Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Kristol brings case against Miers to town: Conservative decries Bush pick
Seattle Post-Intelligencer ^ | 10/20/5 | Neil Modie

Posted on 10/20/2005 10:02:51 AM PDT by Crackingham

It isn't just about abortion. To William Kristol, one of the nation's most influential conservatives, the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court breaks a bedrock campaign promise President Bush made to the Republican right about "the future of American jurisprudence."

If the Senate confirms the White House counsel and longtime Bush adviser to succeed Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Kristol said Wednesday, "Bush would end up not having moved the court to the right at all," despite having appointed both Miers and newly sworn Chief Justice John Roberts.

Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard and a prominent conservative commentator and political analyst, delivered a harsh assessment of Miers, and of her prospects of winning Senate confirmation, during a telephone interview before coming to Seattle for a speaking engagement tonight.

Miers' nomination has stirred outrage on both the right and the left. Conservatives have decried her lack of a record opposing abortion and on other litmus-test issues, and abortion-rights advocates are alarmed about her defenders' suggestions that she is an evangelical Christian who can be trusted to be an opponent of abortion.

"The White House has now gotten itself in the worst of all possible worlds. She's a stealth candidate, but now she's not a stealth candidate, and she's not a distinguished candidate," Kristol said.

"If you're a conservative, the strongest argument for her is, 'Trust Bush; he knows what he's doing.' I don't think that's a strong argument."

Politically opposite critics are united, too, by concern over Miers' lack of credentials for the nation's highest court and what they see as cronyism in the president's choice of a loyal acolyte over more-qualified candidates. Miers has never been a judge nor established a record of her views on constitutional issues.

Not that Miers would dare do so, given the condemnation it would engender from political moderates, but what if she were to publicly condemn Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision legalizing the right to abortion? Would conservatives decide she's OK after all?

"I don't have a problem with a candidate saying that," Kristol said. "I'd prefer that someone with a really long and distinguished record in constitutional law say that and make the case" justifying it from a constitutional standpoint. He suggested Miers would lack the intellectual heft to make a persuasive case before hostile senators.

What conservatives want, and what they feel Bush promised them in 2000 and 2004, Kristol said, was not "just a person who votes right most of the time; it's someone who can influence the future of American jurisprudence" by becoming a dominant and persuasive voice for conservative principles.

If Miers is confirmed, Kristol believes, "she would be a pretty conservative vote for Bush" for the duration of his term, out of loyalty to the president. "And then she'd be like (Anthony) Kennedy or O'Connor," two moderately conservative justices and occasional swing votes on the court. O'Connor has been a key vote for abortion rights.

"You'd end up with only two real conservatives on the court, (Antonin) Scalia and (Clarence) Thomas, and Roberts as chief."

"I hope she withdraws (her nomination), and I remain skeptical that she will be confirmed," Kristol said.

"If it actually got to a vote, I think every Democrat would vote against her as a Bush crony who showed her cards as a strong pro-lifer." And she is "vulnerable from both sides" of the Senate Republican spectrum, with conservatives who are alarmed at her lack of a clearly conservative paper trail, and with moderates who would vote against her for her seemingly anti-abortion views, her mediocre credentials, or both, Kristol said.

"The president has given Republicans a difficult vote and Democrats an easy vote."


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: billkristol; conservatism; harrietmiers; kristol; miers; scotus; supremecourt; williamkristol
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-76 next last
To: america-rules
"William Kristol, one of the nation's most influential conservatives..."

"Puke!"

Yeah, what you said!

41 posted on 10/20/2005 11:40:03 AM PDT by Irene Adler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
I want to make it plain that I don't think the President is above criticism. I am not sure about this nomination, myself. HOWEVER, I do not like to see such nasty comments by the pundits (and they know who they are) with such petty attacks, back-biting, and sophomoric antics. Frum and Kristol are peas in a pod, and Coulter and Malkin are way over the top in their comments.

Because of the unseemly comments by these people, there is ZERO chance that the nomination will be withdrawn, and therefore I am waiting for the hearings. It is my opinion that the main reason for this nomination is the total lack of backbone shown by the Senate. Given their refusal to make the democrats behave as a minority party, this is probably the best we could hope for. In that spirit, I hope Miers proves to be much better in her testimony than anyone expects. And I still support the President, just like Krauthammer.

42 posted on 10/20/2005 11:41:04 AM PDT by Miss Marple (Lord, please look after Mozart Lover's son and keep him strong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
I want to make it plain that I don't think the President is above criticism.

That's a revelation that seems to be striking many a political celebrity groupie recently.

43 posted on 10/20/2005 12:01:58 PM PDT by eskimo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: eskimo

Groupie? Name names, buster.


44 posted on 10/20/2005 12:13:06 PM PDT by Miss Marple (Lord, please look after Mozart Lover's son and keep him strong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
Miers doesn't even know the constitution as well as most run-of-the-mill lawyers do, as shown in her citation, when providing written answers to Senators' questions, of "the proportional representation requirement of the Equal Protection Clause" as it relates to the Voting Rights Act. There is no proportional representation requirement in the Equal Protection clause! That's pretty much what the Equal Protection Clause expressly prohibits, i.e., discrimination based on race, for whatever reason.

