Posted on 10/03/2005 10:43:26 AM PDT by The_Victor
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush on Monday nominated White House insider Harriet Miers for a Supreme Court vacancy, triggering outrage from conservatives who questioned whether she would uphold their political views.
Bush chose Miers, a lawyer but not a judge whose opinions on key issues likely to come before the high court are largely unknown, to replace the retiring Sandra Day O'Connor.
Conservatives who formed the bedrock foundation of Bush's re-election last November immediately protested the nomination as a betrayal of his campaign promise to pick conservative judges, pointing to her past campaign donations to Democrats.
Miers, 60, a longtime ally of Bush's going back to his days as Texas governor and currently White House counsel, would be the third woman ever to serve on the Supreme Court if confirmed by the U.S. Senate. O'Connor was the first and Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been there since 1993.
"I believe that senators of both parties will find that Harriet Miers' talent, experience and judicial philosophy make her a superb choice to safeguard the constitutional liberties and equality of all Americans," Bush said in a hastily arranged Oval Office ceremony with Miers.
O'Connor, a moderate conservative, was the key swing vote on a number of 5-4 decisions on the closely divided Supreme Court. Democrats said much was unknown about Miers and that she would undergo intense scrutiny by the Senate.
The White House noted some Democrats had urged Bush to consider the Dallas-born Miers but would give no names. One of those, however, was Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat.
"I like Harriet Miers," said Reid, who had voted against John Roberts as U.S. chief justice in Roberts' confirmation vote last week. "In my view, the Supreme Court would benefit from the addition of a justice who has real experience as a practicing lawyer."
But some conservatives expressed concern that Bush had missed a historic opportunity to shift the balance of the court in a clear way by picking someone in the same mold as conservative justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
"It is very hard to avoid the conclusion that President Bush flinched from a fight on constitutional philosophy. Miers is undoubtedly a decent and competent person. But her selection will unavoidably be judged as reflecting a combination of cronyism and capitulation on the part of the president," said William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard magazine.
Manny Miranda, head of a conservative coalition called The Third Branch Conference, said Miers was "the most unqualified choice" for the high court since Lyndon Johnson tried to make Abe Fortas chief justice in 1968.
"I was hoping that the president would keep his campaign promise. He said he would name someone like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. We thought he meant someone with a clear judicial record on particular issues," Miranda said.
Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn (news, bio, voting record) urged conservatives not to jump to conclusions and not to prejudge her.
Records show Miers has given money over the years to both Republicans and Democrats, including $1,000 to Democrat Al Gore's presidential campaign in 1988.
In 1987 she gave $1,000 to former Texas Sen. Lloyd Bentsen. Bentsen was the Democratic vice presidential nominee who ran against Bush's father in 1988.
In more recent years, Miers has regularly contributed to Republicans such as Bush.
Good pic. Sums up my position too.
Bush 41 legacy was bad Supremem Cot. appointment
That begs the question. Why did she choose to support the Dems during the Reagan era? If she was just covering her bases as a lawyer, why not contribute to both parties to hedge her bets? My concern is that her epiphany (conversion to the GOP) is tied more to her personal ambition than any deeply held political beliefs.
1. Keeping O'Connor wasn't an option, given her decision to retire.
2. O'Connor's vote kept Roe v. Wade the law of the land. Miers tried to get the ABA to abandon its pro-choice bias.
3. I said that Miers is almost certainly to the right of Justice O'Connor, simply because Bush picked her. He is well aware that this may be the last pick he gets. I really doubt he would deliberately blow the chance to move the Court to the right.
4. After being humiliated by Roberts, the Democrats were going to filibuster any of the real conservative sitting judges mentioned on this board (Luttig, etc).
5. Miers is untouchable. She has no left no record for the Dems to beat her up with. Only Bush knows what she believes and where she'll take the Court. Do you really think she told him she dreamed of being a moderate/liberal, and he still picked her.
