Questions About Miers That Bush Needs to Answer

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).

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.

Your weak and absurd personal attack against me implying that I am unpatriotic and unprincipled will now be laid to rest. In addition, I will demonstrate your distinctly compromising shortsightedness and the danger therein of losing the future to the DemWits.

On the war against radical Islam, Bush has done a fine job. So far, on taxes he has done an outstanding job. On the U.N.'s utopian nonsense, he has alternated between fair and poor, in spite of unleashing Bolton to cleanse and thus shore up respect for this consistently anti-American enormity.

On the border, he has been worse than the Democrats, and I will believe Chertoff's words only when accompanied by sustained and longterm action. With Congress' help, he has swelled the government beyond any Socialist's wildest hopes. On spending, again with Congress' assistance, he has been horrible--even worse than Johnson--while yet excluding defense spending. Printing all this paper will, of course, bring disastrous inflation when the private owners of the Fed are ready to harvest; and who will the people elect then but populist kook or Fabian Democrats?

You seem to view politics as a professional team sport where, indeed, it does not matter who plays on the team as long as the team is winning. Even if this is your realpolitik, recall that conservatism works on all levels. Hence, not practicing conservatism will lead to failures as history itself attests; and, the problem of inflation gutting the economy will be just one problem among many that will propel DemWits to election in 2008. Furthermore, inconsistency of policy attracts chaos. On social conservatism, Bush alternates between fairly good and poor. This isn't triangulation at work. Do not fear to practice conservatism even if you fear to preach it, lest avoidable disaster ensues and the DemoNuts recapture power. Triangulation can only succeed with massive AND accepted misinformation allowed by public lack of interest and by public lack of focus. Today's public is not the public of the 90's. Information about, interest in, and debate over political direction and ideé has intensified greatly and overwhelms all attempt at triangulating the social nexus. Not being sure where in the chaos the GOP leadership is to be found on social conservatism is no longer good enough as this, to many, surprising unease over Miers confirms.

Therefore, no! I will not just shut up and take it as long as America is a Free Republic under God. Tack Bush to the right or lose the fight.

Laughable?

Conservatism is not a rationalization. Conservatism is success-filled policy. There is nothing laughable about Bush being undeniably worse than the Democrats have been on border control, spending, etc. There is nothing laughable about losing the next election to the DemWits, which clearly MUST be what you and your liberal ilk want since your beloved liberal policies will certainly fail quickly. I shall pray that you and your sneak liberal buddies do not succeed in undermining the reputation for success of this GOP any longer.

The awakened conservative majority which is America is more than ready to throw you out in the primaries. Your facade is frayed. You, sir, are a Democrat.

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.