My, My! Miers Morphs

Carol Turoff October 28, 2005

Since the withdrawal of Harriet Meirs’s nomination to fill the O’Connor supreme court vacancy, spin has centered on the enormity of the conservative clout. It is no secret that many were dissatisfied with her lack of demonstrable qualifications or even an inkling of her judicial philosophy. Service as the Texas lottery director, a stint as an at-large city council representative and personal lawyer to George W. Bush is hardly the background one expects for a U.S. Supreme Court justice.

But those meager qualifications alone were not enough to energize the onslaught of fierce opposition. Her 1993 speeches, one in which she warmly invoked Barbra Streisand, did little to engender a groundswell of conservative support. Her list of admired female leaders included liberal feminist, Gloria Steinem and Hillary Clinton, now a New York senator.

The O’Connor seat, regarded as the swing vote, is crucial to those who twice supported the Bush candidacy. Cuffing the very people who put him in the White House is neither logical nor wise. With his penchant for cronyism and petulance, Bush is all but assuring inaccessibility to the Oval Office to successive Republican hopefuls. His poll numbers are slipping for numerous reasons, but one of them shouldn’t be sticking his finger in the eye of his diligent, supportive base.

Harriet Miers, it turns out, could not be properly evaluated, since she has no core values upon which to be gauged. In a 1993 speech, she spoke of “guaranteeing once and for all a woman’s right when she will have an abortion.” Hardly music to the ears of many Bush loyalists. The never-married, Dallas Sunday School teacher emerged as less an enigma and more of a charlatan.

Vacillating on abortion issues, her views appear to change in a chameleon-like fashion. In Miers’s view, “self-determination” should be the key to decisions regarding abortion and school prayer. Further, where conflicts arise between science and religion, “government should not act.”

When meeting with the Texans for Life Coalition, she cited her belief that abortion was murder; giving assurances that she would "actively support" a pro-life constitutional amendment.

Yet when addressing the Executive Women of Dallas, Miers pitched a dramatic curve when she stated, "The ongoing debate continues surrounding the attempt to once again criminalize abortions or to once and for all guarantee the freedom of the individual women’s right to decide for herself whether she will have an abortion,"

It appears that her odd but widely touted and prized quality, that of being unobjectionable, was more than simply faint praise. Miers is actually the great vacillator, customizing her views on social issues to suit her audience.

If dismayed conservatives, betrayed by this lack-luster appointment, were spurred to action it should serve as a clear indicator to President Bush. Even the most accommodating Republicans can reach a point of cynicism. Taking his base for granted as he plods through his second term, will do more than tarnish the “legacy” so dominant in the thinking of recent presidents. His untoward actions have the potential to assure a Democrat successor in 2008.

Meanwhile, Mr. Bush would be well advised to consider a proven quantity to fill the vacancy on the high court. His list might include the names of Janice Rogers Brown, Edith Hollan Jones, Michael Luttig, Michael McConnell, Priscilla Owens or J. Harvie Wilkinson.

Halloween is right around the corner. Most of us would prefer our frights from ten-year-old neighbor kids dressed as Darth Vader.

Carol Turoff is a former two-term member of the Commission on Appellate Court Appointments. During her eight years on the commission, she participated in the selection of four of the five current Arizona Supreme Court Justices as well as 17 judges on both Division I and II of the Arizona Court of Appeals. Appointed by two governors, Turoff served with three chairing Supreme Court Justices.

Welcome to Free Republic.

For future reference, you need only paste your story into the upper box, not both of them. And please do try the Preview button. It works great.

I heard about that speech Miers gave, but wow..it just shows
how politicians can play games with pro-life people..I remember a local politician who told me not to say anything
about abortion, but to "tell the Catholics you're against
it to get them to vote for you" And this man told the
pro-life groups he was pro-life and voted that way on Casey's abortion control law in PA.

Cuffing the very people who put him in the White House is neither logical nor wise.

But, boy, he sure has the "base" fired up to get the next nominee through, come hell or high water.

Just trust the President. Har-dee-FREEPIN-Har.

Thanks for that posting.

It would behoove Conservative Republicans to scrutinize closely and future nominations and make sure the White House is made well aware of our continuing concerns regarding the necessity for strict constructionists on the Federal Bench and SCOTUS.

”It would behoove Conservative Republicans to scrutinize closely and future nominations …..

Do you think next time we will still need to resort to phrenology?

It would be in everyone's best interest to stick to the original "elitist" objection to miers -- that she had neither the quality nor the qualifications to serve on the High Court.

The Democrats and their leftist cohorts in the media are going to be trying to spin it hard that Miers was rejected over ideology -- that she wasn't "conservative" enough. This was never one of our complaints, and it should not be one now in retrospect. We cannot allow history to be rewritten, much less be willing participants in it.

This notion that she was rejected by "the far right" for not having conservative bona fides is utter nonsense and must be challenged at every opportunity. The reason the Left is trying to recast the facts should be obvious enough to everyone. They want to change the standards by which a nominee is judged from that of quality and qualification to that of political ideology. The Democrats want to consider nominees based not on how they approach the law, but instead on if they will ensure certain judicial outcomes.

They are right now in the process of trying to recast what was in truth a reaffirmation of our commitment to merit and intellectual quality over party politics that we all should be proud of as instead a cheap political borking by an imaginary "extremist wing" of the GOP in order to suit their own purposes.

She was not qualified enough. She was of subpar legal and intellectual quality. That is the real story. Period.

Didn't you see that forehead?

Perhaps you "resorted to phrenology" - but if you DID, its unlikely you opposed Miers - I think that is the technique Bush used to select her - either that or astrology.

The woman was a Democrat sympathizer with no core Constitutional or social values and utterly unqualified for the office for which she was nominated. IN fact, my own suspicion is that she didn't seek the nomination in the first palce, but was pressed by Bush as a compromise candidate because he doesn't want a battle with Congress over this issue.

This is President who has demonstrated a marked inability to use high handed pressure to secure the support of mavericks in his own political party - people like McCain et al. And high ahnded pressure tactics are dfeintely called for in securing his campaign promises to his base.

and her black eyeliner!

" Do you think next time we will still need to resort to phrenology?"

Isn't that what they have been doing? How else would you account for all those pointy heads?

” Perhaps you "resorted to phrenology" - but if you DID, its unlikely you opposed Miers”

I opposed her rigorously. The context of my original point was a tongue in cheek observation that the only way to adequately …… “scrutinize closely any future nominations”….. (as you suggest) - is essentially through phrenology (feeling the bumps on her head) Or, through some other such paranormal methodology based on the paucity of readily available information to “scrutinize” with Bush’s first two nominations.

LOL.

Tin foil conforms more readily to the steep angles.

[ My, My! Miers Morphs ]

Yes; and says much more about the Select'or than the Select'ee..
to any that have not dozed off..