Harriet Miers the pick AP

[johnmecainrino]

Harriet Miers

[oosamon]

I agree with most of what you said. Miers clearly does not have a track record. Although the ABA-stuff and church membership are nice, they aren't quite what I was hoping for in terms of available background information. Even so, I cannot agree with your determination that Miers lacks the intellect to be a fine justice -- at least not until I see her in action.

At this point (i.e., Day #1 of the nomination), I'd rather be hopeful than angry. Being angry doesn't seem to advance our cause in any way, and it certainly doesn't empower us to change the nominee. I'm not even sure that the nominee is worth trying to change.

Please don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that people should love the President's choice. By all means, be critical if you want.

I just hope the death blow for the Goldwater/Reagan/Gingrich/Bush revolution isn't self-administered. Out-of-control spending, unprotected borders and international turmoil are destabilizing enough. Do we really need to do the dems any favors by killing ourselves for what may turn out to be no good reason?

Miers MAY actually be as conservative as Ginsberg is liberal. She COULD BE to the right of Scalia and Thomas. Given that the President has worked with her for years, the odds are far better than even that she possesses the characteristics that this country needs in a justice. The President understands that his legacy depends on getting Article III nominations right. For five years he's nominated mostly reliable conservatives. Hasn't he? Although GWB does not have a great record when it comes to other important matters, at least -- to this point -- he's been faithful in nominating good judges. Why assume this case is any different?

[andysandmikesmom]

Regarding your post #2657...I agree with you...I trust the judgement of Pres. Bush, much more than I trust the judgement of the people on this thread, who are in the midst of wild hysterics....there are so many who think they are oh so smart, oh so brilliant, that they could certainly run this country better than Pres. Bush...

The absolute lamest remarks I have heard is people raggin on Miers because she is not married, because she does not have children...good grief...since when does being married and having children make an acceptable nominee?...I am really at a loss on this one...and to somehow insinuate that Miers is a lesbian, is really ridiculous...people will and do say the stupidest, lamest things....Does it never enter some folks minds, that perhaps Miers did not want to get married, deciding to focus solely on her career?...Or that perhaps she never fell in love(or are ALL women supposed to get married even if not in love, just to satisfy someone elses deluded notion of what ALL women should want from life?)....For some women, getting married and having children is not the be all and end all of life...

If she was married, and had several children, these same whiners, would be saying she was a bad mother, ,because of course, she had a career...oh the horror of a wife and mother having a career...we see enough of that lame nonsense on FR...

Give Miers a chance...sure we dont know a lot about her...but I take it that Pres. Bush does know a lot about her, certainly much more than the so called judicial, political, legal etc 'experts', who come down to FR from on high, ,to enlighten us mere mortals with their 'expertise'...lets try to learn a more about Miers, give it some time and patience and some good research(not a lot of silly gossip, innuendo, and rumor)....

Thats just my take on it...

By the way, love, your pics on your homepage..I live in Olympia Washington, but often go down to Northern California via I5, and return home via RT 101....and visit Seattle to visit my son...so the the pics you have posted have shown some of my favorite places to see along the way...

[Vicomte13]

"But there are very good signs that she is exactly what we've been waiting for. The President's track record is extremely good on judicial appointments, and he has proven to be trustworthy...........he means what he says. He has consistently said that he wants Originalists on the courts, and that's exactly what he has done up to this point."

But the Supremes are different, because they really have power, specifically the power to overturn Roe v. Wade.

We saw very, very clearly with the massive political defection of the business Right in the Schiavo case that the financial right does NOT want to see significant restrictions on civil liberties concerning abortion and right-to-die issues.

