Questions About Miers That Bush Needs to Answer

Human Events Online ^ | 10-14-05 | Schlafly, Phyllis

[Theodore R.]

Questions About Miers that Bush Needs to Answer by Phyllis Schlafly Posted Oct 14, 2005

If John G. Roberts' confirmation hearing is any guide, we won't learn anything from Harriet Miers' confirmation hearing. So here are some questions we would like President Bush to answer.

You said, "Trust me." But why should we trust you when experience proves we could not trust the judgment of President Reagan (who gave us Justices O'Connor and Kennedy) or President George H.W. Bush (who gave us Justice Souter)? Are you more trustworthy than Reagan or your father?

You said, "She's not going to change.... 20 years from now she'll be the same person, with the same philosophy, that she is today." Isn't that claim ridiculous after Miers already made a major change in her philosophy from Democrat (giving personal contributions in the 1980s (when she was age 43) to Al Gore, Lloyd Bentsen and the Democratic National Committee's campaign to elect Michael Dukakis), to Republican in the 1990s (contributing to George W. Bush and others)?

Do you understand why Bush supporters are upset that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (who voted against Chief Justice Roberts) said he recommended her, while you rejected the recommendations of people who supported you?

Since your supporters voted for you to change the direction of the Supreme Court away from activism and toward constitutionalism, do you understand their sense of betrayal that your two appointments have failed to do that: Roberts for Rehnquist was a non-change, and Miers for O'Connor can reasonably be expected to be another non-change?

When President Clinton appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg, it was clear from her paper trail that she was a radical feminist who would surely vote to keep abortion legal. Why do you insult your supporters who expected you to give us a justice who would be the ideological opposite of Ginsburg?

In presenting Miers as the most qualified person for this Supreme Court appointment, is there any evidence to convince us that she is more qualified than Judges Edith Jones, Janice Rogers Brown, or Priscilla Owen?

Since many prominent pro-choice officials belong to churches that are anti-abortion, such as John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, and Condoleezza Rice, why should we believe Miers is pro-life because that's the position of the church she attends?

And why are Miers' advocates constantly talking about her religion anyway? Is her religion a qualification for office?

Since your wife, your mother, and all the women you have appointed to high office (such as Condoleezza Rice and RNC Co-Chairman Jo Ann Davidson) oppose overturning Roe v. Wade, how can we assume Miers will be any different?

Do you really think that serving on the Texas Lottery Commission helps the resume of a Supreme Court nominee?

Miers is a corporate attorney who served on the Dallas City Council as a representative of the business community. Can you provide any evidence that she or the business community cares about the social issues that conservatives care about such as the definition of marriage, the Pledge of Allegiance, the Ten Commandments, the Boy Scouts, abortion, euthanasia, or the sovereignty issues?

Why do you tout Miers' activity in the American Bar Association when most conservatives regard ABA influence as a negative rather than a positive?

Do you really think that pro-lifers will be convinced that Miers is pro-life because in 1989 she bought a $150 ticket to a dinner which 30 other Dallas politicians attended in order to be introduced?

Since Miers hasn't written anything memorable or important by age 60, how can we assume she has the capability to write Supreme Court opinions? Is there any constitutional or conservative principle on which Miers ever took a stand?

Since Souter, after one pro-life vote in his first term on the Court, was ridiculed by the press as "a black hole" from which no opinions emerged, then "grew" left to avoid the scorn of the media, aren't you concerned that Miers (who has never written anything on constitutional issues) would suffer the same fate?

Since O'Connor demonstrated her lack of judicial philosophy by unpredictably switching back and forth, so that the media praised her as the most powerful woman in America, aren't you concerned that Miers' lack of judicial philosophy would take her down the same path?

Why do you offend traditional women by choosing Miers, who helped create and raise funds for a radical feminist lecture series at Southern Methodist Law School that featured as speakers Gloria Steinem, Patricia Schroeder, Susan Faludi, and Ann Richards? What role did Miers play in White House pro-feminist policies about Title IX and women in combat?

Since Miers' chief qualification for high office is that she is your lawyer, aren't you worried about unfortunate parallels between her and Lyndon B. Johnson's appointment of his personal lawyer, Abe Fortas?

Mrs. Schlafly is the author of the new book The Supremacists: The Tyranny of Judges and How to Stop It (Spence Publishing Co).

[Leonine]

Calling a statement of fact an argument indicates you have no knowledge of logic. We can add that to the other areas of which you seem to have no knowledge: history, politics.

Who are you fooling? Stop attacking this man with intimidation. Of course you were trying to persuade (argue) by demonstrating that your opposition is ignorant--ignorant of how long it will take to tell if Miers is strongly conservative. You are wrong. You think it will take years instead of months. When sarcasm followed, you went ape. Your rudeness is getting worse by the post. I am a mathematician. Will you accuse me of difficulty with logic?

[ken5050]

I'd like to go slightly off topic, and come at the question froma different perspective...why did W choose Miers, when so many other good candidates were available...

I believe that the WH had been preparing hard for probable SC vacancies...expecting ther'd have two soon..the vetting had been done, and W, because he has a decisive management style, had decided on his two nominees..

Let's say that at the last minute, the weekend before the nomination was announced..that person backed out. Here are three possible reasons why..

1. They did not want to go through the whole ungly confirmation and background process..

2. Something in their record came up at the last minute

3. They felt that Roberts would be a very hard act to follow, so they chose not to do so...

So, the WH felt that they had to stay on pace..they could NOT wait another few weeks to search out another name..so Miers stepped up to the plate..to fill the void..

[badgerlandjim]

Holy Crap!! Miers wrote that gibberish? That should be required reading for every one of her defenders. Maybe one of them can interpret what she said and explain it to us. LOL.

[Leonine]

Addendum to post 122: Perhaps you did not understand that the sarcasm points up the fact that Miers is largely an unknown quantity (years away from knowing the outcome). The best we can do as Freepers who enjoy disquisiting about politics is to constrain the likely outcome as one constrains an unknown infinite series between known ones. The methodologies of those who are concerned about Miers have been far more effective on the whole than the "just trust him" approach precisely because they are logical.

[TChad]

those opposed to Miers are both clamoring how she is an unknown, and then almost in the same breath say she's gonna be another O'Conner. Can't have it both ways, folks.

People have been forced to make their best guesses about Miers based on extremely limited information. The fears are based on uncertainty, not certainty.

[Theodore R.]

No, Phyllis spoke out immediately when the nomination was announced. She did not wait for George Will to give her the cue.

[Oliver Optic]

Schafly is no hero in any sense.

She is in my book.

She almost singlehandedly derailed the Equal Rights Amendment ... think of the playground that would have been for activist judges all these years.

She was named one of the 100 most important women of the 20th century by the Ladies' Home Journal.

Moderately interesting, indeed.

[TChad]

Only those deliberately seeking to obscure the differences in these nominations and that of Miers OR those who know nothing of the actual facts would believe that is a good point.

Well, feel free to elaborate. I am aware that Bush personally knows Miers much better than Reagan and Bush Sr. knew their nominees. Is that everything? If so, it's not enough.

It seems to me that my Schlafly quote just points out that good conservative presidents have, using their best judgment, selected bad SCOTUS nominees. Clearly, we should not rely on any Doctrine of Presidential Infallibility.

So, what would improve our odds at getting better nominees?

We Miers detractors have a solution: The president should pick a candidate whose personal excellence and conservative qualifications have been proven over many years by their public work. Scalia and Thomas were chosen this way, and they have mostly worked out well. Roberts was chosen this way. The method seems to give good results. Moreover, it has kept the conservative base involved, intact, and enthusiastic. By examining his record we could all see for ourselves why John Roberts so richly deserved the nomination. The more we researched him, the better he looked. His hearings just confirmed what we already knew, and the Democrats didn’t lay a hand on him. The process worked. When something works, don't fix it.

Bush tried another solution. He picked a candidate whose qualifications had been proven primarily to him personally. The base was excluded. The more we researched, the more we learned that there was nothing to be learned. While Miers might eventually make a fine justice, the uncertainties surrounding her nomination, and the way in which she was chosen, have (predictably) set the base at each other's throats. It is a political disaster. It may have consequences that will far outweigh any good that Miers could do on the court. The discredited Doctrine of Presidential Infallibility now looks even more flawed, yet it remains the pro-Miers camp's main talking point.

And yes, thanks, I do know that the choice is Bush's alone, that the Senate vote is the only vote that counts, and that Bush has no legal obligation to explain his choice to anyone.

[hosepipe]

[ Your comments make no sense. VOTERS elect people not the GOP. And if the majority of the party are "rinos" then there is no such thing as "rinos" ]

The GOP are people.. People that vote... and those people elect RINOs mostly.. therefore the people those people are mostly RINOs..

(shining fingernails) shut up and take that.. d;-)~

[hosepipe]

[ I would wildly speculate that %40 or more of the GOP is RINO. But what choice have the voters had? ]

Justshutupandtakeit(a freeper) specifies and postulates that if most of the republican party are RINOs then there is no such thing as RINOS..

