Posted on 10/14/2005 11:52:28 AM PDT by Stellar Dendrite
Stephen G. Peroutka, chairman of the board of governors for the National Pro-Life Action Center (NPLAC), issued the following statement calling for the withdrawal of Harriet Miers' nomination as associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States:
"The time has come for President Bush to realize and accept that his nomination of Harriet Miers to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court was ill-advised and he should withdraw her nomination. With 45 million children's lives lost to abortion, the stakes are simply too high to gamble on another 'stealth' candidate. If the president remains reluctant to take this step, then NPLAC believes that Ms. Miers should then remove herself from this process.
"The president promised to nominate Scalia- and Thomas-like justices, but there is simply no evidence that he has honored this promise. Adding insult to injury, President Bush, the first lady and their emissaries have resorted to infantile attacks upon conservative opposition to Miers by pretending that the opposition is some form of latent sexism. This is not only insulting to conservatives, but to the collective intellect of the American people, and we implore the president to put an end to this petty tactic.
"It is absurd to accuse a movement that has supported the efforts of great women like Margaret Thatcher and Phyllis Schlafly, and championed the cause of judges like Edith Jones and Janice Rogers Brown of chauvinism.
"Criticism of the president's choice has nothing to do with the fact that Ms. Miers is a woman and has everything to do with feeling betrayed by the president. Much has been written about the high value this president places on loyalty, but loyalty is not a one-way street and pro-family conservatives are now asking for it from this president.
"Harriet Miers may well be a phenomenal lawyer who is pro-life and devoutly Christian, but the fact is, we will never know because of the flawed nature of the modern confirmation process. By adopting the 'Ginsberg cloak of silence,' the Administration has ensured that the American people will never truly know the judicial temperament of Ms. Miers or any other potential nominee. Pro-lifers can no longer accept this lowering of the bar.
"We must fix this process by realizing that there is nothing to be gained by concealing a nominee's judicial philosophy and temperament. Following this practice has led to nothing but repeated disappointment for those seeking to return constitutionality to the Supreme Court and put an end to the plague of abortion."
No. She was picked by the Democrats - they'll vote for her. There enough 'Pubbie Kool-aid drinkers to carry the rest through. She get to the hearings, she's in.
What brand tinfoil do you use?
Sure. I'll support his excessive spending, his idiotic stance on immigration and border control, and... Well, no, I won't.
He never had my unreserved support. Mostly, he was just "Bad" to Gore and Kerry's "Worse."
Nope. It rightly belongs to the States and the People, not the Federal Government.
I'm afraid the hearings will be a circus and make Bush look like an idiot for appointing her. You don't appoint someone to the Supreme Court because she's a fine Christian woman. She should withdraw now because she's hurting the Presidnet and knows full well she's not qualified.
"What brand tinfoil do you use?"
What flavor of kool aid do you drink?
"Reid Urged Miers Selection"
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/10/3/112632.shtml
It's a tiny coterie of thousands, including 95% of the conservative pundits. A massive Putsch by a small group of whiners.
Didn't you know that only elitists and sexists use gold foil?
Stategery. Ye of little faith. Wouldn't be the first time W has outsmarted the Democrats.
You must be talking surplus NASA stuff. That's hardcore.
I don't understand why the pro-lifers are against her too.
Her politically motivated campaign contributions not whithstanding, the abortion issue is the one (the only one) I tend to believe in her on.
""Harriet Miers may well be a phenomenal lawyer who is pro-life and devoutly Christian, but the fact is, we will never know because of the flawed nature of the modern confirmation process. By adopting the 'Ginsberg cloak of silence,' the Administration has ensured that the American people will never truly know the judicial temperament of Ms. Miers or any other potential nominee. Pro-lifers can no longer accept this lowering of the bar."
Exactly why those who are still on the sidelines will learn nothing about Miers from the hearings. They will have to wait to see how she votes. By then, of course, it will be too late to keep her from her lifetime appointment.
I do not care about her religion or her politics. There are several top notch nominees that have a record of being originalists. What evidence do you have that Harriet is an originalist? Unless such evidence can be provided, I will continue to oppose her.
Well said, and right you are. Can the US Congress make a law protecting the unborn from being killed?
65 percent of the people on THIS forum, one of the MOST conservative on the web, want her either confirmed OR at least given a hearing.
"Stategery. Ye of little faith. Wouldn't be the first time W has outsmarted the Democrats."
that kool aid must taste really good!
first you said that it wasnt the democrats that didnt suggest her, and i showed you a link in which harry reid had done so. now that the evidence was presented, you say that its "strategery".
what else was "strategery" here? to call the base a bunch of sexists and elitists like ed gillespie did? to nominate someone who supported affirmative action and the creation of a "women's studies" lecture series in the late 90s, but claim she's a "conservative"? to claim her evangelical status, but at the same time tout her employment at a LOTTERY?
whoops-- "you said it wasn't the democrats that suggested her" was what i meant to say in that paragraph
And if she bombs, what do you propose?
What papers, reports, etc. have you read of hers that shows the above? What do you base that on besides what the WH or their spinners have said?
She probably won't turn out to be a Scalia or a Thomas. But there is no evidence she will turn out to be another Stephens, O'Conner or a Souter either.
And therein lies the problem. Nobody knows (except trust me)so why should we take the chance when there are so many KNOWN Scalia/Mold conservatives out there?
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.