Posted on 10/24/2005 9:28:23 AM PDT by Crackingham
President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court has divided the conservative movement. Initially, most conservatives, but not quite all, expressed disappointment with the nomination. Since then, paths have diverged. Some conservatives, having gone on record as wishing that Bush had chosen someone else, have now migrated back into the fold, pronounced Miers a qualified candidate, and defended her nomination as the president's prerogative. Other conservatives have continued to ratchet up their attacks on Miers. Nearly every day produces yet another instance of Miers's alleged incompetence, inexperience, or suspected liberal sympathies.
Some of the criticisms of Miers are trivial; others are unfair. A few are better grounded, but at the same time, could have serious implications if Republican senators accept them as legitimate grounds to oppose her nomination.
SNIP
Republicans have long taken the position that, because it is the president's prerogative to select Supreme Court justices, any nominee who is qualified and doesn't subscribe to an extreme judicial philosophy should be confirmed. Some Miers critics seem now to imply a new standard by mocking Miers as undistinguished, or by pointing out how much more qualified other potential nominees would have been. Such attacks carry a hazard. Until now, the judicial confirmation process has never been seen as one where senators can reject a qualified nominee on the ground that he or she isn't the nominee the senators wanted, or the one the senators consider the best.
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.
A second avenue of conservative attack on Miers, somewhat related to the first, likewise could change the assumptions that have heretofore underlain the confirmation process. The biggest concern of many on the right is that Miers may not be a "real" conservative. Many Republicans, stung by the examples of Souter, Stevens, and others, believe that only a nominee with a
long paper trail, demonstrating a commitment to both political conservatism and to a judicial philosophy like "originalism," can be counted on, long-term, to defend conservative principles on the Court.
From this perspective, Miers is deemed unacceptable because she has not spent years wrestling with, and writing about, Constitutional issues; nor has she articulated a clear--and clearly conservative--theory of Constitutional interpretation. But there is a simple reason for this: Miers has spent her life in private practice. A private practitioner does not devote her time to developing theories of Constitutional interpretation. If a paper trail firmly identifying a nominee as an "originalist," or whatever, is a prerequisite for nomination, then we will never have anyone but judges and law professors as Supreme Court justices.
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.
conclusion jumping is one of my best events. I'm of Olympic caliber in that regard ;^>
just another example of how W screwed the pooch w/ this nomination.
Well then perhaps you can articulate in a few sentances precisely what makes her unqualified.
It is doubtful that the schizoid Judge Souter has enough contact with external reality to actually be aware of this.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Probably glad that he dodged a bullet. Exactly which one, I do not know, but something must explain his change in posture.
"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.
My sister worked for a top lawyer. Cases involving constitutional questions seldom came his way.
Whatever you call it, if Pubbies can play that game, so can the Dims.
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.
"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?
Yes. Or, you could just take it on faith. Geez, I would LOVE to sell you a used car!!!
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.
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.