Miers will be forced to defer to her colleagues on the court who actually know the constitution, and there's no telling where she'll end up ideologically once her constitutional apprenticeship is completed some years hence.

Her nomination is a bad joke. She's the very definition of an unqualified mediocrity, chosen, quite aptly, by a mediocre president.

45 posted on 10/20/2005 12:36:58 PM PDT by beckett (Amor Fati)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

"It isn't just about abortion."

Who said it was? Only the MSM who feels the need to make every Supreme Court story about abortion, as if that's all there is, because they think that's the reason people will be afraid to embrace an originalist judicial philosophy. So keep 'em scared about abortion.


46 posted on 10/20/2005 12:41:37 PM PDT by republicofdavis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Thomas was viewed as a blank slate...

Completely wrong. Thomas was well known for his libertarian leanings before he was appointed as a Federal Judge, let alone when he was headed for the SC.

No nominee has ever completely blind-sided the legal community as much as Harriet Miers. No one ever considered her a serious candidate for ANY POSITION of importance. She is where she is only because she was once Laura Bush's college buddy.

The nomination is a scandal -- corrupt cronyism at its worst.

47 posted on 10/20/2005 1:20:58 PM PDT by beckett (Amor Fati)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple
Groupie? Name names, buster.

Oh, you know, those who would engage in superficial political soap opera tripe rather than participate in legitimate and republic preserving political discussion out of sheer terror that their adopted political fantasy heros will suddenly be turned into goats.

48 posted on 10/20/2005 1:28:10 PM PDT by eskimo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: beckett
Thomas was well known for his libertarian leanings before he was appointed as a Federal Judge, let alone when he was headed for the SC.

Is that why The National Review feared that he was another David Souter?

49 posted on 10/20/2005 1:56:19 PM PDT by sinkspur (If you're not willing to give Harriett Miers a hearing, I don't give a damn what you think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Madeleine Ward

Obviously you didn't read what I posted. I'm not angry at Kristol and his fellow outraged Republicans. I'm just fed up with their whining. This angry Republican outrage started almost immediately after Bush picked Miers. IIRC, that was Oct 3rd. Instead of measuring their criticism against Bush, some rightwing pundits have instead chosen to condemn the President and Miers before she even has her hearings. I don't call that fair. For someone who wanted Bush to pick Michael Luttig, I'm very disappointed. I'm also disappointed with remarks from Kristol, who I don't especially care for, and Fred Barnes, who I usually do enjoy listening to. If you're looking for me to be politically correct, you're barking up the wrong conservative.


50 posted on 10/20/2005 2:15:08 PM PDT by Reagan Man (Secure our borders;punish employers who hire illegals;stop all welfare to illegals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man

What I hate about this whole thing is that the excessive rhetoric of the pundits has spilled over into FR, and the bottom line is this is not good for anyone except the democrats. <


51 posted on 10/20/2005 4:28:01 PM PDT by Miss Marple (Lord, please look after Mozart Lover's son and keep him strong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple

Couldn't agree more.


52 posted on 10/20/2005 4:48:57 PM PDT by Reagan Man (Secure our borders;punish employers who hire illegals;stop all welfare to illegals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
We shouldn't forget many posters here at FR are really liberals, Democrats, Perotistas, Buchananites, or McCainiacs posing as conservative Republicans. Their purpose is to confuse, demoralize, and anger the true conservatives.

The same thing is true among the punditry. Do any of you think Bill Kristol is looking out for anyone other than himself?
53 posted on 10/20/2005 5:19:19 PM PDT by Oklahoma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

Kristol, a legend in his own mind!


54 posted on 10/20/2005 5:20:53 PM PDT by lexington minuteman 1775
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Time to play my GOP cards...


55 posted on 10/20/2005 7:22:23 PM PDT by Victoria Delsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Victoria Delsoul
LOL!

You got the rest of that deck of cards with you?

56 posted on 10/20/2005 7:26:02 PM PDT by Alberta's Child (I ain't got a dime, but what I got is mine. I ain't rich, but Lord I'm free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
If you insist.


57 posted on 10/20/2005 7:30:43 PM PDT by Victoria Delsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Victoria Delsoul

Oh, boy. LOL!!


58 posted on 10/20/2005 7:32:17 PM PDT by Alberta's Child (I ain't got a dime, but what I got is mine. I ain't rich, but Lord I'm free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Oklahoma
We shouldn't forget many posters here at FR are really liberals, Democrats, Perotistas, Buchananites, or McCainiacs posing as conservative Republicans.

GOP groupies have a lot of boogeymen but sooner or later they are going to come to the realization that the GOP has been commandeered by socialist political opportunists and is nothing close to conservative.

Their purpose is to confuse, demoralize, and anger the true conservatives.

Hey, wake up! That is exactly what the national GOP is doing.

59 posted on 10/20/2005 7:37:10 PM PDT by eskimo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

:-D


60 posted on 10/20/2005 7:41:08 PM PDT by Victoria Delsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-76 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson