Posted on 10/14/2005 7:23:47 AM PDT by new yorker 77
I was listening to the John Batchelor Program on WABC Radio in New York last night.
He commented on the process that went into nominating Miers and added that the likelyhood of her nomination withdrawn has grown.
It has grown from 5% last week, to 30% end of last week, to 50% beginning of this week, to 75% last night.
Fund was on the program to comment on his op-ed piece:
How She Slipped Through Harriet Miers's nomination resulted from a failed vetting process.
Thursday, October 13, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT Link: http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/
He weakened himself by firing Michael Brown for no reason other than media and liberal scrutiny. Then, he compounded that mistake by making this idiotic decision on the nomination.
Its obvious that Bush haters are piling everything on him they can, but he's done enough himself to create enough problems. He needs to cut and run from this, and fast.
You seem to think you're quite clever by insisting for hard evidence to "make her unqualified." But of course you're challenge is entirely beside the point. Due to a lifetime obsession with hiding her real beliefs, no one is armed with hard evidence about her positions on matters of public import, not even, I would suggest, the president.
But the inferential evidence (e.g, her dissing of the Federalist Society), the only evidence of this mediocre candidate available, all points to the LEFT, not the right. She gauged which way the wind was blowing in Texas and suddenly became a "conservative" only when her career depended on it, not before. She has never taken a public stand on principal, a shocking indication of her go-along-to-get-along character, but, and this in recent years, she has been influential behind the scenes in setting up programs which honored the likes of Gloria Steinhem.
I first heard of this woman on Sept 29th. I'm sure you never heard of her before that either. But it's not only the the rank-and-file who've never heard of her, outside her law firm almost no one in her profession had heard of her before that either! She is an utter mediocrity who would never had been thought of by anyone to be a Supreme Court Justice had she not been Laura Bush's pal. And that's just wrong. Those who compare her to Sandra Day O'Connor don't know what they're talking about. O'Connor was first in her class at Stanford, a successful politician, a former holder of public office and a respected associate of an already sitting Justice when she was nominated by Reagan. Her name had been on the list for years. NOBODY --- except Laura Bush --- ever had Miers on any list even for a Federal judgeship, let alone for the most important judicial panel in the country.
Brownback has said it well: "Harriet Miers doesn't have that track record and doesn't seem to be well-formed in her judicial philosophy, having never being on the bench.
"And over a period of time - and this is the second point of what is going on - [justices] that have been appointed by a Republican president have tended to veer to the left over a period of time if they are not well formed in their judicial philosophy."
Miers is too great risk. This miserable nomination must be withdrawn.
You missed the part about Miers NOT being charged with a crime, that this is not a court of law, and that she is not innocent until proven guilty. It is HER responsibility to prove to everyone that she is qualified to serve as an Associated Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.
I'm not calling for her scalp (another FReeper accused me of that) or to be lynched or even to be hurt in any way. She can keep her job in the White House. No one is accusing her of anything except for bad judgement in that she didn't say to the President, "Mr. President, let's be serious. Let's look at that short list again and get a real nominee." Looking at her record and questioning her qualifications is nowhere close to lynching her.
That was Rosie O'Donnel, not Barr, just to set the record straight- notwithstanding the fact that it all boils down to three hundred pounds of one or three hundred and one pounds of the other.
Getting the most qualified person for the job, is all that I am arguing for TAdams. How do you propose we do that without this Lady appearing publically before the Judiciary Committee?
You just have to go with the best evidence...The trouble with Miers is there is no evidence. Because Due Diligence has failed us in the past is not an excuse. In the case of some past appointments my opnion is the President at the time did not properly vet and in others where there was a clear record the Sentators looked the otherway. None of that says we should not continue to try to identify acceptable candidates and complain when there is such a lack of evidence as in this case..I gues one thing that troubles me most is Bush himself has not been able to give us anything but platitudes to recommend his own choice. Where's the Beef here? We must agree to disagree.
"Normal" people don't have the hubris to walk around pretending to care about the Constitution, then ignore that great document when it suits their purpose. "Normal" people don't throw a hissy fit when their version of who is and who is not qualified for the Supreme Court doesn't agree with the Constitutional provisions as to who gets to make that determination. "Normal" people are usually willing to wait for hearings before rushing to judgement and insisting that a nominee withdraw before she has had an opportunity to speak for herself. "Normal" people are not afraid of allowing a nominee to exercise their Constitutional right of free speech.
