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 ...
His past record of picks is not being ignored. It's been looked at, and in nearly every case, the record was at least "adequate," and in many places outstanding (e.g., Owen).
The fallacy you raise is to justify "trust" as a substitute for record. It is not possible to reach an independent conclusion, based on reasoned analysis, wehn the primary "qualification" advanced is "trust me."
Companies have auditors, the US Constitution has Senators who have oversight on the process. If the Senators rely on "trust me," we have a big problem with our government.
Here is the piece that summarizes the evidence. Miers voted for loosening performance requirements for firefighters so that women could qualify. It's also claimed that she and Alberto Gonzales were responsible for watering down the stand Ted Olson wanted to take in opposition to preferences in the U of Michigan case.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1502612/posts
If true, between this, her lack of judicial experience, and failure to ever take a strong position on anything except how important lawyers are to our society, there is more than enough reason to object to her nomination. The White House should be embarrassed to have claimed that a woman who needs a crash course in constitutional law is the best-qualified person that it could find.
Look. This is all about you and others who object to Bush nominating Miers. The first amendment gives you the right to speak out and engage in political dissent. However, the Constitution and the rules of Senate precedent are the criteria for approval of all federal and SC nominees. Period. Alexander Hamilton is dead. With few exceptions, the Senate has turned down nominees for reasoning based on extenuating circumstances, as in ethical and/or legal matters. John Rutledge was not confirmed at the time of his nomination, because of his poor mental condition based on his wifes death. I think if you went down the list of those nominees who have failed to get Senate approval, I'd bet you'd see that the majority of nominees had problems associated with ethical and/or legal matters.
The White House should be embarrassed
Well, I understand your apprehension. But, what is the purpose for attacking her. All I can see is that she is:
1. a Bush crony,
2.she may or may not be a closet lefty,
3.she used to donate coporately to democrats,
4. she writes cute little notes like a woman..(thank goodness she didn't end with xoxoxo's or draw little hearts)
5. Her grammar isn't very good,
6. etc. etc..............
Excellent point. I found such challenges as "How do you know she won't be a strict constructionist once she's on the Court?" to be too moronic to answer---but apparently the pro-Miers people like such arguments because of their "anti-elitist" cachet.
If sexism is liking gurls, am guilty.
I think the statement is attributed to a November 21, 1999 Meet the Press interview. Arguably, Bush didn't explicitly promise to appoint judges in the Scalia/Thomas mold, although I think that he certainly intended people to draw that inference. Here's what Bush said:
MR. RUSSERT: Which Supreme Court justice do you really respect?
GOV. BUSH: Well, that's--Anthony [sic] Scalia is one.
MR. RUSSERT: He is someone who wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade.
GOV. BUSH: Well, he's a--there's a lot of reasons why I like Judge Scalia. I tell you a guy who I...
MR. RUSSERT: So you'd want to know how a judge feels about abortion. You just wouldn't put him on the bench blindly.
GOV. BUSH: I want to know how a judge feels about a lot of issues. The most primary one is...
MR. RUSSERT: Including abortion?
GOV. BUSH: The most primary issue--the most primary issue is will they strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States?
MR. RUSSERT: Will your judges and judge appointments to the Supreme Court be similar to Scalia in their temperament and judicial outlook?
GOV. BUSH: Well, I don't think you're going to find many people to be actually similar to him. He's an unusual man. He's an intellect. The reason I like him so much is I got to know him here in Austin when he came down. He's witty, he's interesting, he's firm. There's a lot of reasons why I like Judge Scalia. And I like a lot of the other judges as well. I mean, it's kind of a harsh question to ask because it now pits me--some of whom are friends of mine. I mean, it's--and so, in all due respect, Judge Thomas.
Funny, it was Ann Coulter's use of precisely that "type of intimidation tactics" and insults to both Ms. Miers and the President which has caused me to have a negative opinion of her conservative and constitutional credentials and opinions.