Bush could throw red meat to the social conservatives forever on district and appellate court nominations. But the Supremes are the Big Enchilada, and here, if he explicitly names an outspoken strict constructionist who will clearly overturn Roe, he will lose the business class, the "Bloomberg Republicans" who are the moneymen of the party. THEY do not want to see Roe overturned. They are pro-choice. Bush cannot outright name strict constructionists who will clearly overturn Roe. If he does, he will have chosen the social conservatives and rejected the Northeastern, Chicago and California business conservatives. In the Schiavo case they made it explicit that they would consider withdrawing their support if the Republicans persisted in following the "religious fanatics".
That's the needle Bush has to thread.
He's got to put folks up there who are putatively or colorably socially conservative ENOUGH so that the social conservatives will adopt a "wait and see" attitude (with sufficient prodding from the Republican establishment social conservatives such as James Dobson, who simply have too much to lose if the social conservative support for the Republican party dries up), but the money Republicans will understand that the fix is in. Abortion probably won't come before the court until after 2008, and that bridge will be crossed when it comes. By then, of course, the party can effect outrage at the "Souters on the court" who "drift left".

So, that's the game.
And Bush has to thread a needle.
Both pro-choice money conservatives, and pro-life social conservatives have to believe that, ultimately, the fix is in. The money conservatives have to believe that these folks are moderates who will trend center and preserve Roe. The social conservatives have to trust Bush and rely on his choice for lesser judges (which, however, don't have the same power) as an indicator.

They're splitting the baby, and it's a careful operation.
The bottom line is that Roe cannot be overturned, but people cannot be chosen who will certainly not overturn Roe. They have to be colorably willing, perhaps, to overturn it, but able to "drift" once on the court.

And no committed arch-constructionist could be expected to do that. The money Republicans would defect by 2006 if Bush named Luttig.

That's the game.

[finnigan2]

Thanks for the helpful information.
Her personal beliefs seem, in the words of Winston Churchill, to be, "a puzzle, wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma."
Therefore, I'm trusting Dubya on this one - he's known her personally for years, has listened to her reasoning on many issues and he seems convinced that his Christian value system would not be misplaced in her selection.
We may all look back on this as one of those selections that was divinely inspired - I hope so anyway.

[Old_Mil]

My guess is the Constitution Party will pick up some support now.

Perhaps it may. Conservatives were scolded by Republican party loyalists saying that we had to vote for Bush to get people nominated to the Supreme Court who would hold the line against liberal incursions through the courts.

Well, looks to me as if we have one "maybe" and one "yeah, right" as our nominees. As long as people continue to board the slow train instead of the express at the voting booth nothing is going to improve.

[SolomoninSouthDakota]

HI. I just got off work and have been dying to know a general consensus on FR of what the take is on Miers is.

Can some one please give a short "full count", like what are two big strikes against her and name three things going for her (from a conservative vantage point). BTW, the know nothing about her is meaningless to me at this point. KKNOWING FULL WELL SHE IS A ROCK SOLID SOCIAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL CONSERVATIVE MAY BE VERY REASSURING TO US NOW BUT IT MAY NOT BE REQUIRED TO FURTHER OUR ONSERVATIVE CAUSE.

Can anyone give a quick synopsis. The thread is so long..

Thanks.

[1035rep]

President Bush does indeed have a proven track record on judicial appointments. I see no reason to doubt him now

[winstonchurchill]

Fr. Drinan is a "devout Christian" as well ...."

No, Father Drinan may be a devout Catholic, but that is certainly no guarantee that he is a Christian. He may or may not be (some RCC adherents are), but his 'devotion' to the RCC doesn't do it. A Christian is one with a personal relationship with Jesus Christ; commitments to ceremonial observances and/or human organizations have nothing -- absolutely nothing -- to do with it.

Same is true with Harriet Miers. Her affiliation with a Bible-oriented church makes it more likely that she is a Christian, but still no guarantee. But, assuming arguendo that she is, it makes all the difference. Ideas have consequences and we haven't had an evangelical Christian on the Court in at least half a century.

It is ironic that liberals are (so far) ignoring her (apparent) Christian commitment. Trust me, when it becomes apparent that she is a Christian, they will swing round on her with all the rage that heathens can mount.

