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).
Reid has not said he would vote for her. Any comment he has made merely says she is a nice person or something equally bland.
Uh you being totally fake and trying to divert a thread, from the subject.
Bush had the power to nominate anyone he wished to. That is the way the Constitution reads. He could have nominated Putin as far as that goes.
But you have not been disappointed in regards to judicial appointments. Everything else is irrelevant to this issue. Bush has consistently appointed those who have a philosophy of judicial restraint. There is no reason to believe that he would change that when it comes to high court picks.
Yes, I would have loved to have seen a knock-down dragout fight with the Dems to get the debate going again on judicial restraint. Ask everyone else here supportive of Miers. They will say the same thing. But, you must realize a couple of things.
First, Bush has never been much of a partisan warrior. That's just not what he does. Think about it. He may play rope-a-dope with the opposition sometimes (and maybe he's doing the same with this pick), but he doesn't start fights for the sake of starting fights. If he did, the Dems in Washington would be a party practically neutered, even more so than they are now.
Secondly, if he did nominate Owen or someone like her, the Dems would fight and filibuster, only this time we'd be powerless to stop them. A couple of weeks ago, half of the Democrats voted to confirm Roberts. If an Owen were appointed, they would claim that they were reasonable with Roberts, but this pick was "out of the mainstream". If our guys tried to go nuclear, they would be painted as being the "mean" ones, and just enough RINOs might switch to beat the rules change.
You have every right to, you are pissed that someone actually responds to you logically, not buchanically.
Schafly is no hero in any sense. She couldn't get elected to even minor offices and wisely hasn't tried. She is a moderately interesting character who sometimes has good points to make. This article is not one of them.
We'll see. As I said, she was on his list of candidates of whom he approves.
Roe must be overturned very carefully. A heavy handed approach will do much damage. Women who normally don't care that much about the issue will, all of a sudden and vote accordingly. Remember, the having something taken away is 5 times more powerful than not getting something. Why do you think women will fight to the death over an 'ugly' piece of clothing that they just passed passed by, just because another women went to grab for it??
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.
Has Schafly morphed into Cindy Sheehan?
What's next? Is Phyllis going to camp out in front of the White House until Bush answers her questions?
Who is Phyllis Schlafly ?
Not the way the Constitution was originally written. The People were to be kept as far away from judicial nominees as possible.
Phyllis Schlafly is perhaps the first member ever of what has been called the "conservative movement." She last Republican races for Congress in 1952 and 1970, running in liberal IL. She was once called "the sweetheart" of the movement.
Try http://www.hughhewitt.com/ if you really want an answer to these questions.
www.google.com is your friend.
"Details, details can't let details get in the way of high dudgeon. Phylis is just upset because she wasn't consulted."
I have to say, I have never like Phyliss' tone, particularly when Aids was growing exponentially.
Conservatives, particularly fiscal conservatives who value individual rights, (like me), have a right to feel some frustration and its gonna come out at times.
But I don't think beating up the President over Miers before we've heard her speak is a useful vent for that frustration.
The subject is whether Bush can be trusted to appoint a strong constitutionalist. Bush's past appointments to the Texas supreme court were two out of three liberal and on a host of other matters, particularly recent matters, Bush has sounded and behaved liberally. I resent WHATEVER you might mean by "fake."
As I said before....
It seems too many here have put their faith in GWB. And on many issues, he has let us down (immigration, limited federal government, to name two). Many believed that at least he would give us something back with the SCOTUS nominees.
Well, grow up. Bush gets to select nominees not us. We elected him so we live with his decisions, right or wrong. Is there something illegal about his pick? If so, withdraw the nominee. If not, leave it alone.
We picked the best of the two candidates (Bush v. Gore, Bush v. Kerry). In my opinion, we need MUCH better candidates.
Maybe just maybe, Bush isn't as conservative as some of you may like?
The Lord has told us not to put our trust in man. You will be disappointed.
They don't want an Originalist but THEIR variety of originalist. Not that most even know what an originalist is.
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.