Posted on 10/27/2005 6:09:25 AM PDT by procomone
WASHINGTON - Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination to be a Supreme Court justice Thursday in the face of stiff opposition and mounting criticism about her qualifications.
Bush said he reluctantly accepted her decision to withdraw, after weeks of insisting that he did not want her to step down. He blamed her withdrawal on calls in the Senate for the release of internal White House documents that the administration has insisted were protected by executive privilege.
"It is clear that senators would not be satisfied until they gained access to internal documents concerning advice provided during her tenure at the White House — disclosures that would undermine a president's ability to receive candid counsel," Bush said. "Harriet Miers' decision demonstrates her deep respect for this essential aspect of the constitutional separation of powers — and confirms my deep respect and admiration for her."
I came to the same conclusion myself and was leaning towards opposing her nomination. I had a feeling the Bush Admin was seeing neutrals starting to shift against Miers, and the writing was on the wall.
Some folks opposed to Miers made decent and principled arguments against her. But too many others just threw slime, and too many others promoted the notion that the Constitution can only be interpreted by a mandarin class with decades of study preparation. Which I think is balderdash - the best justice on the court, Thomas, didn't have much preparation. What he had was a drive to interpret only what was there in front of him. Folks like Will, Krauthammer and Coulter IMO did considerable damage to any effort to de-mystify the Constitution, and that was reprehensible.
But, then again, those folks tend to be more activist conservatives than originalists. And I think that is where a lot of the split came down. It won't take a conservative activist to overturn Roe v. Wade - just an originalist. But an originalist also won't carry the water for a lot of conservative activism.
"I will have a good day, but find it a shame that people in my own party can be so turn coat and so demanding in their own temper tantrums."
Hey, a lot of people thought he was about to make a very serious mistake and yelled good and loud about it. What would you do if you thought he was making a serious mistake?
Opps my mistake, I didn't mean to imply that I support you. My apologies.
I don't think Laura was trying to say Bush orchestrated the withdrawl for these reasons. I think she believes that Miers probably acted on her own, but given that, Bush will pick an established conservative...
Normally, I would have liked Bush to follow this out too, but in this case resistance was futile.
Is that your hunch, your gut feelings, your trust in Pres. Bush? Or is your belief based on any facts, writing, or qualifications that have escaped the attention of conservatives?
Giving a lifetime SCOTUS appointment based on a hunch isn't very wise, do you think?
"too many others promoted the notion that the Constitution can only be interpreted by a mandarin class with decades of study preparation."
That's not what Coulter said. She said you needed lots of experience in the ring duking it out with the opposition.
It's true of prize fighters, and its true of anybody who is going to tangle with the left.
I can live a long time without a half-handed comment from anyone like you my FRiend.. We are not new on these boards, or in life.
I have a clear memory, and can recall having been down this road before, when we had the conservative wind at our back, and had it snatched away by the hotheaded sprinters among us that were not satisfied with consistent winning with a long range plan. We had it within our grasp in the 50's and 70's and again in the early 90's, and now again.. Shi#, now because we cannot see what the President was doing we are about to toss it away again.. Stupid, Stupid, Stupid
Coulter also question Mier's law school, for cryin' out loud - so the insinuation was clearly there.
And I really don't think one needs to "duke it out" - Thomas hardly ever asks any questions but writes calm and succinct decisions. We don't need an Ann Coulter type on the court, we need more Clarence Thomas types who aren't in love with the sound of their own voice.
Totally agree.
You say you were coming to oppose. It made me realize, with a chuckle, that my own position was coming to be like that of "pro-life"/pro-Roe Dems: "personally opposed," but believing that the President and Miers had the right to a hearing.
Dan
Well, part of the problem is, we really don't know how someone would react with that much power in their hands. What was starting to turn me against Miers was her apparent love for power - she seemed in awe of the powers that Bush had. And I don't think that is a good mindset.
