President Questioned for Supreme Court pick Harriet Miers (Schlafly's Calm, Rational Questions)

TownHall.com ^ | 10/18/2005 | Phyllis Schlafly

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

If U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts' confirmation hearing is any guide, we won't learn anything from Harriet Miers' confirmation hearing. So here are some questions we would like President George W. Bush to answer.

You said, "Trust me." But why should we trust you when experience proves we could not trust the judgment of President Reagan (who gave us Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony M. Kennedy) or President George H.W. Bush (who gave us Justice David H. Souter)? Are you more trustworthy than Reagan or your father?

You said, "She's not going to change. ... Twenty years from now she'll be the same person, with the same philosophy that she is today." Isn't that claim ridiculous after Miers already made a major change in her philosophy from Democrat (giving personal contributions in the 1980s - when she was age 43 - to former Vice President Al Gore, former U.S. Sen. Lloyd Bentsen and the Democratic National Committee's campaign to elect Michael Dukakis), to Republican in the 1990s (contributing to George W. Bush and others)?

Do you understand why your current supporters are upset that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., (who voted against the confirmation of Roberts) said he recommended her, while you rejected the recommendations of people who supported you?

Because your supporters voted for you to change the direction of the Supreme Court away from activism and toward constitutionalism, do you understand their sense of betrayal that your two appointments have failed to do that: Roberts for Rehnquist was a non-change, and Miers for O'Connor can reasonably be expected to be another non-change?

When President William Jefferson Clinton appointed Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, it was clear from her paper trail that she was a radical feminist who would surely vote to keep abortion legal. Why do you, Mr. President, insult your supporters who expected you to give us a justice who would be the ideological opposite of Ginsburg?

In presenting Miers as the most qualified person for this Supreme Court appointment, is there any evidence to convince us that she is more qualified than Judges Edith Jones, Janice Rogers Brown or Priscilla Owen?

Because many prominent pro-choice officials belong to churches that are pro-life, such as Reid, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, why should we believe Miers is pro-life because that's the position of the church she attends?

And why are Miers' advocates constantly talking about her religion, anyway? Is her religion a qualification for office?

Because your wife, your mother and all the women you have appointed to high office - such as Rice and Republican National Committee Co-Chairman Jo Ann Davidson - oppose overturning Roe v. Wade, how can we assume Miers will be any different?

Do you really think that serving on the Texas Lottery Commission helps the resume of a Supreme Court nominee?

Miers is a corporate attorney who served on the Dallas City Council as a representative of the business community. Can you provide any evidence that she, or the business community, cares about the social issues that conservatives care about, such as the definition of marriage, the Pledge of Allegiance, the Ten Commandments, the Boy Scouts, abortion, euthanasia or the sovereignty issues?

Why do you tout Miers' activity in the American Bar Association when most conservatives regard ABA influence as a negative rather than a positive?

Do you really think that pro-lifers will be convinced that Miers is pro-life because in 1989 she bought a $150 ticket to a dinner at which 30 other Dallas politicians attended in order to be introduced?

Because Miers hasn't written anything memorable or important by age 60, how can we assume she has the capability to write Supreme Court opinions? Is there any constitutional or conservative principle on which Miers ever took a stand?

Because Souter, after one pro-life vote in his first term on the Supreme Court, was ridiculed by the press as "a black hole" from which no opinions emerged, then "grew" left to avoid the scorn of the media, aren't you concerned that Miers, who has never written anything on constitutional issues, might suffer the same fate?

Since O'Connor demonstrated her lack of judicial philosophy by unpredictably switching back and forth, so that the media praised her as the most powerful woman in America, aren't you concerned that Miers' lack of judicial philosophy might take her down the same path?

Why do you offend traditional women by choosing Miers, who helped create and raise funds for a radical feminist lecture series at Southern Methodist Law School that featured as speakers feminists Gloria Steinem and Susan Faludi, former U.S. Rep. Patricia Schroeder, D-Ore., and former Democratic Texas Gov. Ann Richards? What role did Miers play in White House pro-feminist policies about Title IX and women in combat?

Because Miers' chief qualification for high office is that she is your lawyer, aren't you worried about unfortunate parallels between her and President Lyndon B. Johnson's appointment of his personal lawyer, Abe Fortas?

[alnick]

Rational? You call "why should we trust you when someone else made mistakes" rational? Especially given this president's exellent track record on judicial nominees.

You call "Why should we accept Miers when you have Laura, Rice, and your mother in your life" rational?

[doc11355]

"Whoever this "Schlafly" character is, she needs to go back to DU and STFU!" It's just more Elitist crap from people who have done nothing for the conservative movement over the last fifty years.

I hope both of you are trading sarcasm, because, if you're not, your ignorance of the history of the Conservative Movement and the contributions of Phyllis Shalfly is staggering.

[GarySpFc]

I think it is pretty stupid to actually think this woman would vote to some day overturn Roe vs Wade. We have absolutely Nothing to go by to assume such a thing. This appointment is far too important to simply hope she would be a true conservative judge voting traditional values and a strict constitutionalist. In all honesty I say that you and many other naive conservatives are far too gullible. And also not thinking this through. Bravo for Phyllis Schlafly.