Those tactics should remain with the Far Left and their "talking heads." True conservatism deserves better.
I don't see Harriet Miers being unqualified to sit on the SCOTUS. Maybe the Senate hearings will change my opinion of her. But right now, so far, so good. You think Miers is unqualified. So be it. Anyone who has been involved in legal matters for over 30 years, is a well known legal quantity, former head of a state bar association and council to the most powerful man in the world, I'd say that person is qualified to be a SC justice. Miers is a professional individual. The fact she is friends with Bush doesn't matter in my opinion. Besisdes, Miers is the nominee and she deserves a fair hearing.
Well, if he didn't "say it" in those words, wonder why the white house is not screaming "We didn't do it?" Surely, he said it at some point. I know he said Scalia was his favorite.
http://www.mrc.org/notablequotables/bestof/2000/pdf/bestofnq2000.pdf
Page 5, LH column, 2nd paragraph)
That's one. Here's another ...
Right Wing Watch Online
July 31, 2000Presidential candidate George W. Bush has publicly stated that Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, the current Court's most far-right Justices, will be the models for his appointments. One, two or more new Justices who share their judicial philosophy would drastically shift the balance on the Court, spelling disaster for myriad constitutional rights and liberties.
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=3290&print=yes&units=all
I believe, but haven't yet found a transcript of a stump speech, that GWB is the originator of the statement. It shows up in July and December of 2000, as well as being mentioned by Al GOre in the debates. GWB never made an effort to distance himself from it.
I concede that so far I have not found the direct quote, but I have found a number of independent cites. I was honest enough to correct a poster who assert GWB said it in a debate, and I provided a link to the debate transcript.
In fact, GWB could come out today and say, "I never promised judges in the mold of Scalia and Thomas." Whaddya think, good idea? If he did, who's the welcher?
Do you think it's easy to get into Yale, even under affirmative action? Besides, admission is one thing; graduating is another. That Thomas became a conservative while being taught by some of the best liberal legal scholars says a lot about the depth of his conservative convictions.
Look at Thomas's biography--growing up in poverty in a single parent home in Jim Crow Georgia, not being exposed to standard English till he was 16 (he grew up speaking Gullah), and rising from that to the best law school in the country. That takes both toughness and a fine mind. And makes all this stuff about Harriet Miers being the first woman to do this or that sound pretty trivial.
Or to the Texas Supreme Court when he was governor of Texas.
Well, I understand your apprehension. But, what is the purpose for attacking her
Actually this is someones opinion of why the requirements were revised. It appears to apply to promotion of rank once women (or small men) were already on the fire department.
Let's presume (for argument sake) that the height/weight requirements were 5'8" and 150 pounds to be a captain. This would be discriminatory not only to women, but small men (some races are known to be smaller than others.) Captains are basically administrators. Why can't a small man or woman act as an efficient "pencil pusher?" I don't know the facts of the case, do you? What were the particular arguments. Let's see a post on her opinion...not a post by someone else telling us to presume what her opinion was.
You're "intimidated" by political satire?
Why are you so angry? Harriet Miers will either pass muster or not. She should have a vote whatever anybody's personal views of her nomination are. As to why Pres Bush didn't nominate her to some lower court, could it be that Harriet Miers was terribly busy vetting all of the nominees for the lower courts that you anti Miers people now want for SC Justices? Why do you want to believe that Miers would prep candidates so successfully that you and your 'buddies' are screaming for them to be put forth as the perfect conservative candidate for SCJ and not be prepared for the job herself? President Bush, and Cheney, have repeated that Harriet Miers will not legislate from the bench. That means she will adhere to the constitution. That may not be good enough for you. Senator Robert Byrd carries a copy of the constitution around in his shirt pocket and refers to it regularly. Does that make him an acceptable constitutionalist to conservatives? I doubt it.
Or to the Texas Supreme Court when he was governor of Texas.
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.