Posted on 10/14/2005 7:23:47 AM PDT by new yorker 77
You have no evidence at all that Miers is not 100% loyal to the constitution. You have no evidence that she will not decide cases in exactly the mold of Scalia and Thomas.
You have no evidence that Bush has abandoned his pledge to put constructionists on the bench. You have no evidence that Miers would rule from the bench.
You have a LACK of evidence good enough to convince you she WOULD be a good justice.
Don't confuse lack of evidence with evidence of lack. Those who know this nominee (there are many respected people who do) virtually all say she is a good nominee.
People like Frum want you to believe that there were two or three people involved in this, all of whom have a secret plan to screw the conservative movement, and somehow they have taken over the white house and forced Bush to pick a horrible nominee.
There is no evidence of that. The only thing so far that is "horrible" about the nominee is the loud wailing of the conservative pundantry stirring up a minority of the conservative base against her.
She is a highly qualified person who has the support of the President, who has known her for years. And the support of a wide range of people who also have known her for years, people we trust and respect.
She is not unqualified.
No. It's his call, and on the issue of judicial appointments, he's been solid for 4+ years. I trust him on the WOT and judicial nominations. I opposed his decision to sign CFR and impose steel tariffs.
Regarding politicians, I agree with Ed Koch: "If you agree with me on 9 of 12 issues, vote for me. If you agree on 12 of 12 issues, see a psychiatrist".
That's your evidence that the base supports this pick? So much for that challenge.
By the way, while I'm thinking about it, could you tell me why Miers is considered untrustworthy because she used to be a democrat, but no one questions Kristol or Krauthammer, who also used to be democrats?
A. They're not SCOTUS nominees. B. They've openly disavowed the Democrats by the public positions they've taken.
I'm not disagreeing with President Bush's constitutional right to do anything. Bush can appoint a street person and it's constitutional. That's not the issue.
Let me see if I can make this understandable -- if you worked for a company and you and many others did excellent work and when the time came for the big promotion, the boss gives the job to his daughter-in-law, how would you feel? Especially if no one had ever seen her do anything other than be married to the boss's son. And when you and others object, the boss calls you "elitist" and sexist. Do you think it would be good for office morale?
Does the boss have the right to promote anyone he wants to? YES. Is it a good idea? What do you thinnk?
No, I was saying that. I've been saying that in a lot of posts. Because he has been.
In other words, your side wants Bush to be more like Clinton.
Cheap shot. Ignorant. I want him to be LESS like Clinton. But go ahead: lie about my position anyway.
That says it all for me about your side.
Says what? That you expect to misrepresent your opponents' positions and get away with it? Get lost.
I've been among those critical of this nomination, but let's face it, if Miers is withdrawn President Bush isn't going to appoint any of our favorites (Brown, Luttig, Owen, etc.). We'll get another unknown stealth candidate or even an outright liberal.
When the president appointed John Roberts, who had little in the way of a paper trail, I assumed it was part of a strategy to lure the Democrats into self-destruction. Roberts seemed like a fellow who was solidly constitutionalist, but you couldn't prove it by his record. I assumed President Bush planned to disorient the Democrats with his first nominee and then nail them with a solid, experienced, strict constructionist on the next appointment. It would have made perfect strategic sense to save Brown, Owen, Jones, or Garza for the second vacancy. This would have forced the Democrats to either fold or go on national television attacking a clearly qualified woman or hispanic.
Instead, we find that President Bush is actually abiding by Chuck Schumer's demand not to appoint anyone on the Democrats' "no" list. They sent the president a list of candidates that they flat out would not accept, and twice now the president has carefully avoided appointing anyone from that list. All of our favorite judges were on that list, and I don't believe the president will appoint any of them. He's effectively given Schumer veto power over who he can send up. And he seems to fear Schumer a whole lot more than he fears us, so if Miers goes, look for the next nominee to be in the Souter or O'Connor mold.
It's a shame, but that's the situation the president put us in when he chose not to go to war with the Democrats over the Supreme Court. All we can do now is hope that Miers turns out to be a good judge, which she may. But don't expect Brown, Owen, or Luttig if there's a third vacancy during the president's term. Expect Gonzalez or someone acceptable to the Democrats.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, er Iraq, the whole country is voting for (gasp!) their first constitution in history which credit goes to yep, President Bush, who against all POLLS, critics, MSM, etc HAS KEPT HIS WORD to stay the course!
On the question of whether or not Harriet Miers is qualified, the only opinions that really matter are those of 100 Senators. And, so far, I haven't heard any say she's not qualified.
I'm not disagreeing with President Bush's constitutional right to do anything. Bush can appoint a street person and it's constitutional. That's not the issue.
