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?
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.
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.
>> 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.
It was masterful, but then Bush had to flush it down the toilet by making it Roberts-for-Rehnquist, at best a neutral move. The masterful move would have kept Robert-for-O'Conner, and then make the case for Brown-for-Rehnquist. Then you would still have Harriet if a liberal seat opened up or if the Dems were susessful in stopping Brown. That would have been the win-win-win play. The thing that makes me mad is how good this could have been. Bush underplayed his hand and caved when he did not have to. The way Bush played it, instead of a significant move to the right, it is a modest move to the right and he wasted his stealth candidates. He should have saved Harriat fo a more liberal seat. Of course that makes me a 'Bush-hater' for say that.
"... why, with everything else in the world going on, the Prez is making this so difficult for us with this nominee."
This is a really good question and one that the "Prez" is probably trying to figure out now as well.
"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.
Leonard Leo, president of the Federalist Society – you know, the evil, neanderthal Federalist Society – is a supporter.
<<<<
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.
bttt