WHAT A CONCEPT.!!!.. I agree.. A real republican just might be a MYTH...
Making those for a free republic, with a (R) by their name, not republicans at all but stealth democrats outraged by obscene large scale government largess and instead hope and vote for obscene small scale government largess.. He does have a point..

[OESY]

I think you've nailed it. Miers met the basic criteria for this nomination: a conservative woman lawyer of some prominence who thoroughly knew the vetting process and the questions senators asked. Reid's recommendation promised as smooth a ride through the confirmation process as Bush could hope for. He wasn't anxious to have a long drawn out fight that may have caused others on the "A" list to decline his offer to nominate.

Bush probably figured he was gambling with whomever he picked, and would probably have another chance to fill a SCOTUS vacancy during his term, so why not delay the true blue strict constructionist until he rebounded in the polls rather than further weakening the success of his agenda. To an extent, it's the half loaf now to get the rest later when he was stronger. Very parliamentarian.

Unfortunately, he totally misjudged the reaction of his base who have seen so many other opportunities go awry in the past. This was our one chance to correct many of the social ills that afflict America -- often protected if not promoted by judges who are aggressively pressing their vision of America from the last federal bastion of Liberalism.

Schumer is behaving like a cornered animal because he knows he's in a fight for the survival of his ideas and his party. He won't be satisfied unless Bush nominates another ACLU General Counsel like Ginsburg, but he's content to let Republicans do his dirty work -- for now.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I am a strong Constitutionalist.

Republicans must run acommodating the electorate in the states which are to elect them. This means some will be more or less conservative in emphasis according to the electorate they are expected to represent. Giuliani would not get elected in Georgia nor Saxby Chambliss in NY. Both can be useful in national GOP politics.

You should not expect to approve of every Republican since they are not responsive to you but to those who elect them.

[justshutupandtakeit]

You have given nothing to refute merely gibs and attempts to insult. Neither are significant.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Lol what a funny sense of what "going ape" is I have treated all of you with kid gloves and barely unleashed scorn and ridicule merely a few luke warm gibes. There are bigger knock down drag outs in kindergarten.

Your mathematical abilities apparently give you no particular insight into these matters. And the arguments against Miers don't ADD up to anything. They sum to a big zero.

The poor schlep you feel should be defended has done nothing but attempt to insult me so spare your concern.

[justshutupandtakeit]

What is logical is to allow the constitutional process to work itself out. The Constitution gives the power of nomination to the President and the Senate must give its approval.

Thus, the power to do anything is in the hands of the Senate. You only have slightly more influence in this than you have over who will be the coach of the Chicago Bears.

And if you believe the opposition as seen around here or as exists among the most radical elements of the GOP has sufficient weight to change the minds of the Senators then I suggest you are wrong. The only opposition to her will come from the radical left wing of the RATs.

If you want to ally yourself with it don't expect many to believe you are conservative.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I have appreciated some of the things she has done but reserve the term to a higher application.

[Arizona Carolyn]

I think we American's do have input in this. through our representation. Unfortunately the President is not standing for re-election while most of our senators are. One of the driving forces in many of our minds in the last two elections was the Supreme Court and the type of person we were told the Candidate believed should be on the court.

Harriet Miers may be a very nice lady. I just don't think she was the best possible choice (as we are being told she is). Granted she is already 60 years old, and may not be there for long, but who will be President when she retires?

[justshutupandtakeit]

You still haven't quite stumblend into coherency but keep trying you are almost there.

[justshutupandtakeit]

She is trying to create the impression that there is an identity there which there is not. Neither of those presidents had any personal knowledge of their candidates. It makes a gigantic difference. Sufficient to invalidate the point she tries to establish. Those Presidents relied upon the judgments of others not their own THAT was the problem. A problem that does not exist wrt Bush and Miers.

Thomas did not have the experience that Miers has and certainly had no overwhelmingly impressive vita which resulted in much criticism of the nomination including claims that the only reason he was nominated was because he was Black. Or that he could only get approved because the RATS would be afraid to defeat him being Black. This is the similiarity between Miers and Thomas which is most applicable.

How does this mechanism of approval by the base which you believe was bound to obtain work? Who speaks for this base?
The Antis? or the other 70% of the primer conservative site on the web?

There has been no infallibility claimed asking one to trust the President in no way implies he is infallible that is just silly but you are claiming the same infallibility for a base opinion which is so vague as to be undefinable.

The main talking point of the anti-Antis is to let the process go forward into the Hearings. Most of us believe Miers will show there is no problem. But I suspect there are some who won't be happy no matter what.