Posted on 10/19/2005 6:17:11 AM PDT by no dems
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.
This will put a burden on Thomas, Scalia, and to some extent Roberts, to keep her legal compass steady.
I'm not saying "Yea" or "Nea" either, but if they are basing their support for Miers upon something she wrote 16 or 18 years ago, they could be dead wrong. Back then, I was a liberal California Democrat, and I came a full 180 degrees in 1980, after Jimmy Carter. I changed my views on "choice" and now call it what it is -- abortion.
If I can change my own beliefs, why couldn't Harriet Miers?
This should give you a clue on her 'true' beliefs.
"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."
Why would she pick all these known conservatives if she wasn't a solid conservative herself?
I'm still willing to wait for the hearings to pass any judgement but, by everything I have read, I doubt she is a 'closet' liberal.
But she is sixty for one thing. And she doesn't appear likely to bring the food to the food fight, which is what Schumer and Biden really needed thrown in their smug faces.
I think the conservative punditocracy has gone way overboard in its loud opposition to Miers. Cautious skepticism would have been more appropriate than shrill ad hominem attacks like Ann Coulter saying that "Nino Scalia has more intelligence in his little pinkie than Miers has." It's just uncalled for.
"But she is sixty for one thing."
Yeah, that's another thing that bothers me as well. Why didn't he nominate someone at least in mid-fifties?
Yeah, from what I've heard, she might be almost as liberal as Louis Brandeis.
My personal problem is not that I believe Harriet Miers IS a liberal. It's that the president needlessly ducked a fight and picked a woman who:
1. clearly sends the message that the way to advance is to conceal your conservative positions, if you do indeed have them.
2. smacks of cronyism.
3. writes like your typical, blindly left-wing university community-booster journalist.
Especially on point 3, have you read this woman's writings? I can buy that she wrote liberal positions she didn't agree with because it was her job to represent a liberal organization (which she headed), the Texas Bar Association. But if she IS a conservative, she must have been laughing at her colleagues behind their backs for lapping up such MINDLESS DRIVEL!
The Supreme Court isn't a legislature; it's authority is through persuasive argument. Roberts and Scalia apparently will make a brilliant good cop-bad cop pair, as Thomas becomes Zen Master of the courts. But Miers? Miers at best will be a conservative counterpart to Ruth Bader Ginburg. At worst, she will become a clone of Ginsburg.
Because she was looking for ...
"We'd be talking about somebody's background," said Leonard Leo, now on leave as executive vice president of the Federalist Society, the conservative group whose headlined speakers have included Supreme Court justices and Bush administration official."There would be a moment of silence when she was clearly thinking about what was being said and then she would challenge it, asking, 'But what specifically in those opinions strongly suggests that this is someone who ascribes to judicial restraint?'" Leo said.
53 posted on 10/15/2005 6:41:58 PM EDT by AmericaUnited
Ruth Ginsberg could perform that function, doesn't make Ruth Ginsberg a conservative.
I'm still willing to wait for the hearings to pass any judgement but, by everything I have read, I doubt she is a 'closet' liberal.
The hearings are designed to hide such disclosures. Any open admission results in howls of derision from the DEM side.
What I have read of her writing, such as the articles in the Texas Bar Journal and what she discloses in her written answers to Senate questions incline (but do not convince) me that she is a fence sitter at best, and tends to lean left. Just my opinion. Flame suit engaged.
Very intelligent observation; backed up with substantive points.
Far from it.
I just wish people would stop pretending otherwise.
>> And no RINOs that I can name <<
That's because the only nominees which become famous are the ones which democrats try to block. Several court nominations of Clinton were blocked by the Republican Senate. All were renominated by Bush; all were confirmed.
Yeah, just like all the other rock-solid conservatives who gave thousands of dollars to Al Gore, Lloyd Bentsen and the DNC.
I keep posting this, but it bears repeating. A woman of 60 has a longer life expectancy than a man of the same age. Throw into the mix that her mother is 95 years old, and the probability that she will live a long and productive life increases.
No one knows how long someone "might" live but Ms. Miers has just as good a chance as any to be there in 30 years.
We knew where Clarence Thomas stood on "substantive" due process, a color-blind society, and the underlying structure of the Bill of Rights BEFORE he was confirmed.
Is it to much too ask of a potential SC justice that she give us similar confidence?
A 60 year old woman is actually only 53 when compared to a man. Women live 7 years longer.
That is not my only concern, but as concerns go I feel pretty confident that those Robers/Scalia give us all the "intellectual heft" we need.
I'm more scared about Roberts on the court. He one of those people who is "really smart", and knows more than everybody else. He seems nice enough, but that personality is prone to "doing the right thing", because they are so smart they know better. You have to hope that what he knows really puts him in the right judicial philosophy.
Because if he ever decides otherwise, he's smart enough to make the argument VERY convincing to the other court members.
My hope is Roberts will be smart enough and "right" enough to pull Kennedy back to his roots.
Concur
I'll take a confirmed justice over a borked one.
Because Harriet.M is not a confirmationBloodBathInducing Bob Bork - K.Rove knew the "Bad Cop" role would unwittingly emerge from the right.
The filibustering (D)rat senators will soon jump on her Trojan Bandwagon.
Why can't you hear her out? Why is there such a knee-jerk reaction to label her a closet lib? I know a lot of lefties that have seen the light and have become conservative, but I have yet to meet a conservative that became a dem-socialist. Becoming conservative is a process of growing-up, and learning that the "feel good" politics of our youth don't work in the real world.
I agree with the premise that Bush blew his chance to have the good fight with the left on the confirmation process. This is the hand we've been dealt. Come on....at least look at your cards before you fold. Wait for the hearings. Roberts proved himself (and a lot of FReepers doubted his selection), maybe Harriet will too.
If not, I promise to work like the dickens to block her appointment.
-Kevin Phillips
-Michael Lind
-David Brock
-Glen Loury
-Congressman Michael Forbes
-Betsy McCaughy-Ross
-Garry Wills
-David Stockman
Among others.
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.