the most important Supreme Court Justice pick of the last 25 years.
To me, the arrogance of the talkers and pundits is breathtaking.
But the delusion is hilarious. These bloviators actually think that they can influence the President into surrender on this nomination.
It took the MSM decades to get to that level of delusion -- and look where they are now.
So Tucker Carlson had come out againt her! Big news indeed! For some reason, the bow tie brigade - Tucker and George Will leading the pack - don't like this lady. What is it about her that irritates twits and twerps?
If they were discussing her fitness or unfitness AFTER the hearing, I might understand, but to do so NOW does not make what they say credible.
Have any of the potential candidates said they were not included in the 'please don't nominate me camp.'
I am opposed to Miers' nomination myself, but I have yet to read or hear that. Please point me in that direction if you could. I'd like to also forward that on to Melanie and a few others.
Yes, it's actually pretty funny because Melanie is Lee's sidekick IN SPITE of Jack Swanson serving as PD. Next time your out the California way and you see Melanie speaking at some GOP/conservative event you should talk to her afterwards. She's got a funny tale to tell of her life in broadcast circles, how she became a conservative, etc...
Her husband, by the way, is a Democrat I believe. And ABC is also interviewing replacement candidates for Jack's position as PD of KSFO. He would just be PD of KGO.
I call on Harriet Miers to STAND HER GROUND! Bump to support Harriet Miers!"
And as a fellow FReeper you are a welcome addition to the debate and discussion over Miers' nomination.
May I point out the problem of the argument you offer in defense of Miers which is the same as the supporters the Administration has trotted out to support Miers: THERE IS NO GOOD ARGUMENT TO SUPPORT HER NOMINATION.
The best argument, really, that has been offered is that Bush nominated her, he's our guy, and therefore we should give him the benefit of the doubt.
Other than that rationale, there isn't any objective standard by which one could come to support the nomination of Harriet Miers.
Not sure what alternate universe you're on Map, but calling attention to his job title as a speech writer is not a smear.
If you randomly select a person from a phone book they would NOT have "proven conservative credentials" AND you would "know very little about her."
Make sense?
Of course. Yet you don't understand that Harriet Miers wasn't "randomly selected from a phone book" by a guy who has known her for more than a decade.
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.