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."

[trubluolyguy]

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

---

Nope. She did not do any of this EXCEPT for Roberts.

[trubluolyguy]

Why am I so angry?

1)Borders and his outright REFUSAL to stop illegals.

2)Spending like a drunken Kennedy. If this is "compassionate conservatism", no thanks.

3)CFR. He promised to veto it. He signed it.

There are three reasons.

[falpro]

People say she is an originalist.

President Bush says she is an originalist.

Does trubluolyguy say Bush is a liar?

Does trubluolyguy say Bush has no discernment?

[Reagan Man]

I don't see those remarks you posted from the Federalist Papers in the US Constitution. And for good reason. In reality, the Federalist Papers mean nothing when justices and judges are reaching conclusions in the matters of the law. The two governing documents in US history are the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Depending on the Federalist Papers when a jurist is making decisions of law, is unconstitutional.

[Map Kernow]

There are three reasons.

"But don't you have any more than just those?" (Just anticipating the inevitable "come-back" from the other camp...) ;-)

[trubluolyguy]

President Bush says she is an originalist.

Does trubluolyguy say Bush is a liar?

---

3)CFR. He promised to veto it. He signed it.

[Cboldt]

The promise is not subjective to the President.

Oh really? Well then, what is the objective definition then?

Bush would be the most reliable interpreter of the Contructionist promise.

A variation on the "trust me" theme.

1. Bush is being dishonest when he states that Miers is a Constructionist.

She is a constructionist, to whatever his definition is. I don't know what his definition is though. DOes he think Gonzales is a Constructionst? Or Owen? Those two squared off in the TX parental notification case, and came off on opposite sides. One is a constructionist, the other is not.

At any rate, I don't think he is being dishonest, at least not in his own mind.

2. Bush isn't able to judge whether she is a Constructionist. He's not intelligent enough to discern her make up.

Discerning her make up is not a matter of intelligence, it's a matter of having data. Plenty of smart people here can't figure it out, and the WH isn't providing any data. Is Bush able to discern without outsie advice? I honestly don't know, but it doesn't matter - see difference in subjective opinion example Gonzales/Owen, above.

3. Bush lied when he made the Constructionist promise.

That is kinda what started this whole thing. I sure thought we'd get nominees in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, and I can't be the only person who is disappointed and betrayed by this pick. As a subjective matter, yes, he failed to follow through on this campaign promise. I thnk he meant it when he made it, but when it came down to the wire, with the Senate being as it is, etc., well, I think his calculus was that the "trust me" factor would carry the nomination through - he could avoid a nasty confrontation over the filibuster and all sorts of other Senate/President baggage.

Either that, or he is indifferent to those of us who hold conservative judicial and Constitutional matters near and dear.

[trubluolyguy]

Does trubluolyguy say Bush has no discernment?

---

Two words, Norm Minetta.

[Cboldt]

People are opposing Miers not because of her politics, but because of her lack of qualifications. That's the exact opposite of politicizing the process.

Lotta folks not quite getting that point yet. Keep hammering ;-)

[trubluolyguy]

But don't you have any more than just those?" (Just anticipating the inevitable "come-back" from the other camp...) ;-)

---

I am surprised the responses I have so far gotten have been easily answered. But you are correct, and gave me a much needed LOL.

[RobFromGa]

I'm not sure what difference it makes, but it appears Bush never said "Scalia and Thomas", it was Gore trying to scare liberals. Full story here: http://mediamatters.org/items/200510130005

Al Gore, during a 2000 debate, apparently connected the dots.

GORE (video clip): -- that he will appoint justices in the mold of Scalia and Clarence Thomas, who are known for being the most vigorous opponents of a woman's right to choose.

Bush apparently said repeatedly that Scalia is his favorite jurist.

[kittymyrib]

Well, they told her to lose the eye-liner and the tacky clothes and now they are trying to teach her constitutional law in one month...the extreme make-over of Harriet Miers might make a good reality show.

[Rokke]

Yes, I've seen that offered as evidence before. But before accepting that as sufficient it is appropriate to consider two things. 1. A "promise" is a very explicite statement. It is a vow. People claiming Bush "broke his promise" should have a very clear reference to him making such a promise before they condemn him for breaking it. Obviously, such evidence does not exist. 2. It is important to look at more than just selected excerpts of Bush's interview with Russert to draw any conclusions. Before the snippet you offered in your post, Russert specifically asked Bush what he looks for when considering someone for the nomination to the court. Here is Bush's response..."Well, let me tell you what I'd like to know. I'd like to know are we compatible from a philosophical perspective on a wide range of issues. But the most important view I want to know is are you a strict constructionist, Mr. Jurist? Will you strictly interpret the Constitution or will you use your bench as a way to legislate? That's the kind of judges I've named in the state of Texas. On of the--I've got a record on this. ". No promise there. Later, Bush repeats that the most important thing he looks for in a judge is..."The most primary issue--the most primary issue is will they strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States?" It isn't until Russert asks him which Supreme Court justices he really respects that Bush brings up Scalia. And even then, this is what he says about Scalia..."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.". Again, where is the promise. He likes Scalia because he knows him, he's witty, interesting and firm. But does he promise to appoint judges in the mold of Scalia or Thomas. Absolutely not. That this excerpt is offered as the best evidence that Bush "promised to appoint judges in the mold of Scalia and Thomas" just shows how weak the support for such claims are.

And I will say again, that many make the claim that "Bush broke his promise" out of ignorance. But some know the truth and still make the claim. That makes them liars. And someone who lies to support an argument does little more than further erode the case he is arguing.

[adam_az]

"Some White House officials worry that her quiet, low-key approach may need to be pumped up for television."

She just needs to dust off some of those gushy exclamation marks from the puppy dog cards.

[G.Mason]

They will be and are, much appreciated.

I, likewise, pray for our great republic and though we, you and I, may disagree on certain aspects brought before us on Free Republic, we are in fact patriots in this centuries old fight for right and justice.

I re-read the above line, several times, amd have seemingly taken something out of a "Superman" comic book.

I assure you that I meant every word.

[adam_az]

I see your





and raise you a



and

[Texas Federalist]

The two governing documents in US history are the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

The Declaration of Independance is not a governing document. Don't take my word for it. In his dissenting opinion in Troxel v. Granville (2000), Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the Declaration of Independence "is not a legal prescription conferring powers upon the courts."

In reality, the Federalist Papers mean nothing when justices and judges are reaching conclusions in the matters of the law. . . Depending on the Federalist Papers when a jurist is making decisions of law, is unconstitutional.

While not authoritative, the Federalist Papers is considered by every serious consiervative judicial scholar as an important judicial interpretive tool. From Scalia's book, "A Matter of Interpretation" (p. 38)

"I will consult the writings of some men who happened to be delegates to the Constitutional Convention Hamilton's and Madison's writings in The Federalist, for example. I do so, however, not because they were Framers and therefore their intent is authoritative and must be the law; but rather because their writings, like those of other intelligent and informed people of the time, display how the text of the Constitution was originally understood"

Justice Thomas also routinely consults the Federalist Papers to interpret Constitutional provisions. In McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (1995), Thomas examined such evidence as the fact that the Federalist Papers were published under the pseudonym "Publius" in concluding that "the Framers in 1791 believed anonymous speech sufficiently valuable to deserve the protection of the Bill of Rights."

[G.Mason]

Was that the October 3, 2000 debate?

[Texas Federalist]

I'll concede that he didn't break an explicit promise. I think that much is clear.