Posted on 10/19/2005 6:17:11 AM PDT by no dems
At the risk of drawing the undying enmity of The Herd, I'm going to state categorically that conservatism is sitting pretty at this hour. That's because Harry Reid has just been hosed – and he doesn't even know it.
The navel gazers are nabobing about another Souter. That's silly. The Court will almost certainly move to the right as a result of the nomination and confirmation of Harriet Miers. And here's why. It's true. Little is known about the views of Harriet Miers. But what is known, through official and unofficial channels, paints a picture of a conservative Texas lawyer with rock-solid beliefs on life, strong religious convictions, and a modesty that should allay fears of a renegade Justice determined to remake society through the courts. John Roberts was the silver-tongued, inside-the-Beltway pick for the Court; Miers is the plain spoken red stater.
In 1993, when the American Bar Association moved to enshrine its support for abortion-on-demand, Miers fought to have the issue put to a vote before the entire ABA: As the Note Notes, she kept at it, seeking to overturn the Bar's pro-abortion stance into the late-'90s. Tim Carney observes, "In favor of democracy on the issue of abortion? Let's hope she carries that through."
NARAL can read the writing on the wall, and it's not very pleased, stating that Miers "does not appear to have a public record to assure America's pro-choice majority that she is a moderate in the tradition of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor."
She couldn't be further from the RINO-dominated New Hampshire of David Souter and even the libertarianish Arizona of Sandra Day O'Connor. Miers would be light years ahead of O'Connor and Souter on Roe v. Wade?
Leonard Leo, president of the Federalist Society – you know, the evil, neanderthal Federalist Society – is a supporter. And so is Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice.
As our picture of Miers comes into clearer focus, the Souter II narrative begins to strain credulity. It requires us to believe that the President who gave us Janice Rogers Brown, Michael McConnell, Bill Pryor, Priscilla Owen – and no RINO that I could name at the Circuit or District Court level, who fought the fight on Miguel Estrada, and who had originally orchestrated the masterful trade of Roberts-for-O'Connor, would suddenly punt at this critical moment. It also requires us to believe that Miers, who has worked with Bush for a decade, who is the White House staffer most intimitately involved with vetting nominees' judicial philosophies, and is one of the people Bush knows best, has been able to hide her true beliefs from her boss until – Ah, ha! – she donned the judge's robe. I'm sorry, but I don't think this is the same thing as an unknown from New Hampshire handpicked by Warren Rudman.
Some would prefer a nominee in a more esoteric, elitist, or eccentric mold, with the penmanship of a Scalia. Harriet Miers will not be the flashiest Justice – but nor will she make leaps of logic that sometimes lead her in unconservative and unpredictable directions (see McConnell on polygamy, or Scalia on pornography). This is not the time to act like preening Ivory Tower elitists, but to call Harry Reid's bluff. Miers will cast the votes that O'Connor wouldn't. And that's all that matters. UPDATE: Miers on the Second Amendment: Adds David Kopel, "As far as I know, you have to go back to Louis Brandeis to find a Supreme Court nominee whose pre-nomination writing extolled the right of armed self-defense."
What I've read of her writing does not come off as persuasive - more "can't we all just get along" type stuff.
In the contract and business world, negotiation is always about money, where it is MUCH easier to predict the net effect of negotiated compromise, than it is to predict the social ramifications flowing from (some) SCOTUS decisions.
But you have a good point. I think she is a nice, intelligent lady, with good intentions. But those qualities are neutral as to form my opinion as to suitability for SCOTUS. I see the "strong abaility to negotiate" quality as neutral at best, tending negative becaue constitutional principles should be reluctantly compromised.
Dadgummit, another double post. I know I only clicked "Post" once, and I have seen a slough of other double posts recently. What's up with FR, some kind of glitch in the system?
"I'm not saying "yea" or "nay" on Ms. Miers just yet but I'm scrambling for all the info I can get on her. This is just another input for all you Freepers consideration."
More info on Miers is a very good thing.
"I'm still having a hard time trying to figure out why, with everything else in the world going on, the Prez is making this so difficult for us with this nominee."
How is the President making things hard on us with this nominee? It appears more like some outspoken conservative pundits are making things hard for the President, and doing so without having many facts, and not really looking hard for facts.
A better question might be why the president chose a less well known candidate rather than someone like Brown or Owens.
To answer that, I would suggest we turn to the Senate. Remember how much trouble Bush had getting those candidates confirmed to the appeals courts? Well that was a minor league fight and the supreme court is the major league.
When the President refused to withdraw the nominees and put pressure on the Senate, what did they do? The RINOs and the liberals got together to kill an attempt to remove the filibuster on confirmation votes. They preserved the filibuster so it could still be used for Supreme Court nominees.
Do you really think that RINOs like DeWine and Voinovich, from my home state of Ohio, want an originalist court? Take a brief look at their voting record, and you'll find that they would find themselves constantly at odds with an originalist Supreme Court.
An originalist Supreme Court would drasticly curb the power of the federal government and the power of all those elitist senators.
If you want a real conservative appointed, it needs to be someone the RINOs will have a hard time not just voting against, but we need to be able to force them into helping there be a vote on the Senate floor.
While Republicans in theory do have a majority in the Senate. There is not a conservative majority in the Senate.
That means Bush and his advisors need to try and push through a nominee that is truely conservative, while making it as difficult as possible politically for the RINOs not to support that candidate.
If Miers truely is a good conservative candidate, then all the conservative pundits are doing is making it harder for the President to get a conservative justice on the court because they're giving the RINOs excuses.
