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 ...
Now we're getting to the nub of it. This isn't about Harriet Miers as much as a piling on because of grievances about a number of issues that have been festering for a long time. The Beltway pundits are in a frenzy to get their showdown battle with liberals and will take an empty seat on the SC while they battle it out. They have used the media to spotlight their anger at Pres Bush for not choosing to fight at this time, knowing full well that the numbers for confirmation of any conservative they would approve of are not there. Pres Bush wants the vacancy filled, and they do not. Empty victory for them and defeat for the Pres is not their concern. They have made themselves a catalyst for all of you anti Miers people to have a forum to denounce Pres Bush. It is high time that you all admit what it is you are really about. On my part, I also am really disgusted with a number of things this administration has done. However, that has nothing to do with the Miers nomination.
President Bush said Wednesday he wanted to sign a campaign finance reform bill that "that improves the system" and one that takes effect immediately....
The House of Representatives is considering a bill known as Shays-Meehan with votes scheduled for Wednesday.
"It's making its way through the system, and I'll give it a good look," Bush said of the bill, a companion to what is called the McCain-Feingold bill in the Senate.
"If it improves the system, let's have it in effect this year, and I support that," Bush told reporters after a meeting with Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf. "I think it makes sense."
Earlier Wednesday, the White House gave the clearest indication to date that Bush would sign campaign finance legislation if it reaches his desk even though he disagrees with some components.
Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said "improving the system" was the president's bottom line and that the leading congressional proposals met that test despite provisions Bush did not like.
White House aides have made plain that Bush objects to several key provisions of the leading legislation. But they've said he will not promise a veto to give members of Congress a "free vote" on the issue.
The president has "always made clear he can't be counted on to veto" campaign finance legislation, Fleischer said.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/02/13/bush.campaign.reform/
On my part, I also am really disgusted with a number of things this administration has done. However, that has nothing to do with the Miers nomination.
"The most primary issue--the most primary issue is will they strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States?"
Rokke: But does he promise to appoint judges in the mold of Scalia or Thomas. Absolutely not. ... 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.
You argument is based on sophisty and looking for clear-text language by GWB. It's not fair, I don't think, because you are using a technicality to attempt to dissolve an honestly felt sentiment.
The phrase "I expected GWB to nominate judges in the mold of Thomas and Scalia" is a shorthand for expressing what is in fact, a somewhat subjective expectation.
I am in fact disappointed. The pick does not meet my subjective expectation, which I think is a reasonable interpreation of all the words uttered during the course of the campaign, and since.
For you to flat out call me a liar based on your reasoning is stunning.
Yeah. Just what we really wanted.
A SCOTUS nominee who needs to study Con Law long enough to get through her initial grilling by the Senate.
Um, maybe someone who actually KNOWS Con Law may have been a wiser choise? After all, they ARE deciding The Most Important Issues in the Land.
Me..I always wanted to be a Brain Surgeon. Maybe if I "crammed" for a couple of weeks, I could finally get a gig.
Any volunteers for Operation #1?
For what it's worth, I find that very impressive. And unfortunately, your integrity on this issue is relatively unique. Most people making the claim adamantly stand by it despite a complete lack of evidence.
Incidently, there is now a new thread on this very topic.
I concur most heartily. I have no wish to make yours, or others here, disappointment any more egregious. I, myself, have concerns about the direction of this great republic, along with the seemingly uncharted path of Ms Miers.
Perhaps I am just "whistling in the dark" to placate my uneasiness?
"I don't understand your point."
Just as well. Let us let it lay. The heat of this debate, between we Freepers, should not be cause to jaundice our brotherhood.
You argument is based on sophisty and looking for clear-text language by GWB. It's not fair, I don't think, because you are using a technicality to attempt to dissolve an honestly felt sentiment.
Really? You mean the Federalist Papers cannot be cited by Courts, even the Supreme Court, in determining "original intent" of the Founders? Guess anybody then can be an "originalist" depending on his/her reading of the Constitution, right? You have your "strict construction" of the Constitution's language, and I have mine.
And of course Harriet Miers will have hers. And that way, everybody will be happy, right?
