Posted on 10/21/2005 6:03:45 AM PDT by katieanna
WASHINGTON - President Bush insisted Thursday that Harriet Miers would win over any skeptics and be seated on the U.S. Supreme Court, even as the embattled nominee worked on a "do-over" questionnaire for irritated senators overseeing the confirmation process.
"Harriet will answer all the questions asked," Bush said during a Rose Garden news conference to showcase his visit with Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas. "Out of this will come a clear picture of a competent, strong, capable woman who shares the same judicial philosophy that I share."
This (not necessarily yours) uppity perspective toward mental ability is a waste. We'll just have to wait and see.
But for all those who want her to drop out, Charles Krautmammer has a pretty good solution for that in his latest article.
They also share the same gift with words that he shares.
"This (not necessarily yours) uppity perspective toward mental ability is a waste."
I think the pundit on television was referring more to knowledge rather than mental ability. He based his comments on her inability to answer a question posed to her by a senator on the famous Griswold case. His point is that Roberts, Scalia, Stevens and other Justices could answer any question and then some asked about Griswold and any other widely known case. She just doesn't have the background they have.
From the Texas Lottery days, Miers is a "fixer" like Clark Clifford was in DC. However, Clifford was a DC "insider" while Miers performed most of her fixer duties in Texas.
Both Bush and Miers are Washington "outsiders." I see in this that Bush is using Miers to irritate the Washington insiders deliberately. There has to be considerable undercurrent of friction between the two camps, and this is bringing it to the forefront. At the personal level, Bush is essentially saying Washington DC insiders can take a hike.
With this nomination, so early into his second term, perhaps Bush is declaring war on the Washington insiders, Democrat and Republican.
It is a very good point. A justice is far more than just a conservative or a liberal vote. If they are good they are a persuasive voice that leads the court and influences other votes. Further, their voice and writing is part of the historical record and their opinions if they are well constructed and written will continue to influence the court for perhaps centuries past the end of their life term.
This one of the major reasons why many conservatives are so angry that many of our well-known brilliant conservative justices were bypassed in this selection. Ms. Miers may turn out to be a competent justice and a reliable vote but there is NOTHING in her record to suggest brilliance and the quality of her writing that we have seen so far has been fairly lame. It is a shame that we won't have the smartest person possible making the case for conservative, original intent jurisprudence.
IMHO, Bush has a better chance of winning the Texas Lottery than getting Miers confirmed.
This could be true, but I remember hearing Scalia say that there is very little persuading on the court now, that they do more looking for ways to put together coalitions than actually trying to change minds.
If someone else remembers this and can find a citation, or a quote, that would make this a serios point rather than just my recollection.
I just read it. It's nice of him to try, but there is no face saving exit. No matter how well contrived, it will still be seen, rightly so, as contrived. It's especially hard to imagine a scenario outlined in the Washington Post as a face-saving exit strategy being viewed as anything else than a face-saving exit strategy. As with most blunders, the longer it goes on, the worse it gets.
Bush's presidency is close to being over. He looks like a hapless fool more and more each day by allowing events to consume him, rather than leading. Perfect example is the Plame situation - he has let that fester beyond repair.
The only thing that can save him is for him to regrow his testicles - close the damn borders, veto spending bills, cut taxes, and get his ass over to Baghdad and rally our troops.
I don't want to hear anymore about the "legacy of racism" that's responsible for New Orleans poverty and or anymore guest worker programs for illegals.
And finally, can the GOP nominate somebody in '08 who is articulate and can make a point without stuttering and looking lost? The guy may be smart, but he sure acts like a buffoon.
Translation: "who is just a big a dumba$$ as I am."
That would be my guess. I don't think Roberts or anybody else is going to change Ginsberg's mind. We're just trying to collect votes. I hope the one promise she made to our president is "I'll vote with Thomas every time". If she just does that.... we'll be fine.
I believe that is 100% out of his control. What's he supposed to do about it?
That's what I was thinking. What does he suggest... that Bush fire Rove and Cheney?
I, too, recall seeing Scalia on TV talk about the atmosphere of the Court. I don't remember who interviewed him, though. Somehow I want to say B. Walters. Anyway, I agree that not much mind-changing goes on, rather the building of coalitions. The nature of the conversations notwithstanding, the idea is that each Justice is "one of equals". On that point, I'd tend to think a conversation on the constitutionality and precedent of a case before the Court could prove embarassing to Miers. I'd be delighted to be wrong.
That's about the only thing I could think of too.
IOW, this can be seen as a continuation of the Yankee and Cowboy War.
"His point is that Roberts, Scalia, Stevens and other Justices could answer any question and then some asked about Griswold and any other widely known case"
They are brilliant people, but don't overestimate their ability to recite case law -- known or obscure -- on a moment's notice.
I don't think you are. I heard a Bush soundbite this morning that "she hasn't read this opinion or that opinion to see what someone said. That's why I nominated her." Excuse, isn't that exactly what even competent lawyers, much less a USSCt Justice, supposed to have done!?!
And her answers in the Senate interviews are even more chilling:
Favorite legal writer? "John Grisham"
Favorite SCt Justice? "Earl Warren"
She thinks Griswold case, which read penumbral rights into the Cn, was correct.
She thinks the 14th Amendment requires percentage quotas.
At best she's simply too much an intellectual lighweight to be a USSCt justice. At worst she'll make Sandra Day O'Connor look like Ann Coulter.
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.