Posted on 10/15/2005 1:44:10 PM PDT by Ol' Sparky
Questions About Miers that Bush Needs to Answer
by Phyllis Schlafly
If John G. Roberts' confirmation hearing is any guide, we won't learn anything from Harriet Miers' confirmation hearing. So here are some questions we would like President Bush to answer.
You said, "Trust me." But why should we trust you when experience proves we could not trust the judgment of President Reagan (who gave us Justices O'Connor and Kennedy) or President George H.W. Bush (who gave us Justice Souter)? Are you more trustworthy than Reagan or your father?
You said, "She's not going to change.... 20 years from now she'll be the same person, with the same philosophy, that she is today." Isn't that claim ridiculous after Miers already made a major change in her philosophy from Democrat (giving personal contributions in the 1980s (when she was age 43) to Al Gore, Lloyd Bentsen and the Democratic National Committee's campaign to elect Michael Dukakis), to Republican in the 1990s (contributing to George W. Bush and others)?
Do you understand why Bush supporters are upset that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (who voted against Chief Justice Roberts) said he recommended her, while you rejected the recommendations of people who supported you?
Since your supporters voted for you to change the direction of the Supreme Court away from activism and toward constitutionalism, do you understand their sense of betrayal that your two appointments have failed to do that: Roberts for Rehnquist was a non-change, and Miers for O'Connor can reasonably be expected to be another non-change?
When President Clinton appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg, it was clear from her paper trail that she was a radical feminist who would surely vote to keep abortion legal. Why do you insult your supporters who expected you to give us a justice who would be the ideological opposite of Ginsburg?
In presenting Miers as the most qualified person for this Supreme Court appointment, is there any evidence to convince us that she is more qualified than Judges Edith Jones, Janice Rogers Brown, or Priscilla Owen?
Since many prominent pro-choice officials belong to churches that are anti-abortion, such as John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, and Condoleezza Rice, why should we believe Miers is pro-life because that's the position of the church she attends?
And why are Miers' advocates constantly talking about her religion anyway? Is her religion a qualification for office?
Since your wife, your mother, and all the women you have appointed to high office (such as Condoleezza Rice and RNC Co-Chairman Jo Ann Davidson) oppose overturning Roe v. Wade, how can we assume Miers will be any different?
Do you really think that serving on the Texas Lottery Commission helps the resume of a Supreme Court nominee?
Miers is a corporate attorney who served on the Dallas City Council as a representative of the business community. Can you provide any evidence that she or the business community cares about the social issues that conservatives care about such as the definition of marriage, the Pledge of Allegiance, the Ten Commandments, the Boy Scouts, abortion, euthanasia, or the sovereignty issues?
Why do you tout Miers' activity in the American Bar Association when most conservatives regard ABA influence as a negative rather than a positive?
Do you really think that pro-lifers will be convinced that Miers is pro-life because in 1989 she bought a $150 ticket to a dinner which 30 other Dallas politicians attended in order to be introduced?
Since Miers hasn't written anything memorable or important by age 60, how can we assume she has the capability to write Supreme Court opinions? Is there any constitutional or conservative principle on which Miers ever took a stand?
Since Souter, after one pro-life vote in his first term on the Court, was ridiculed by the press as "a black hole" from which no opinions emerged, then "grew" left to avoid the scorn of the media, aren't you concerned that Miers (who has never written anything on constitutional issues) would suffer the same fate?
Since O'Connor demonstrated her lack of judicial philosophy by unpredictably switching back and forth, so that the media praised her as the most powerful woman in America, aren't you concerned that Miers' lack of judicial philosophy would take her down the same path?
<>BWhy do you offend traditional women by choosing Miers, who helped create and raise funds for a radical feminist lecture series at Southern Methodist Law School that featured as speakers Gloria Steinem, Patricia Schroeder, Susan Faludi, and Ann Richards? What role did Miers play in White House pro-feminist policies about Title IX and women in combat?
Since Miers' chief qualification for high office is that she is your lawyer, aren't you worried about unfortunate parallels between her and Lyndon B. Johnson's appointment of his personal lawyer, Abe Fortas?
Mrs. Schlafly is the author of the new book The Supremacists: The Tyranny of Judges and How to Stop It (Spence Publishing Co).
Seemingly, some on the right believe they may dictate who is and who is not nominated. They are in for a surprise.
An excellent piece. Hopefully this nomination will be defeated. Let the Senate show Bush that they at least remember the power to veto bad decisions.
You're repeating yourself again. Are you stuck in "groundhog day"? You need to find another place to dig. This load has been old and dried out for days.
You posted this already and the horse was beaten to death. So why is this here again?
I enjoyed this piece, but to be objective she asks some questions that seem more like grandstanding to me.
Are you more trustworthy than Reagan or your father? (This question is just plain dumb. Reagan gave us Scalia, Bush gave us Thomas...why doesn't anybody ever mention that.)
Why do you insult your supporters who expected you to give us a justice who would be the ideological opposite of Ginsburg? (because there's no way on God's green earth that the Dems and Rinos would approve them...it's not Bush's fault that the Republicans "rubber stamped" Ginsburg.)
Since many prominent pro-choice officials belong to churches that are anti-abortion, such as John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, and Condoleezza Rice, why should we believe Miers is pro-life because that's the position of the church she attends? (Kennedy and Kerry are Catholics, Reid is a Mormon, who knows what Rice is...I would not categorize any of them as evangelical.)
Since your wife, your mother, and all the women you have appointed to high office (such as Condoleezza Rice and RNC Co-Chairman Jo Ann Davidson) oppose overturning Roe v. Wade, how can we assume Miers will be any different? (This is a low blow, IMO. The SOS being pro-choice or pro-life, or your wife's beliefs have nothing to do with anything. Technically, he's promised to appoint an originalist, and Roe v. Wade can't be used as a litmus test.)
Since O'Connor demonstrated her lack of judicial philosophy by unpredictably switching back and forth, so that the media praised her as the most powerful woman in America, aren't you concerned that Miers' lack of judicial philosophy would take her down the same path? (Because so and so did such and such, aren't you afraid that Miers will do the same?)
I think these are excellent questions....these are the questions that most of us , who worked for Bush, said he would find us in a Supreme Court nominee...........he has'nt with Harriet Miers.
Devastating. I would love to see someone ask it. I'm sure it would induce babbling, followed by a lame recitation of Miers resume.
Are you more trustworthy than Reagan or your father? (This question is just plain dumb. Reagan gave us Scalia, Bush gave us Thomas...why doesn't anybody ever mention that.)
Batting .500 isnt't good enough (did clinton also appoint a conservative along with Ginsburg. As a matter of fact, has a liberal ever appointed a conservative?). The point is, the overall balance of the Court has been against conservative values since most of us can remember. There is NO, NONE, ZERO, excuses for a GOP President to appoint a liberal justice, or even one that may be liberal.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1502583/posts
It's a repeat.
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.