Posted on 10/15/2005 11:22:42 AM PDT by 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."
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
You're probably right. At that point, the latest chapter in "The Bush Family Screws America" will come to a close and he can get on with the next abomination. Like promoting his $200 Billion plan to squander our money down South.
>>>>Has it now? I don't think so.
If you have a different interpretation of the Constitution, or of the rules of Senate precedent, speak up. Quizzing a nominee on all manner of subjects and issues is one thing. But there have been few nominees who have not met basic standards of qualifications. Even Abe Fortas was voted down because he took a monetary fee from a friend and former client who was under investigation for violating federal laws. Later the man was convicted and spent time in prison.
Not al all correct.
FEDERALIST No. 76
The Appointing Power of the Executive
HAMILTON
To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? . . . It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity.
The possibility of rejection would be a strong motive to care in proposing. . . . He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure.
It has yet to be established that President Bush promised any such thing.
****
Try the 1st (and maybe only?) debate between Gore & Bush. I read it the other day and he said Scalia/Thomas mold.
Yeah, well, maybe a little over the top. It was the "cynic" charge, I think.
My point was that some people think this nomination does not live up to a campaign promise. They really, honesty feel betrayed. I grant thatthe promise is subjective, not objective. Now, telling the person who feels betrayed that he should be, because he misinterpreted the promise in the first place, well, that is not going to make the disappointed person any happier. It might make them resent being told their subjective judgement and opinion is unreasonable.
Tell me, Cboldt, do you find safety in numbers?
I don't understand your point.
I have. My private tutoring rate is $200 per hour.
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
As used by diversicrats, the term "diversity" is a code word for group rights. Yesterday I posted a piece called Miers and Affirmative Action that presented evidence that she has supported group rights (e.g. preferences by sex/race).
IMO, that's not how any conservative reads the Constitution, which guarantees equal protection under the law. One of the most absurd things to come out of the Supreme Court in my lifetime is Sandra Day O'Connor's finding that the Constitution says preferences are OK for another 25 years. I guess this is something that only a graduate of Stanford Law School can find in there because I'll be damned if I can find anything that comes close to saying the equal protection clause may be suspended for 25 years so that judges may avoid the inevitable cries of outrage from the hopelessly leftists MSM.
I really fear Harriet Miers will be another Sandra Day O'Connor, and quite possibly, to the left of her.
White Mule makes some high-quality work gloves. I've worn holes straight through two pairs of lesser gloves just this season, while the White Mules I bought for building a garage nearly 10 years ago are still solid. Not surprising to know they're the choice of the First Rancher.
Reagan Man
The Constitution does not define "advice and consent", so an Originalist would use sources like the Federalist Papers to discern the original intent of the Framers. You engage in an activist interpretation by interpreting "advice and consent" to be limited to situations where there is a legal or ethical cloud hanging over a nominee's head to achieve the result you want. The way in which you interpret the Constitution is perfectly consistant with your support of this nominee.
and candidate Bush did not make that promise during a debate
****
I responded to the person you posted to also. I just read a debate between G & B the other day and he did make a promise in there.
he's the best President we got
Maybe I should have added one caveat, other extenuating circumstances not known at the time of nomination. For example, John Rutledge was nominated to replace John jay. The Senate voted him down because he was mentally ill over the death of his wife.
>>>>Has it now? I don't think so.
If you have a different interpretation of the Constitution, or of the rules of Senate precedent, speak up. Quizzing a nominee on all manner of subjects and issues is one thing. But there have been nominees who have not met basic standards of qualifications or have had extenuating ethical or legal circumstances whcih have led to their disapproval. Abe Fortas was voted down because he took a monetary fee from a friend and former client who was under investigation for violating federal laws. Later the man was convicted and spent time in prison.
The pro-Miers people have followed this tack, I'm now convinced, because they have so few rational, fact-based arguments on their side for this nominee---no judicial experience, no expertise in constitutional law, no conservative credentials, no Republican credentials, questionable credentials all around, a whole dark area of unknowns, simply because according to all the people who know Miers personally, she avoids letting people know what she thinks and believes. She certainly has the "look and feel" of an "opposite sex David Souter"---just without the credentials.
If you can't appeal to facts, you try to appeal to emotions. Maybe for the first 24 hours after the announcement, the emotional appeal was limited to "Trust the President!" But when that didn't still the furor but increased it, they went "negative"---BIG time. They're left with nothing but "pushing buttons"---personal attacks, smears, epithets like "elitist" and "sexist." Those type of intimidation tactics should never be allowed to work among conservatives.
No. It was Gore who used the phrase in the debate. I checked 100% of the debate transcripts ...
GORE ... And Governor Bush has declared to the anti-choice group that he will appoint justices in the mold of Scalia and Clarence Thomas ...And when the phrase a strict constructionist is used and when the names of Scalia and Thomas are used as the benchmarks for who would be appointed, those are code words, and nobody should mistake this, for saying the governor would appoint people who would overturn Roe v. Wade. It's very clear to me. I would appoint people that have a philosophy that I think will be quite likely would uphold Roe v. Wade.
The First Gore-Bush Presidential Debate
October 3, 2000
http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000a.html
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.