You hope that he gets even more vindictive of his poor little bruised ego so it can be smacked down again? My, you have high hopes for our public servants.
As I pointed out to the last person who didn't pay attention to what I actually wrote, no. I'm the vindictive one, not GWB. What part of "In fact, I would hope that the President would nominate Alberto Gonzalez should Ms. Miers withdraw," do you not understand?
You just can't get the point.....or maybe you just don't wan't to get it.
The President has already looked at the short list and he chose Harriet Miers. Why the h*ll would he look at the short list again before the Judiciary Committee has given her the opportunity to show it why she is the right choice for the job? Whoever he had picked, some jackasses would be having tantrum fits and holding their breath until they are blue in the face. This isn't kindergarten games here, it's important business.
"We must agree to disagree."
LOL! At last, something we both can agree on.
"Daughter-in-law" - and it was a way to help another freeper empathize with a difficult situation. Please read the original ... again?
LOL! We Repubs do have a bad habit of eating our own. Maybe the only reason the Dems don't do the same is because all of them are so distasteful.
She should withdraw.
These hearings are little more than a Kabuki dance anyway. 17 minutes of questions/speeches, 3 minutes of non-answers. Roberts won confirmation by showing those "Senators" that all of them put together were not as smart as he. Now we shall see if he is really a constitutionalist, or just the smartest guy in the room.
As far as I'm concerned, one stealth nomination is more than enough.
Because, on further advisement, he realized what a gross error the appointment was in the first place.
Whoever he had picked, some jackasses would be having tantrum fits and holding their breath until they are blue in the face. This isn't kindergarten games here, it's important business.
Who, exactly, other than the Democrat scum in the Senate, would have tantrum fits if the nomination was Janice Rogers Brown? Even they can't complain to much as they approved her nomination to the U.S. Circuit Court earlier.
Of all the talking points of the pro-Miers crowd, this has got to be the lamest. Where do you imagine that the Constitution is being violated? Please quote the actual section.
So Bush nominates Miers and we proceed to tear each other apart. I'm mad that you won't understand my idealism, and you're mad that I won't understand your pragmatism. And so we call each other names and act like...well, Democrats.
And so, here we are. Either let the nomination proceed and hope we don't get "Soutered" again, or withdraw the nomination and hurt our joint cause even more than we've already done.
In the end, I think we're all gonna lose no matter what path we choose. Alienate a reasonably small group of us, and we're going to lose elections. Damage ourselves by withdrawing Miers and we're going to lose elections. And as much as I hate to say it, this time it really is Bush's fault...
You understand this issue - and those of us hurting from it. Thanks for your comments -- they help.
LOL! Unfortunately, that is true.
When I laughed, I could hear the pain in my voice.
When this fight is over people like you - people like me -- and others of good will - will have to reach out to each other. We can't let this tear us apart. On the issue of the appointment, you and I will have to agree to disagree, but I appreciate your understanding and look forward to being friends in conservatism.
He knows that's it's suicida to put her ont he court and that the people that oppose her are much more passionate than the people that defende her. The defenders, if she doesn't get on the court, will recover quickly. For the opposers, her longterm presence on the court will be an unhealable wound.
...the most likely... was that it was for career reasons.
Great ending. All 3 paragraphs were excellent.
...the most likely... was that it was for career reasons.
Great ending. All 3 paragraphs were excellent.
The Constitution is SILENT as to judicial qualifications. There are none. Zero. Nada. Demanding this or that qualification is extra-Constitutional. Nominees for the federal bench, including the SCOTUS, don't even have to be lawyers.
However, there are qualifications specified for president, vice president, senators and U.S representatives. The Founders consciously and deliberately left the decision as to any individual nominee's qualifications entirely up to the President of the United States, with the advice and consent of the Senate.
Presidents gets to proactively say via their nominations, "This is a person I think would uphold the Constitution and laws of our land." Senators get to say, via their votes, "I agree," or "I disagree."
Furthermore, until ratification of the 17th Amendment, senators were agents of their home states. They were not elected directly by the people. So when the Founders deliberately left all decisions regarding federal judicial nominations to the president, with the advice and consent of the senate, they placed such decisions in the hands of the nation's chief executive and the several states, not in the hands of the general population.
Those who are yammering about Ms. Miers' (or any nominee's) qualifications either are ignorant of these points, or choose to ignore them.
Check it out for yourself:
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.