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).
She can also reasonably be expected to be a major 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?
I'm not sure what the attempted connection is here.
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?
Maybe Mrs. Schafly can call up the Senate and see how many votes those candidates could have gotten and get back to us.
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?
Miers converted to this church and lives by its tenets, as opposed to the likes of Fat Teddy.
Oh, well, at least Schafly isn't asking how a childless unmarried woman can hold a pro-life stance like she did in an earlier column.
That's what's driving me nuts - 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.
Actually has there been anything printed where Reid is quoted as saying "I support Harriet Miers' appointment to the Supreme Court"?
"Are you more trustworthy than Reagan or your father?"
Read my lips, Harried will never change....again.
Who cares, if President Bush said today the sky is blue, phyllis would be all over the media saying the sky is orange.
I guess Phyllis is upset that Roberts will have the same view on Roe as Rehnquist did. Either that, or she's not thinking very logically.
This is just the point. Will Miers be a rigid constitutionalist? I certainly hope so. If she will be, this is a change from her history in the late 80's and early 90's. But then again, that was a long time ago. It really does boil down to whether you trust Bush to be a true conservative. On many issues and decisions of Bush in the last five years, I have been disappointed.
Phyllis - don't think will get much out of HM during hearings
Phyllis - Partial birth ban will get to SCOTUS - "Will you recuse yourself on the PBA ban case?"
Phyllis - Entitled to know that know, and if she recuses, that oughta kill the nomination
Phyllis - GWB is not demontrably pro-life, and all of the women in his life are NOT
Phyllis - We are not a Bush party. We are a conservative movment
Phyllis - conservative movement needs to assert itself
In general, she holds that it is bad karma to inject Ms. Miers' religion into the calculus. That is more or less irrelevant for evaluating a SCOTUS pick.
If the republicans follow your advice in any measure, they will become a minority for another generation.
Ok, Johnnie.......you have made your point. For the sake of your readers, please stop using so many caps. All caps make for bad reading and they are bad etiquette.
No, but she was on his list of candidates that he said he would approve.
Phyllis thinking logically. That is the definition of an oxymoron.
As usual, the pro-Miers arguments would apply the same had Bush nominated Hillary Clinton.
Actually, a white woman aged 60 in the U.S. has a life expectancy of 23.5 more years...so she has a 50% chance of living to the age of 83 years and 6 months.
Nop. That's a certainty. All he expressed is that he supports the nomination - that's code for "no filibuster."
Excellent point, that the pro-Miers in the administration and on FR will probably ignore. This is the best Miers opinion piece I have seen.
Typical presumption from the Antis. The President does not have to answer ANY questions about this nomination and shouldn't. Now it goes to the Senate for disposal one way or another. There will be NO poll to see if we like it or not.
There is no requirement that nominations be popular with all or acceptable to all or even to any except 100 people deciding to accept or reject. And THAT is how it was designed by the Founders who wanted to keep the voters out of this completely.
Excuse me, but this is an outrageous comment. And BTW, the rate of illegal immigration has increased dramatically under Bush relative to Clinton.
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.