Posted on 10/18/2005 10:40:06 PM PDT by Ol' Sparky
Supreme Court: Withdraw Miers
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER EDITORIAL BOARD
President Bush should withdraw the nomination of Harriet Miers to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The reason is not her personal views on abortion, although her 1989 support of a proposed constitutional amendment to outlaw abortions except to save the life of the mother is troubling.
The reason is not her religious faith. Many God-fearing jurists have graced the Supreme Court.
It's not that she's a Bush crony, although a seat on the Supreme Court is something one should aspire to, not stumble into.
It is not even the fact that she's never served as a judge. The high court's history is replete with justices who were not first judges.
It's not that there is so much wrong with Miers, as it is that there is not enough right about her.
Has she so much as handled a case involving the Constitution, written an article on a constitutional issue or taught constitutional law? In what memorable public debates on constitutional law has she partaken?
The Wall Street Journal's Randy Barnett writes, "Nothing in Harriet Miers' professional background called upon her to develop considered views on the extent of congressional powers, the separation of powers, the role of judicial precedent, the importance of states in the federal system, or the need for judges to protect both the enumerated and unenumerated rights retained by the people."
Bush calls her "exceptionally well qualified." That means she's the exception to the rule, that among all the qualified, competent, even brilliant jurists in the federal court system, or attorneys who practice constitutional law or scholars who write and teach about it, she stands out as an exception to their comparative mediocrity.
Placed against our template of what a Supreme Court justice should be, the profound responsibilities that come with the job and the essential role of the judiciary in the balance of powers, Miers is not qualified, let alone exceptionally well so.
In written answers to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Miers argues that litigants "should not be able to establish social policy through court action, having failed to persuade the legislative or executive branch of the wisdom and correctness of their preferred course."
So, forget Brown v. Board of Education. Citizens cannot appeal to the judiciary when the other branches deny civil liberties?
Naming a justice to the Supreme Court is a rare and profound moment. The president and the nation can, and must, do far better.
That a liberal rag that considers Bush an idiot would find Miers to be unqualified doesn't say much.
I'm waiting for Miers' confirmation hearings to see what she is made of. With the amount of firepower heading her way, she'll show her true colors at the hearings.
I tell you, it's amazing all of the rock-ribbed conservatives who are against Miers. This article just shows how much Bush is losing support.
This same newspaper had an article about how the Taliban wasn't so bad about the same time they were destroying the two Buddhas. They liked their no nonsense law and order!
The comment was inexact. We knew what she meant, but she didn't pen it. The words in brackets were missing. That is a problem.
Wow. The Seattle Post Intelligencer is against a Bush nominee to the Supreme Court? I'm stunned. So let me get this straight...folks like Buchanen, Kristol, Coulter and Frum are now in full agreement with known liberal nutcases that run the editorial boards of papers like the Seattle Post? I've heard of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" but what do you do with "the friend" of my enemy?
Sniff, sniff.... < /elitism >
You bet.
I am against the nomination. But, I don't give a rats rear end about what this Liberal kooky, looney, silly rag has to say.
Okay, this commie rag has convinced me. If they are against the nomination, as I have been...I am now moving to the middle on it. The wait and see. But I swear she better not be Souter in a skirt.
Sniff, sniff.... < /elitism >
She's the exception to the mediocrity of the rest, that's for sure. I think Bush secretly may be guilty of elitism by nominating this woman, who shines so brightly over the rest of the field. So let's don't use that word anymore, it might come back to be used against her in the Senate hearing.
Miers did not get ahead by her brilliance, she got ahead by kissing ass, by being a hack. She should be awarded with the ultimate prize for a political hack, a lifetime appointment.
And don't you think there were about 5 million $$ worth of Harvard and other lawyer schooled helpers who reviewed her comments?
No, she wrote it on her computer late one night and submitted it ?
Oh, you think Thomas actually writes his descents on the SCOTUS or kennedy writes his dumb ass questions?
The Dems heard the A-word, and are obliged to defend it at all costs, regardless if it drives them to support the same position as the Right.
Senate Judiciary Republican Senators...
Mr. Brownback (R) “I congratulate Harriet Miers on her nomination to be Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court and I look forward to learning at her confirmation hearing whether she possesses a firm commitment to the Framers' Constitution and to the rule of law,” Brownback stated. “I am hopeful that Ms. Miers will be, as President Bush promised, a qualified nominee in the mold of Justices Scalia and Thomas who will strictly interpret the law and will not create law.”
Brownback, a member of the Judiciary Committee and chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee, previously commented that he hoped the President would nominate a jurist who would strictly interpret the Constitution and who has a well-formed judicial philosophy and stated positions on important issues.
Brownback continued, “I have said in the past that I would like a nominee with a proven track record on important issues to all Americans and whose judicial philosophy is well-formed. I am not yet confident that Ms. Miers has a proven track record and I look forward to having these questions answered. President Bush has a long-standing working relationship with Ms. Miers and I trust the President knows her heart and her mind. Even so, the confirmation process has just begun and questions about her views on the Constitution need to be answered. As President Bush and President Reagan have commented in the past, in this regard I feel we must trust but verify.”
Mr. Coburn (R) “Harriet Miers deserves a fair and thorough hearing and confirmation process. I look forward to learning more about her qualifications and judicial philosophy in the coming days,” Dr. Coburn said, adding that he plans to meet with Miers this week.”
Mr. Graham (R) “President Bush has made a solid pick for the Supreme Court.
“Harriet Miers has been in the legal trenches throughout her career and has a tremendous understanding of how the law works in people’s everyday lives. Her legal experience combined with her life experience makes her a solid choice.
“I hope for and anticipate a smooth confirmation process with a significant bipartisan vote in support. In my opinion, there will be no filibuster as she is a mainstream conservative who will be a strict constructionist on the Supreme Court.”
Mr. Sessions (R) “My conversations with Harriet Miers indicate that she is a first-rate lawyer and a fine person. Her legal skills are proven and her reputation throughout the legal community is excellent. It is not necessary that she have previous experience as a judge in order to serve on the Supreme Court. It’s perfectly acceptable to nominate outstanding lawyers to that position. I look forward to the confirmation process and to learning more about her judicial philosophy.”
Mr. Cornyn (R) "The President has announced his nominee to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court of the United States: Harriet Miers, currently serving as White House Counsel. As he did with Judge John G. Roberts, Jr., the President has chosen an outstanding nominee for our nation's highest court. The Senate should consider this nomination in both a thorough and expedient manner.
"Harriet Miers is a brilliant legal mind. She is a woman of outstanding character who clearly understands what it means to follow the law. She is deeply committed to public service, and has a distinguished history of professional achievement. It is clear that her past experiences have well prepared her for the honor of serving our country as a Supreme Court Justice. I strongly support her nomination.
"It is important that we put aside partisanship, and that the Senate fulfill its constitutional responsibility of advice and consent. This fine nominee must be treated with civility and respect, not as a political pawn. I hope that we in the Senate can move forward in a manner worthy of the American people."
I am now moving to the middle on it. The wait and see. But I swear she better not be Souter in a skirt.
Now you're talking reasonably.
Let's do allow the process. See what she says at her hearing. If she's lousy, I will be the first to go against her.
Amen! The sight of the blind is restored, the limbs of the crippled are restored, the deaf of ear, can now hear. May the children sing these praises to their children's children...Upon Ms. Meirs, the lighted path to glory has shined- for all Mankind...
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.