Let me see if I can make this understandable -- if you worked for a company and you and many others did excellent work and when the time came for the big promotion, the boss gives the job to his daughter-in-law, how would you feel? Especially if no one had ever seen her do anything other than be married to the boss's son. And when you and others object, the boss calls you "elitist" and sexist. Do you think it would be good for office morale?
Does the boss have the right to promote anyone he wants to? YES. Is it a good idea? What do you think? And how would you feel if you owned stock in the company and hoped to have a pension someday? Some of us want the GOP to be strong for many years ... and this kind of cavalier pick is upsetting.
I for one would be seriousley pissed off, if the President Caves on this appointment. He didn't choose her by throwing a dart at a dart board full of names, but after careful and informed deliberation.
But he will not cave.
She's qualified as an attorney and advisor to the President. She MAY be qualified to serve as a Federal Judge. It is unlikely that I would oppose such an appointment, although I would prefer to see her in another judge position that is not an indefinite or lifetime term. However, she is not qualified to serve as an Associated Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States - the most powerful court in the most powerful nation in the world.
I'd be interested in seeing your list of notable conservatives who actively support her nomination.
I don't give a rat's behind how well she does before the committee. I already know enough about her to know she is not a reliable conservative, and once she gets a permanent, nearly unimpeachable sinecure atop our system of justice the chances that she'll become best buddies with and an ideological consort of Ruth Ginsberg are extremely high, much too high to risk taking.
She was a liberal Democrat until 1988, for cryin' out loud, when she was already 42 years old! She considers the conservative Federalist Society too politically tainted to join, but never said anything similar about her membership in the ultra-liberal ABA.
This woman is just a bureaucrat who skillfully got on Bush's good side by winning over his wife. By flattering the powerful, she played the power game very well. But that says nothing about what she truly believes in her heart about the law. Once she is fully free and safe to vote with her deepest beliefs, the odds are almost a slam-dunk that she will be shown to be just another wishy-washy liberal.
If she's not withdrawn, I will definitely admit that the administration is not showing any common sense. Satisfied?
Coulter was saying that President Bush should be more like clinton, which implies that President Bush is different from clinton.
She said nothing about President Bush actually being anything at all like clinton. This flies against your fantasy that President Bush is merely a clinton.
There certainly is on Free Republic. If someone isn't a conservative, then what the heck are they doing on the premiere conservative forum on the Internet!?
What "conservative principles" are in play when a candidate for the supreme court is lied about continually in the hopes of getting her name withdrawn so we can have our "preferred" nominee?
What great conservative principle says that a president has no right to a hearing on a nominee for the Supreme Court?
What principle of conservatism leads people to oppose a person for what they don't know yet about her?
I am a conservative. I recognize little of "conservative principle" in attacks by Laura Ingraham, or Ann Coulter, or George Will, or David Frum, or Bill Kristol.
I understand and respect those who say we should reject a nominee because we don't know enough to be sure they will be a strong and lifetime advocate of judicial restraint.
So, argue that point. But don't say that is what the anti-miers people are doing. Go and read the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, or any other newspaper in america. Go read what they are reporting the argument against Miers is.
1) She's a close friend of Bush (OK, but how does that make her unqualified)?
2) She was only picked because she was a woman (OK, but how does that make her unqualified?)
3) The White house called us names (OK, but how does that make Harriet Miers unqualified)
4) The White House said she was religious (OK, but how does that make her unqualified)
I asked what proved she was unqualified, and I got 3 answers that were all lies and innuendo.
If I could jump in a time machine, and go back and advise the president, I would recommend against this nomination.
But he did it, and we have to deal with it. And if the argument was "We have serious doubts about the qualifications of Miers to be a good justice, one who will faithfully interpret the constitution according to the principles we believe in", I wouldn't be arguing. I have doubts, and wait to see the hearings.
But the arguments used by her opponents are exactly the kind of baseless, take-things-out-of-context, personal cheap foul attacks that we always rightly chastise the left for. We see that here on this thread, and on this board. "She gave money to Clinton, she supports radical feminism, she is a double-agent for the democrats, she is a clueless hack who only got where she is because she is a kiss-up"
I had hoped that at the LEAST we could agree that baseless personal attacks on the character of a nominee is out-of-bounds. We already hear that potential nominees are turning down appointments because the left will use personal destruction to stop them. Now we see that there is a rabid conservative contingent that will do the same. With "friends" like these, who needs enemies.
People here who never met the woman have called her the devil. They should be ashamed, but instead they whine about the adminstration calling them names, as if they are not guilty as sin.
Who is Hariet Miers?
Keyes? Alan Keyes? You think HE should have a say in who gets on the supreme court?
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.