The evidence that Miers would vote pro-life is there if you will take off your blinders. I served as vice-president of a major pro-life organization for many years. I also am responsible for updates to two major Bible translations to reflect a pro-life view. Don't you think I understand what is at stake with this seat to SCOTUS? You might want to rethink your position prior to throwing out the gullible tag.

[kitkat]

From The Washington Times:

Phyllis Schlafly: "...and then, in a stunning upset, led the forces that defeated the Equal Rights Amendment (NRA)."

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20051007-120157-1091r.htm

She is a Republican, conservative, and a brilliant woman who fights against women being forced out of the home.

[rollo tomasi]

Pres. Bush was pretty smart and "political" when he signed the CFR bill (Thinking the Supreme Court would kill it), yes?

Or did Bush like the Bill (He signed it) and played conservatives for fools yet again.

Don't jump to conclusions just yet.

[George W. Bush]

Because your wife, your mother and all the women you have appointed to high office - such as Rice and Republican National Committee Co-Chairman Jo Ann Davidson - oppose overturning Roe v. Wade, how can we assume Miers will be any different?

Schlafly has an excellent point here. Why is Laura so enthusiastic about Miers if she really believes Miers will strike down Roe?

I notice that Concerned Women for America is asking a similar set of sharp questions. So Phyllis isn't alone in asking. Eagle Forum and CWA are the two big conservative/Christian women's groups with national influence.

[S.O.L.]

It seems that "rant" has been defined to mean any well-stated, common sense opposition to the Miers nomination.

[Mr. Bird]

The politics of abortion spawned a judicial religion that keeps bending debate in unnecessary ways. There is no need to interpret a nominee's church affiliation or history of donations to determine any potential decision on Roe.

The profile of a nominee likely to overturn Roe is that of a learned, principled legal mind willfully ignorant of public opinion. No honest legal scholar can state that Roe is anything other than a horrific example of judicial insanity. It has nothing to do with morality, it is law made from whole cloth.

[.cnI redruM]

>>>>>Miers is affirmative action personified -- nominated because of discrimination, and strongly in favor of it.


She needs to be return forthwith to the private sector because of that.

[Dave S]

Scafly and calm reasonable in the same sentence. An oxymoron.

[Bellflower]

The evidence that Miers would vote pro-life is there if you will take off your blinders.

OK given the evidence which must be solid what is it? It needs to be good and totally convincing. Also, just because you served as a vice president for a pro-life group and did some bible translation does nothing to set my mind at ease. If this nominee's main qualifications are that she is suppose to be a Christian and President Bush's lawyer that is not good enough for me. We simply must be positive on this one. This lady has been both Liberal and Conservative. She goes to church yet her past record is not that of a conservative Bible believing Christian. Once again just what is suppose to be the evidence of her being pro-life, pro-family and a solid constitutionalist? President Bush's Christian conservative base worked hard to get him in office both terms for such a time as this. I hope and pray this candidate steps down and the President appoints someone we can be confident about.

[Christian4Bush]

bttt

[goldstategop]

It sounds a lot like Abe Fortas. And Miers looks likely to suffer the same fate. Phyllis Schafly raised good questions about Miers' fitness to serve on the SCOTUS. We'll hear the Bushbots shouting her down as a traitor just like they've shouted down Ann Coulter and other conservatives who've dared to make waves. The more we hear about the President's nominee, the less people like her. One sure sign of a doomed nomination is the constantly changing rationales for your nominee. The White House needs to pull the plug before this divides conservatives even more.

("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")

[safisoft]

Phyllis should ask 20 or so RINOs in the Senate: "Why aren't you Democrats?" It would make as much sense as this rant.

Good point. While she is at it, add this to the bottom of her questions:

Mr. President, why aren't you a Democrat?

The fact is, in the past 6 months Bush has started acting very much like the RINOs in the Senate.

Every time people bring up the "weakness of the Senate" as a reason why Bush had to nominate Miers, you only strengthen the argument that Bush is either weak, or just like them.

[I8NY]

ROFL! A little Florida sunshine for my morning.

[I8NY]

I had missed this in the Roberts hearings (liked most of his answers, but couldn't stand those bug eyes). Didn't realize that Roberts was a Keloid.

[I8NY]

" I hope both of you are trading sarcasm"

I think that's a given, Doc!

[Sarah]

'Because your wife, your mother and all the women you have appointed to high office - such as Rice and Republican National Committee Co-Chairman Jo Ann Davidson - oppose overturning Roe v. Wade, how can we assume Miers will be any different?

Schlafly has an excellent point here. Why is Laura so enthusiastic about Miers if she really believes Miers will strike down Roe?

I notice that Concerned Women for America is asking a similar set of sharp questions. So Phyllis isn't alone in asking. Eagle Forum and CWA are the two big conservative/Christian women's groups with national influence.'
_________________________

Even Worse! Laura is probably pro-choice. Don't you remember her coy remarks in the early campaign?

[I8NY]

"Scafly and calm reasonable in the same sentence. An oxymoron."

Phyllis _Schlafly_ can be strident at times, but "calm and reasonable" is an accurate description of this piece. A little respect is in order for someone of her consistency, determination and character.

[expat_panama]

Because Miers hasn't written anything memorable or important by age 60, how can we assume she has the capability to write Supreme Court opinions?

Actually, she managed the editorials for the Texas bar for several years.  She wrote jumbled incomprehensible contradictory platitudes that none of the Miers people want us to notice.