The Long Game: Voting against Harriet Miers might come back to haunt Republican senators.

Weekly Standard ^ | 10/24/5 | John Hinderaker

[JohnnyZ]

I haven't heard anyone (paticularly a senator) articulate why Mier's is "not qualified"

Really? I've read and heard hundreds of friends, FReepers, and writers argue just that very convincingly.

Moreover, I have not heard a single person argue convincingly that Miers is qualified.

[Phsstpok]

conclusion jumping is one of my best events. I'm of Olympic caliber in that regard ;^>

[Pietro]

just another example of how W screwed the pooch w/ this nomination.

[Smogger]

Well then perhaps you can articulate in a few sentances precisely what makes her unqualified.

[hinckley buzzard]

How does Souter feel knowing dems don't accept him and we can't stand him?

It is doubtful that the schizoid Judge Souter has enough contact with external reality to actually be aware of this.

[Ol' Sparky]

The Democrats abandoned playing by those rules LONG ago. That is one of the reasons the Supreme Court is dominated by left-wing judicial activists. The Democrats block qualified conservatives like Robert Bork while the Republicans allowed qualified ACLU lawyers like Ruth Bader Ginsberg to be confirmed almost unanimiously.

You and Hinderaker apparently value the principle of in the way the process should be conducted over doing whatever is necessary to change the direction on the court. You want Republicans to take what you consider to be the high road while the Democrats are playing dirty and only looking at the ideology of nominee. That’s is WHY conservatives are losing.

Republicans in the Senate need to play the game the way the Democrats are and only vote to confirm judges that are proven originalists. Presidents aren't kings. The process allows for the Senate to reject any nominee for any reason. Frankly, rejecting a nominee because he or she isn’t an originalist is a very good reason.

[JohnnyZ]

No history of judging, writing about, even thinking about(!) issues in constitutional law.

Embarassing writing and argumentative ability ~~ 'the answer to society's problems is for everyone, young and old, rich and poor, male and female, tall and short, to commit themselves to solving society's problems' (slight paraphrase)

Essentially she doesn't have any experience dealing with constitutional law and has shown nothing which would suggest that she has a particular aptitude for it.

[Smogger]

No history of judging, writing about, even thinking about(!) issues in constitutional law.

She's not a judge, and how do you know what she has thought about?

I wasn't aware that being an expert in constitutional law was a prerequisite for being a supreme court justice. I am no expert on the Constitution, but I don't believe there are ANY qualifications to sit on the Supreme Court.

[JohnnyZ]

I am no expert on the Constitution, but I don't believe there are ANY qualifications to sit on the Supreme Court.

There are none listed in the Constitution.

But we do have common sense -- at least some of us do. The Constitution would allow a 5-year-old Ethiopan to be nominated -- after all, there are no Constitutional qualifications. But there are qualifications for those who know how to use the brain God gave them. Heck, Bush said Miers was the "most qualified" he could find!!! Surely there must be qualifications then. What Bush thinks they are, Lord only knows.

[ez]

But many conservative critics of Harriet Miers come perilously close to urging that standard on Republican senators, in hopes that, if Miers is defeated, the president will go back to the candidate pool more favored by conservatives. But, once a handful of Republican senators have used such a rationale to vote against a Republican nominee, it requires little imagination to foresee how quickly the Democrats will use that precedent to justify their own opposition to essentially any Republican nominee, no matter how well-qualified or mainstream.

[ez]

All you need is evidence that the person is a strong, known originalist

In the case of a non-judge without a written history, how would you know a person was an originalis? And doesn't that mean that only those who can PROVE they're an originalist are eligible?

[RobbyS]

Probably glad that he dodged a bullet. Exactly which one, I do not know, but something must explain his change in posture.

[reelfoot]

"Republicans have long taken the position that, because it is the president's prerogative to select Supreme Court justices, any nominee who is qualified . . . ."

1) Keeping a bowl of M & Ms in her office does not make up for not knowing important constitutional cases. She's not qualified.

2) While the Republicans may have taken such a position, the Dims don't play by the same rule book. They slash and burn. The court will not be returned to faithful constitutionalists unless conservative senators insist on such, regardless of whether the nominee was picked by a Republican or Dim president.

[RobbyS]

My sister worked for a top lawyer. Cases involving constitutional questions seldom came his way.

[RobbyS]

Whatever you call it, if Pubbies can play that game, so can the Dims.

[pepperhead]

How does Souter feel knowing dems don't accept him and we can't stand him?

I would guess he feels pretty down by all of it. But after a good long hard jog in the park I am sure he feels much better.

[Little Ray]

It is time to cop out:

The Los Angeles Times reports "many constitutional experts" are "shaking their heads" over a written answer Miers gave the Senate Judiciary Committee: "Miers described her service on the Dallas City Council in 1989. When the city was sued on allegations that it violated the Voting Rights Act, she said, 'the council had to be sure to comply with the proportional representation requirement of the Equal Protection Clause.' "

The Washington Post reports that under Miers's leadership, the Texas Bar Association "embraced racial and gender set-asides and set numerical targets to achieve that goal." This may raise the hackles of people who believe in equality -- though in fairness we should note that this sort of discrimination is so commonplace in the private sector that it may be unfair to infer anything about Miers's personal or legal beliefs here.

from Best of Web Today.

However good she is in "real life," the Ms. Miers is not cut out to be a Supreme Court Justice.

[flashbunny]

"And doesn't that mean that only those who can PROVE they're an originalist are eligible?"

If that's what the president promised while on the campaign trail, shouldn't that be a requirement?

[JohnnyZ]

And doesn't that mean that only those who can PROVE they're an originalist are eligible?

Yes. Or, you could just take it on faith. Geez, I would LOVE to sell you a used car!!!

[ez]

If that's what the president promised while on the campaign trail, shouldn't that be a requirement?

It should be a requirement. That's why between that promise and her stated contention that she will be an originalist, I believe she will be an originalist.

My point is that if she has no indicatory record, one must accept the word of the people that know her.