Posted on 10/22/2005 10:05:25 PM PDT by gpapa
BY GLENN HARLAN REYNOLDS
Sunday, October 23, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT
The Bush administration has made two kinds of mistakes with the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. One kind is substantive, the other procedural.
The substantive mistakes have to do with Ms. Miers's qualifications, including her current position. It's entirely possible, of course, that if confirmed, Ms. Miers will become a stellar Supreme Court justice; history has produced surprises before. Earl Warren, after all, was a politician, and expected to be easily manipulated by the court's brighter intellects. William J. Brennan Jr. was a state judge of no special reputation when Eisenhower nominated him, yet he so came to dominate the court that some observers referred to the early Rehnquist court as the "Brennan court." Perhaps Ms. Miers will prove a similar surprise, though conservatives may not find the examples of Warren and Brennan entirely comforting.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Yup--just like we heard his daddy promise "Read my lips, no new taxes", and "Souter is a conservative".
Thankfully, I missed that history in FR (outrage over Ashcroft).
And here I thought the latest here on FR was unusual, due to 2005 registration.
I HAVE found it shocking, the degree of denigration of Bush about Miers. Itend to think a lot of it is liberals in disguise, and that includes some among the so-called conservative media.
![]() ![]() ![]() |
A certain segment of conservatives have a visceral dislike of the President. Nothing he does or doesn't do will change that. You can see it in the comments they make; it isn't that they are just critical of the nomination, but that they use it to hang every grudge they carry against him around his neck.
I'm not surprised at those here on FR who are acting in such a way. The columnists, who are supposedly smarter politically, are the ones I don't get. I am led to the conclusion that some people care more about winning this "fight" than in the long-term damage their public rants do.
However, only another 10 days or so until the hearings. I'm hoping Ms. Miers will either prove to be way better than the critics, or makes an early error and withdraws.
Of course, then we will have the problem of a different nominee. I wonder if ANYONE would be foolish enough to leave a confirmed judgeship for life and put themselves in front of this bunch. All the detractors now might be surprised at who a different nominee would be.
;-)
That is a fact. And if it weren't for FR I don't think the Swifties would have had half of their exposure and effect! In other words, I think FR basically was greatly influential in putting Georgie boy into office.
'Chance the Gardener' would do for me.
;-)
***
"As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. And all will be well in the garden."
LOL. Cue the Deodato tune!
>>>I HAVE found it shocking, the degree of denigration of Bush about Miers.<<<
Why do you find it shocking, BIRDS? You act as if it is his first offense.
Well said!!!!
Yeah, he's loyal to his friends, but there is something fishy about his methods for choosing people for important positions. For example, Dick Cheney was asked to find a good candidate for Vice President before Bush's first presidential campaign, and after an extensive, exhaustive search, he chose Dick Cheney. Now, Harriet Miers, legal council to the President is asked to vet a nominee to the Supreme Court, and who does she come up with? Why, Harriet Miers, of course. I just wish he would let me choose the next head of the Federal Reserve. I do believe that after an extensive, exhaustive search of my own, I would announce to Pres. Bush that I couldn't find any candidate for the position better than myself to serve at his pleasure. I wonder how THAT would go over?
Now that you mention it...considering that the entire federal government had been infested with unapprehended felons, what exactly did Ashcroft do? Now he's long gone but the clintonoid felons are still riding high.
Nothing he does or doesn't do will change that.
visceral
In fact, I don't believe I saw such crudeness used when people were criticizing President Clinton.
Well, I know what I have seen, and I stand by my statement.
Yeah, very well said. I'm trying to imagine this same process with yet another nominee after Miers (either to replace if that's what transpires or to follow, anticipating more vacancies while Bush is in office).
I do say, in retrospect, that Republicans were far more accepting of a President's privilege of nominating to the S.C. than are the Democrats, now in opposite fashion. I doubt at this point that any nominee by Bush will ever escape being Mier'd.
And, like I wrote and as you did, too, yes, the conservative media has shown itself to be startlingly cruel about Miers, and Bush. A shocker.
I have complaints but for most of us voters, Bush was a vast improvement over Gore and/or Kerry. I can barely imagine the horrors that both would have resulted.
We do need a rising star among conservatives at this point. Think it will have to be someone apart from the Bush Administration.
Ultimately, it is the voters choice.
Being a strict Constructionist requires an enormous amount of experience in Constitutional Law and a very nimble mental acuity.
I think that your going a little too deep here, all it takes is common sence and a degree and the right morals, she has all of that.
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.