I believe this is why this President feels confident in selecting her -- she is a sister in Christ and the Pres knows it.

[Old_Mil]

This country desperately needs a conservative party

This country has a conservative party, but the conservatives are too afraid of losing elections to vote for it. So instead they vote for democrat-lite.

[beckysueb]

Bush has just done what his father did with reneging on 'Read My Lips' - he betrayed his base. You too will look back on this day with great regret... This marked the end of conservativism in Washington for a long time to come. Maybe that is what you prefer...

(p)Bush 41 was forced into his statement by the democrats. We don't know if this is a mistake or not yet. Of course its not what I want. We have managed to survive with the SC we had all those years. Why is now so different. Give the Prez some slack.

[Owen]

>
The problem with President Bush's nomination is that she is an unknown. He promised to nominate judges like Scalia and Thomas.
>

That's not a problem. That's an enormous victory. A known nominee of known pro-life credentials would be rejected. "Known" in the current stream of political reality is defined as "extreme". Such a nominee would be rejected. Rejection does not advance the cause of Bush's conservative agenda.

You don't know that he has not nominated a Scalia-like or Thomas-like candidate.

Bush has done an absolutely brilliant thing. He has nominated the rightward most candidate who is confirmable.

[finnigan2]

" I'll continue to trust GWB's motivations and insight, (on this issue, anyway)."

- I appreciate your open mindedness on this matter. We should all hold our fire until more is known. If there is anything we should have learned in the past six years (unlike the Dems) is to never underestimate Bush when it comes to strategery.
He would not betray his beliefs, and his base, by nominating someone that he felt was wishy-washy on what he considers to be core values. At the very least she will not be an "activist judge" in the way we have come to despise.

[SolomoninSouthDakota]

Man do I need to slow down a bit. Spellcheck failed me. Here's what I meant.

HI. I just got off work and have been dying to know a general consensus on FR of what the take is on Miers.

Can some one please give a short "full count", like what are two big strikes against her and name three things going for her (from a conservative vantage point). BTW, the "don't know nothing about her" adage is meaningless to me at this point. KNOWING FULL WELL SHE IS A ROCK SOLID SOCIAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL CONSERVATIVE MAY BE VERY REASSURING TO US NOW BUT IT MAY NOT BE REQUIRED TO FURTHER OUR CONSERVATIVE CAUSE.

Can anyone give a quick synopsis. The thread is so long..

Thanks.

[Old_Mil]

SMU was a conservative school. It still essentially is

You're kidding, right? These days, I'd even be hard pressed to use the term "conservative school" to describe good old Baylor U of the SWC.

[beckysueb]

Good for you. My world doesn't revolve around who the next SC justice is.

[Eaker]

That is a very well thought out post. You really looked deeper than I had and thank you.

There is one problem.

They're splitting the baby, and it's a careful operation.

America is the baby and this operation is never good for the baby. Ever.

[ARealMothersSonForever]

HI. I just got off work and have been dying to know a general consensus on FR of what the take is on Miers is.

Have you ever walked into a room at a family reunion, where large factions of the family are engaged in a heated argument? You have now. I am with the "Miers does not have proven experience and credentials, and there were experienced conservatives available" crowd. The bushie cheerleader crowd does have a persistent presence, and there are a few wait and see party loyalists.

[Old_Mil]

He and I have big disagreements on other issues....but nothing like I'd have had with a democrat president & congress.

The borders are open. Federal spending is out of control. Virtually no progress has been made on the conservative social agenda. Just what disagreements would you have had with a democratic president and congress that wouldn't have articulated the same problems?

[SolomoninSouthDakota]

" Have you ever walked into a room at a family reunion, where large factions of the family are engaged in a heated argument"

That was what I first gathered; but I thought maybe some reasonable consensus had developed by now. I guess I'm wrong!

[luvbach1]

Harry Reid pleased. Chuck Schumer stunned by his good fortune. Reason for concern?