Posted on 10/30/2005 8:05:58 AM PST by quidnunc
One thing's for certain about this Harriet Miers mess: The conservative movement can never, ever play the Bork card again. No more whining about liberals tarring-and-feathering Robert Bork in his 1987 Supreme Court confirmation hearing.
For two decades, conservative activists have droned on about their spiritual leader's defeat in the Senate. They carry him around on their shoulders as proof of how the establishment's out to get them.
Well, forget that nonsense.
No more of that cry-babying, not after what conservatives like writer David Frum and organizations like Concerned Women of America — using National Review magazine and The Wall Street Journal opinion-page megaphones — have done to Harriet Miers in two short weeks.
They've turned a woman whose credentials for the Supreme Court matched or outpaced those of William Rehnquist and Sandra Day O'Connor into the image of a naive, untested first-year law student.
A Texas Republican I spoke with, who knows Miers well, put it best: "I don't know this woman they're talking about."
-snip-
Maybe the power boys and girls on the right like the present state of things, true believers practicing the art of political marksmanship. But I'll bet the rest of the country doesn't. As my Texas Republican friend said, "Washington's a sick place."
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at pittsburghlive.com ...
Is is any surprise if MSM doesn't get the difference between correcting an error your side has made versus keeping the other side from exercising their constitutional perogotives?
Just a few short weeks ago, librals were criticizing Republicans for rubber stamping any choice the president put up.
They will criticize no matter what.
The conservatives didn't bork Miers. Bush miered Miers. First, she is a lawyer with a memory no better than mine. I wonder if she could be quizzed regarding the Dred Scott Decision so that she would appear knowledgeable. Second, what little public legal history she has makes Sandra Day O'Connor look like Anton Scalia.
If you serve McDonalds at a $10,000-a-plate dinner, you shouldn't be surprised if the guests lose appetite.
I think the "reporter" is lying outright about "A Texas Republican I spoke with, who knows Miers well".
The discourse about Miers was never mean spirited and never directed at her personally or her personal values. For the most part, people thought she was probably a very nice person and having gotten to the position she was in - the Presidents counsel - she was obviously very smart. She just did not have the legal and intellectual heft for an Associate Supreme Court Justice.
If not for Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter, then the base might be willing to just take on faith the assurances of the latest Republican President's latest SCOTUS nominee. But because of those three mistakes, the days of blind faith are over.
In the end, Miers sunk herself by making it almost impossible to base her alleged conservative judicial philosophy on anything more than Bush's word. Her recently unveiled speeches where she seemed to justify judicial activism as necessary when the legislature doesn't do the right thing (with 'right' always being defined as something the people would reject if given a choice), and where she used the left's characterization of the pro-life position were the final nails in the coffin.
Suddenly they changed their mind on Meiers?
Smells like hypocrisy to me.
Miers wasn't.
No one went through her video rental records.
How hard is this to understand?
One lesson learned by Bush, never send in a cheer leader on a fourth down and goal to go.
You have a very selective memory.
The National Review brat pack likened Miers to Caligula's horse and Barney the dog, and Peggy Noonan referred to her as Bush's office wife.
They lost me at that.
"They've turned a woman whose credentials for the Supreme Court matched or outpaced those of William Rehnquist and Sandra Day O'Connor into the image of a naive, untested first-year law student. "
Oh come now. I'm sure Rehnquist could at least write a declarative sentence that didn't induce catatonia. And we didn't want another Sandra Day so comparing qualifications to a weak link is no favor.
Harriet's writing was atrocious, would have been a laughingstock.
I was disgusted by some of the things they said about Miers. Personally, I thought she should have had a chance to have her say in the hearings, but even if people wanted to prevent this from happening, they certainly didn't have to be so vicious and crazy-sounding. It did not leave me with much respect for some of the pundits (Coulter, Kristol, Noonan, etc.), and the things that came from Freepers - who I daresay were all going on 3rd hand "information" gleaned from these same pundits - really shocked me.
We conservatives and lovers of the original Constitution will stop criticizing appointees the day after the Democrats stop their serial filibustering of Republican judicial appointees.
If movement conservatives want to maintain their power, they had better think about that. They own Washington today. They've proved that. Now, they'd better run it right.
No more whining.
Does this mean we no longer have to vote for Democrat SCOTUS appointees 96 - 3?
You are absolutely right.
Nobody at all criticized Bork's qualifications. Everybody knew he was intellectually perhaps the greatest legal mind of his time.
Since his credentials were impeccable, they were forced to "bork" him, by smearing his intentions.
Nobody did that with Miers. Her credentials and background were what were criticized.
Do you truly not understand what the left is trying to do with their false moral-equivalency argument here? You don't see that they are grasping onto the executive-nomination filibuster with all their fading strength?
Do you really think that the failure of the Senate to perform its Constitutionally mandated duty to give Advise and Consent (with an up or down vote on the Senate floor) is equal to citizens and group of citizens insisting that an unwanted nominee withdraw or be withdrawn?
I don't recall a single conservative asking for the Senate to withhold any vote on Miers. Can you point me to any who did that?
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.