Miers hitting the books in advance of confirmation hearings (Bork lessons were learned...)

Mercury News ^ | 14 Oct 05 | RON HUTCHESON

[gobucks]

By the time Senate hearings start in late October or early November, Miers will have completed a crash course in constitutional law.

White House officials and others who are familiar with her preparations said she'd paid little attention to the furor over her nomination while concentrating on the task at hand. They dismissed speculation that she might heed calls from some conservatives for her withdrawal.

Supporters expressed confidence that Miers' appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee will quiet critics who question her qualifications for the nation's highest court. But they acknowledged that any embarrassing mistakes by the nominee could doom her chances.

"One thing that characterizes Harriet is that she is extremely diligent. She's going to be prepared," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, a committee member. "The temptation will be great for some to try to match wits with her on constitutional issues. There's some danger that senators might demonstrate not her lack of knowledge, but their own."

snip

Although Miers is still in the early stages of her preparation, plans call for her to participate in question-and-answer sessions with top constitutional lawyers after she digests the briefing books. Those informal sessions will evolve into more formal "murder boards," relentless grillings that more closely resemble confirmation hearings.

Roberts wasn't videotaped during his practice sessions, but Miers might be. Some White House officials worry that her quiet, low-key approach may need to be pumped up for television.

Snip

"A good performance by her in the hearings will seal the deal," said Washington lawyer Christopher Bartolomucci, another participant in Roberts' preparation.

By all accounts, Miers is well aware of the stakes.

"She knows the hearings are an important part of the process," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said. "She'll be ready."

[G.Mason]

Keep searching. With a little persistance, albeit a bit late, you will find out exactly what it means.

Hint: A look at the way the present administration turns a blind eye to our enemies in the Congress, in Europe, in Mexico, in ...

When you do find it, I certainly hope you won't be overly disappointed. ;)

[colorcountry]

Diversity is neither a goal nor a strategy. We like to see diversity here, on FreeRepublic.

Diversity of opinions, diversity of gender (or would you prefer all FR posters to be guys like you.) We foster diversity of race, religion and age.

You see, I'm a old female, mormon descendant, anglo, freeper, who has been a life-long member of the GOP and I come for a long-time GOP family. But my husband (who might or might not be a FReeper,) is hispanic, catholic, used-to-be democrat union supporter, middle age, conservative. You live in Washington State...and that's about all I can tell about you except that you are angry at the President and don't want to see Harriet Miers on the SCOTUS.

You see,... diversity. Is it a "bad" thing?

[trubluolyguy]

Actually, I think I just need to get away from here.

---

Yes, maybe you do. It takes a thicker skin than that.

[dc-zoo]

Just as I thought, another Bush hater getting his jollies. Thanks for outing yourself. You "turned out to be a whole lot worse than we expected".

[G.Mason]

LOL!

Oops ... That slipped out. The warning has been duly noted.

[Cboldt]

The process has always been that unless a nominee has an ethical or legal cloud hanging over their head, the Senate has no right to vote against them.

LOL. Oh my. I just don't where to go with this one. I'll just leave it at a -bump-

[MineralMan]

"Just for now, Dear. Don't get excited. "

---

Oh, I promise you that I'm not your "Dear." I rarely get exited about newbies, nor do I generally assume that they are here on a serious mission.

When you've been around for a few months, have posted some cogent text, and demonstrate who you really are, then I'll know who you are.

At this point, you are USPatriette, a newbie with a cutesy diminuitive name. Your posts will identify you, assuming you stay beyond your first day.

[WOSG]

"I thought we were better than the other sites when it came to supporting our party and our president. Some posters are trying to make it another forum which it was not intended to be. I am going to quit signing onto FR until this site regains it's original pride in supporting our President and not the opposition."

FR is not about robotically supporting the President's every decision. We support the President when he supports our Conservative Principles and values. Most of the time, he does so.

Sometimes, he wanders.

This decision has been called into question - and rightly so. An opportunity to nominate a proven and known conservative jurist was missed.
That opportunity would have changed the face of the court.

Many well-reasoned conservatives think the President would himself and conservatives a favor if he withdrew the
nomination and started over:
http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/editors200510141544.asp

There is nothing wrong with criticizing the President when he makes a mistake.

One thing I agree. Cut down on the abuse, belittling, ad hominem, etc. from both sides. Cut down on calling the other side a traitor, etc. I think the Miers nomination was a mistake, but I think some criticism of her qualifications is way overdone; she's an accomplished women who shouldnt be personally attacked.

[trubluolyguy]

You see,... diversity. Is it a "bad" thing?

---

Only if you are putting the ideal of diversity over merit or qualification.

[G.Mason]

I would love to respond, especially to your last line. However, I am in need of medical teatment as it is and to do so would only cause me more cuts and bruises. I do hope you will understand? ;)

[MineralMan]

"The process has always been that unless a nominee has an ethical or legal cloud hanging over their head, the Senate has no right to vote against them."

---

Has it now? I don't think so. And, if a couple of nominees from your favorite President hadn't made it to the bench, we might not be having this discussion.

The Senate should NEVER serve as a rubber stamp for nominees to the Supreme Court of the United States of America. NEVER!

[RightWhale]

She'll do just fine.

Maybe so. It might be that thinking outside the box will give better results than we have seen in the past 50 years. There have been some amazing mistakes where they got a Constitutional scholar all right, and thought they were getting a Conservative as well, but got a Progressive of some kind with a solid Constitutional background. Lack of time on the bench is something to think about, but time on the bench is also no guarantee; also, most judges started out as lawyers, as also with many legislators.

[Reagan Man]

If you have a different interpretation of the Constitution, or of the rules of Senate precedent, speak up.

[G.Mason]

"I predict you will tempted to parse the President's words to mean that it wasn't the nominee who would have the qualities, but the Justice would, or that the promise does not equal a promise of battle of ideals against the DEMs when it comes to filling the SCOTUS. Don't waste your time. Each of us has a different subjective opinion of what the promise meant, even though it was made in few words. Attempting to deny that many people are not diappointed, and reasonably so, will just make us more angry."

I imagine that is slightly better that defining what the definition of is is.

Make us angry? An interesting statement.

Tell me, Cboldt, do you find safety in numbers?

[curiosity]

Never said it was written in the Constitution. Interpretation and precendent is everything.

Then you have no basis to object to my citing the Federalist Papers, since they are a major source for bout precedent and interpretation.

The process has always been that unless a nominee has an ethical or legal cloud hanging over their head, the Senate has no right to vote against them.

Nonsense. The text you cited clearly gives the Senate the power to give or withhold consent. It does not put any limitations on this power.

And you want precedent? The Senate has exercised its right to withhold consent many times in the past when there was no "ethical or legal cloud."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Failed_Nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

[Sandy]

[colorcountry]

Only if you are putting the ideal of diversity over merit or qualification.

Correct. Have you seen evidence of Harriet Miers being a proponent of diversity over merit? If so, please post or provide link. Otherwise it is pure speculation.

[jdhljc169]

..... It's there precisely because I am as loyal to the President as I can be, and don't want to see him make this sort of easily avoidable mistake.

BRAVO!! (APPLAUSE, APPLAUSE) BRAVO!!

[Map Kernow]

By the time Senate hearings start in late October or early November, Miers will have completed a crash course in constitutional law.

Thanks. Now I feel SO much better.....

[curiosity]

I've never hidden my dislike for the Bush family, so I hardly see how I have been "outed."