Posted on 10/14/2005 12:38:54 PM PDT by 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).
We are talking about the Supreme Court, where the clear majority of Republican appointments have ended up liberal.
If a Republican is defined by the Kamikazi wing of the party then the 90% of the party is RINO.
However I believe if one calls himself a Republican and supports its candidates he is a Republican. Now you don't call yourself one do you? I have never seen you approve of anything the party does.
Only Souter and Stevens can be accurately called Liberal and neither nominating president was a strong conservative. Sandy and Kennedy were moderate conservatives by most reckoning.
Reinquist, Thomas and Scalia are clearly conservative. So the "majority" are not liberal. Just <30%. In my estimation the probability that Miers will join the gruesome twosome is much lower than that.
Makes a lot of sense.
"You have given nothing to refute merely gibs and attempts to insult. Neither are significant."
If you don't like insults then quite insulting. It's a simple f'n thing. All you do is label people of principle with perjoratives such as...Ultra Ultras, the Antis....(a typical liberal elitist attack btw.
When you cease these Democrat type of attacks maybe somebody will take you seriously.
But then your a newbie to FR.. since you've been taking it since about the time Bush stumbled into office nationally.. and started breaking stuff..
Thomas was on the DC Circuit Court for 19 months before his nomination. He was a graduate of Yale Law school and had held several different positions within the Reagan administration including head of EEOC. He had also written and spoken publically on constitutional issues. To claim Miers has more experience is ludicrous.
Oh, just the one that practically single handedly kept the onerous equal rights amendment form being passed. That is one reason she is one of the most popular conservatives.
>>>Kinda funny until you realize, this is how they regard us.<<<
I don't support the Meirs nomination; but you could make a much more extensive list of Clinton's cronies.
FTR, Clinton's FEMA Director had very little experience in emergency management. He was an Arkansas judge when Clinton nominated him to head AR emergency management; and he became the FEMA director with no prior FEMA experience, and very little experience in Arkansas. Brown, on the other hand, had emergency management experence in Oklahoma; and FEMA experience in subordinate positions prior to becoming director. Further, Witt held a cabinet position with more authority than Brown, who held a sub-cabinet position.
Those claiming Brown had no experience prior to Katrina are, literally, Stuck on Stupid. He managed 164 federally declared disasters prior to Katrina, including several major hurricane disasters. And any objective person would know that FEMA's performance after Katrina was limited by the first-response performance of the state and local governments.
It does make some difference, I agree, but not much. The collective judgement of a large number of people will usually be more accurate than that of a small number. Miers would not have been included in the pool of candidates selected by any large group of conservatives. Bush selected her by himself. In the case of the Reagan and Bush Sr. “trust me” nominations, I’ll guess (no time to research it) that the number of people involved in deciding the nominees was pretty low, too.
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.
Thomas’s personal story is, to me, far more impressive than Miers’s. It is that personal story, demonstrating his own personal excellence, that (to me, anyway) helped qualify him to sit on the court. Certainly, he was nominated in part because he was black, but it was far from the only reason.
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?
The base speaks for itself, here on FR and many other forums. It includes antis, pros, and wait & sees. A different nominee could have kept these groups united. The Miers nomination divided them.
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.
Of course my Doctrine of Presidential Infallibility is silly. So is Bush’s notion that his personal judgment about a long time pal should outweigh the collective judgements of conservatives who would never have counted Miers in the pool of qualified candidates. I made no claim that the judgments of the group are infallible, just that they are as good as it is likely to get. As for “so vague as to be undefinable,” I think that Miers current weakness in the polls as compared to Roberts is defining the problem fairly well.
As for the hearings…
I don’t trust the hearings to tell us enough about the candidate. Both sides have too many reasons to throw her softballs. A solid resume would be MUCH more convincint than a good set of confirmation hearings.
If she shines, that will be certainly be better than the alternative, which would probably include the revolting experience of having to listen to Teddy Kennedy say things that I agree with. The press would be vicious, and it would damage the party. All for no good reason.
Besides, putting so much weight on the hearings puts an unreasonable amount of pressure on the candidate. If she does poorly, it might not reflect her ability to handle the job. I do not trust a job interview to reveal much beyond how an applicant does on handling the stress of a job interview.
While it is not clear exactly what you are trying to say and the coherent statement is wrong (since I am no newbie) my statement stands unrefuted.
If you include yourself under those labels you have only yourself to blame. I accused you of nothing and did not initiate the insults which don't concern me in any event.
Any Anti should not mind going by that label since that is what they are. But Reality is probably a huge insult to you.
I am fully aware of Thomas' background and have been a firm supporter of him from day one. But he has no significant experience superior to Miers' and not as varied either. Hers has just been more in the private sector rather than government. Most conservatives around FR then to deprecate government work hence CT should not measure as highly.
If I recall the Hearings accurately his judicial experience was not a point of interest for his attackers or defenders.
I do not agree that the judgment of a large number of people is more accurate than that of an individual. In the case of judicial appointments Hamilton explicitly refuted that argument in Federalist 76. Bush nominated Souter on Sununu's vouching for him.
Your comment on Thomas I agree with but there were things in his past which opponents could have dragged out as they have with Miers. Certainly being actively involved with Black Militant takeovers at college is more serious than a couple of campaign contributions to Gore when he was still somewhat rational (or gave the appearance of being so.)
I do not agree that the "base" speaks for itself. Rather there are many self-appointed spokesmen. Had there been any nominee other than one of the anointed there would have been upset as there was with Roberts whom Ann C. would have rather seen replaced by a kid still in Law School.
It is not Bush's "notion that his personal judgment" is superior to that of his critics, it is the US Constitution's notion. And it is the Hearings which are the constitutional method of approval so they are all we have and all the Founders made available (through the Senate).
I am not concerned that Miers will not do well. She has many years of experience dealing with high pressure and has always acquitted herself well therein.
"Any Anti should not mind going by that label since that is what they are."
If your going to lecture people, as you did on logical reasoing, try to avoid circular reasoning like your latest sophmoric statement.
While you might like a different name this one is appropriate. There are Pros, Undecided and Antis.
He can depend on Harriet.
"The Miers nomination isn't about abortion at all. It's about putting somebody on the court who will protect the legacy Bush cares about most: the expansion of presidential power during the war on terrorism"
He can depend on Harriet.
I see. So, being more conservative than Bush means I'm not conservative? This isn't a basketball game.
Just shortsighted. Those who are concerned about America's future need to rally around the President who is under unparalleled attack from enemies foreign and domestic because of his fight against international terrorism. Weakening him weakens conservative principles of patriotism.
Lincoln faced the same hatred fueled by the RATs of his day but at least he had no real opposition from the rest of the world. Our allies today are just a few. Bush does not need unprincipled attacks upon him.
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.