I see someone like Clarence Thomas and I see a man comfortable in his own skin who is not egotistical about his power as a Supreme Court justice, who instead sees himself as a facilitator for the intent of the Founders. There is little power in doing that - but Thomas doesn't care. That, IMO, is the most important trait I want in a nominee. I really don't want someone who has lusted to be on SCOTUS their entire life - and that was my primary question about Roberts - he seemed like he spent his entire life preparing to be on SCOTUS, just like Slick spent his life lusting to be president. Our best presidents, IMO, have been those who didn't set out in life to become such until later in life.
"Have you been following Krauthammer? He spelled out this whole scenario last week and concluded by saying now that he'd put it out there the White House would never use it. Guess what, they did and much to my surprise some people are actually buying it. Unbelieveable."
It was not Charles Krauthammer that said now that he put it out there the WH would never use it. After Charles spelled out the scenario, it was Fred Barnes who said to Charles that now that Charles had given the WH his advice, that the WH would never follow it. It was Fred Barnes, not Charles who stated the advice would not be taken because Charles had put it out there.
My recommendation the first time around that there was a vacancy on the Supreme Court, and my same recommendation now for a new nominee is Ted Olson. He has all the conservative credentials, he is an expert on constitutional law, he has judicial temperament, he is charming, he could not be attacked by the Dems as all would have in the back of their mind what happened to his wife Barbara Olson, with her death in the plane on 9/11, and he is very much like Roberts however with a more definite conservative bent. One can't claim he's too old, as Bush just nominated Miers and she was 60. Olson is, I believe, 61. Olson could get through the court nomination process with great ease, he would be great in the judicial committee hearings, as he is brilliant, and would be backed willingly by the conservatives, and unwillingly but out of necessity to not appear as the ideological nasty rats they are, by the dems. Of course, this is all just too logical, so Bush won't do it. But I put it out there nonetheless, just as I did when the first opening on the Supreme Court came forth.
Look. It was bad enough that Miers was catching hell from all directions. Miers lack of a papertrail was starting to take center stage. This week the Senate committee went public with their desire to see some of the private communications between Bush and Miers. That's not gonna happen. Its called executive privilege. Besides, right now, this is a dead issue.
[now because we cannot see what the President was doing ]
That concept doesn't frighten you? Hitler and Stalin both came to power through appointments/deals. You don't really want a president who "needs" that kind of leeway, do you?
Souter was suppose to be a good pick, but it back-fired. Nobody is every going to be a 100% shoe-in pick. People ( nominees )change overtime as do we all. I believe in a lot of things I did't 30 years ago and vice a versa. Just becuase she was not out-spoken and posted her opinions for all the world to see does not mean she did not have any. Her inner circle of associates probably were well aware of them. After all, she helped get Roberts nominated so where could she have been wrong?
I have been following GW for years before he was our governor and since he straightened his personal life out he has made very few poor choices that I have seen. I helped elect him twice and based on that I "trusted him" to know what he was doing. I personally did not know much about Ms. Miers, but was willing to go with the President on this one.
All this did was give delusions of granduer to the gang of 14 and satans regiment ( Reid, Pelosi, Hillary et. al. )
"Watch for Consuela Maria Callahan from the 9th Circuit"
You could always let her entertain you with a table dance, if her rulings didn't work out. LOL
Something tells me that if W. had nominated someone that you approved of, you wouldn't be concerned as to how much leeway he had.
It's true of prize fighters, and its true of anybody who is going to tangle with the left.
P.S., Luttig or McConnell would be fine choices too. But for heaven sakes, Mr. President, not another PC choice of a woman just to have a woman. I'm a female, and I absolutely hate that concept. It's just like affirmative action, you got there because of your sex, not your qualifications, and in Harriet Miers' case, that is exactly what happened. Choose a woman to replace a man, not a woman to replace a woman, which is just so obvious. Do a woman later, if another opening comes available, or do your minority thing, if you feel the need, although that bugs me too. Or better yet, just choose the very best candidate out there, the best route to take of all.
Some folks want an activist conservative. I want someone who believes in restraint of judicial power - walk softly and leave the big stick in the closet - a dictionary should be the only weapon needed.
Worth repeating, over and over again.
But did you have to use the "t" word. LOL
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.