6. Watch - she's the anti-Souter. She'll wind up to the right of Scalia and Thomas, but by the time that becomes clear, she'll be on the Court for life.
I think all the hand wrining is premature. Maybe she'll be the most conservative judge this land has ever seen. And she'll be confirmed because she doesn't have this paper trail. I mean, come on...do you think he'd intentionally put up someone who he wasn't sure about. She was instrumental in the Roberts nomination. Seems to me she'd vote like he would, don't you?
All the more reason to KNOW that GWB has not made the same mistake.
With The Selection of Miers The President Has Betrayed His Base as hysterical weinies who act just like Dimocrats.
Sorry, I don't follow your reasoning. If she had a problem with Clinton, she would support the Dems and Al Gore for President in 1988. Clinton didn't run for President until 1992.
In this case a good friend is usually the best judge of character. I guess we have to decide if we trust the president's judgment.
Is she really upsetting "conservatives" or "party Republicans"? It seems there is a difference. I like what Bush said about her when introducing her when he said she will not legislate from the bench and strictly interpret the Constitution. Those were two things conservatives target in a judge. I don't know a thing about her but I liked Bush's comments about her. If they hold true then I will also appreciate that fact that she isn't a big-wig political hack and really closer to the average American.
If by "good man" you mean someone who is ethically indistinguishable from Bill Clinton and used his power as secretary of the treasury to rape the 2nd amendment of the Constitution by banning a large variety of ordinary semi-auto firearms using nothing but executive authority.
Lloyd Bentsen believed whatever he was paid to believe. Spend $10,000 on one of his breakfasts and he would believe what you believed; at least until the next person in line wrote out a check and told him to believe something different.
Please see post 144. Reagan was a Democrat well into his 50s. Bush family is notoriously loyal to each other (i.e., W keeps Saddam's pistol on the Oval Office desk, after Saddam tried to assasinate his Dad), so I don't really think W would have picked some one who had a chance vs. his father in 1988.
Bottom line: I believe she is a real conservative else Bush (who has won his last election) would not have nominated her. No, she hasn't promised publicly to overturn Roe v. Wade or any of 100 other things that would have doomed her confirmation. I'd rather have a quiet reliable friend of W on the Court for 25+ years, than an exciting but ultimately pointless, lost confirmation battle a la Bork.
No, I think Gore switched to "pro-choice" in 1987 in order to seek the presidency. He would have never got the backing of Ed Koch in the 1988 NY primary had he been "pro-life."
Did you know that when she supported Lloyd Bentsen he was an anti-life, anti-gun Democrat? Of course, he didn't really run his campaign on those issues (hard to get elected in Texas that way), but there's no disputing the issue when you see how he voted or how he acted.
I haven't had time yet to study the pick or to listen to conservative commentary yet, but I can tell you the leftist in my office this morning are laughing it up. Over hearing comments like, " the idiot picked someone who donated to Al Gore".
Let em think whatever they want.
Meanwhile- get popcorn...I think we're all going to learn something(s).
He was not; he was and is a vile creature; encompassing the worst of modern politics. He not only acted against personal freedom and to corrupt the Constitution, but he also used his position to rob taxpayers for his personal and family wealth (breaking up land and calling it "farms" so that each plot of land would be eligible for separate agricultural subsidies, helping to engineer the corruption in the Savings and Loan industry, and supporting a variety of other self-serving legislation that literally costs the taxpayers BILLIONS of dollars).
Plus, he single-handedly banned a lot of firearms when he was secretary of the treasury (but of course, petty little things like abridging fundamental Constitutional rights aren't significant issues to many of the pseudo-conservatives posting on FR these days).
Those same leftists thought Kerry would win, when in fact he lost by over 3.5 million votes nationwide.
You are so right. He had a debilitating stroke years ago and has been wheelchair-bound and out of the public eye for so long. My mistake.
I think Gephardt made a similar maneuver when he was angling for the nomination back then.
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.