The defense of this indefensible nomination has gone beyond the ridiculous to the stupifyingly bizarre. The Miers nomination is beginning to take on the look and feel of a Tim Burton movie plot.
[Edward Whelan 10/14 05:19 PM]
My post on Hugh Hewitt’s account elicited this e-mail from someone I know and trust:
“Hewitt says that Miers was a member of the White House Judicial Selection Committee for the last three years, i.e., from October 2002 to the present. I attended virtually every meeting of the White House Judicial Selection Committee from the start of that period (October 2002) into the summer of 2003. Neither Harriet Miers nor any of her staff attended a single meeting during that period.”
Clarification on Miers and the White House’s Judicial Selection Committee
[Ed Whelan 10/15 10:04 AM]
A White House source calls to my attention the fact that Harriet Miers did not become deputy chief of staff until July 2003 and notes that it is therefore not surprising that my e-mail correspondent did not see her at any meetings of the White House’s judicial selection committee.
This information also means, of course, that the assertion by Hugh Hewitt that my e-mail correspondent was responding to—that Miers has been a member of the judicial selection committee “for three years”—was mistaken, as the correct period would be some two years and three months.
I must emphasize, however, that, even with respect to the period between July 2003 and mid-November 2004 (when the President stated his intention to appoint Miers as White House counsel), I have separately been given serious reason to believe that Hewitt’s account dramatically (though again, I presume, inadvertently) overstates Miers’s actual participation in the work of the judicial selection committee.
Did Harriett Vet Judicial Nominees?
[Jonathan Adler 10/15 11:30 AM]
If Harriett Miers was not part of the judicial nominee selection process until July 2003, as Ed's post below indicates, she would have had very little to do with many of the President's judicial nominations. As Randy Barnett noted here (see also here), there have not been many judicial nominations since then.
Indeed, the President made two appellate nominations in July 2003 (Brett Kavanaugh and Janice Rogers Brown), and then did not make another until September of this year (James Payne). So, whatever Miers' official role in the judicial nomination process, it seems she cannot take much credit for the high quality of the President's appellate nominees.
http://bench.nationalreview.com/
OK, well either there was impropriety in Harriet inserting herself as a candidate into the vetting stream she oversaw, or else she didn't have a lot to do with that stream. You got one complaint or the other. But not both. Only one kitten can be killed here.
Fair enough, and I do. But it's not up to you or me. It's up to the Senate, and it's their perogative to detremine that she's not qualified and to vote her down because of it. That's the whole reason why we have a confirmation process.
What I am saying is that the totality of statements, some made by bush, others made by reporters and opponents parphrasing Bush, is that Bush created an expectation is the vast majority of conservative voters that he would, in fact, nominate judges in the mold of Thomas and Scalia. Did he utter that is one go? I don't know, I haven't found his stump speeches from 1999 and 2000. Therefore I think the shorthand statement, "George Bush promised he would appoint judges in the mold of Thomas and Scalia" farily accurately represents a campaign promise.
In other words, that my expectation isn't something that I made up in my own head. My expectation is based on Bush's statements during the campaign.
With that clarification, you may want to reconsider taking back the "liar" label - and stick it back on me. What say you?
I think it's within reason that the Miersbots like us are right about what Dubya saw in her. He did say constructionist, he did say original intent, in different circumstances but they both represent his own intent. I also think he believes that she NOW holds her Christian faith similarly enough to his own, that she would not be tempted to fall into the errors of the secularists and liberals.
oh, that's mature.
"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."
I don't believe it for a second ... If Miers was a lock as a Thomas/Scalia vote, I would be 100% for her irrespective of her lack of judicial experience, and so would most of the conservative commentators. Her qualification only became an issue because it's the hammer the conservatives could use to undo this mistake.
Conservatives criticize her because she is an unknown who would likely NOT be a Thomas/Scalia clone. The fact is that the Bush White house is grasping for weak 'diversity' reasons for Miers that are truly irrelevent. It only heightens the suspicion that we have another O'Connor-type justice on our hands. My reason for wishing she'd get withdrawn is my knowledge that stealth GOP nominees are probably not good nominees. I cannot in good conscience call her less qualified than bad justices like Souter or previous bad ones like Blackmun.
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.