It's hard to know if we should support Miers for sure, since we don't know as much as we would like. However, everything we do know appears quite possitive. I really don't understand why there is such fierce opposition from conservative on this. I understand opposition because she isn't one of the specific people they wanted to be nominated. However, if you want the President to be able to nominate a solid, well known, conservative, originalist, you need to elect him some different Senators to work with.
I've always given the President the power and right to nominate whoever he wants. If something about the nominee "bugs me," I call my Senators, because the Senate has the function of accepting or rejecting the nominee - hopefully with an eye firmly focused on "for the good of the Republic."
I am not pushing W to drop her. I am pushing the Senate to out and out REJECT her. What the President does with that message is up to him.
As a amtter of practice, I don't expect the Senate to express REJECT at this time. To do so would make them look irrresponsible and flighty. BUt I have noticed a good deal of "we don't have enough information here, Mr. President" being expressed. Lack of information to base a decsion on is reasonable cause for rejection. In fact, the only principled vote a Senator can make, faced with inadequate information, is to deny advise & consent.
It'll play out. The dialog is healthy.
One of my concerns though, is that this may actually be a crony pick, and GWB may in fact be angry with traditionalists for daring to voice objection, and for demading a nominee with a more open record of being a traditionalist.
Right now, in my mind, the President is in the dog house. Burden is on him. I don't trust him, because he did not deliver a nominee with a visible record. Just a data point - I'm not trying to convice you to feel the same way ;-) I know a good number of people figure that "if traditionalis once on the bench, promise kept." I'm not in that camp, and never will be for reasons I have expressed a hundred times. =:-O
You have the answer. Would anyone here bet their life on 50 votes in the Senate? There are enough RINOs that any outward conservative could be easily shot down. The other danger is that failure of the nuclear option could mean the judicial filibuster would become a permanet feature. Not a desirable possibility. This is a long term deal. We have to keep working to get more solid R's in the Senate. Period.
It's not naive. Democrats have throughout said they do not want to change the balance of the court. Since that was their position, Bush could have easily made the case this is simply one conservative for another conservative. Certainly the Dems would have fought it, but it would go against one of their main arguement about changing the balance of the court. If we wanted a true-blood paper trail conservative, it had to be for the Rehnquist spot.
That was the main reason why the FLA head of the NAACP during the first half of the 20th century-and I honestly wish I could remember his name-argued so vociferously against Walter White's nonpartisan stance.
He realized that supporting the Republican Party in the south-at that time, at least-was not going to advance the civil rights agenda, which is why he campaigned so vigorously to enlist black southerners in the Dem. Party, despite the great impediments they faced in registration and in exercising the franchise.
Leonard Leo, president of the Federalist Society – you know, the evil, neanderthal Federalist Society – is a supporter.
"Why would she pick all these known conservatives if she wasn't a solid conservative herself? "
She wasn't the one who picked all those.
She wasn't in a posititon to pick the judgest that were nominated - except be involved in the vetting of roberts - because all the picks took place BEFORE she was in that position.
"Why would she pick all these known conservatives if she wasn't a solid conservative herself? "
She wasn't the one who picked all those.
She wasn't in a posititon to pick the judgest that were nominated - except be involved in the vetting of roberts - because all the picks took place BEFORE she was in that position.
<<<<
I'm not saying "yea" or "nay" on Ms. Miers just yet but I'm scrambling for all the info I can get on her. This is just another input for all you Freepers consideration.
I'm still having a hard time trying to figure out why, with everything else in the world going on, the Prez is making this so difficult for us with this nominee.
>>>>>
I believe that the following advise given by DJ Drummond of Polipundit still holds and it would be well for conservatives to follow them :
[] No, it’s not just accepting “trust me” from President Bush, to say we should consider his nomination of Miers in the light of his past picks. We do the same thing when we consider our legal, investment and medical advice, or when we consider the input from a co-worker. Bush has a good solid record, and it just makes sense to consider it now. Past performance is not an exact indicator of future results BUT SHOULD be a consideration nonetheless. This is especially true when we consider the fact that Miers herself gave significant input to Bush's judicial picks.
[] EVERY source is biased; the only question is how to measure the extent of it and see whether it’s overboard. The simple fact is, if we look long enough we can find flaws in any candidate, and it should be noted that while it is entirely reasonable to ask how Harriet Miers is qualified, it is unconscionable to spread rumors or assume she is unqualified, simply because she is not what you expected.
[] Republicans overwhelmingly supported President Clinton’s right to present his own nominees ( which resulted in Ginsburg and Breyer). No reasonable person can now claim Bush deserves less.
[] For many years, Republicans fought to make sure candidates were considered on their qualifications, not on the basis of idealogy. We will put a dagger into Liberal hands if we abandon that sound practice now.
[] There will be hearings for Miers. The very purpose of these hearings is for the Senate to decide where they will stand on her. Premature verdicts are foolish verdicts.
Choose wisely. This is about far more than one pick at one time.
Bush failed to veto CFR. I dont trust him re SCOTUS
Your Post #19 makes a lot of sense.
Not so. I agree with Rolf. Down here in Texas there are still some Truman-style Democrats.
I still say that if Democrats ever take time to read their Party's Platform, they'd never vote Democrat again.
Let me tell you: INDIANAPOLIS COLTS.
Who said I was opposed?
Miers wasn't my first choice, but that's up to the president and not me. She's on the high court unless she unilaterally withdraws at this point.
Agree completely.
A more brazen food fight, however, would've had the added benefit of uniting the malingerers.
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.