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.
I know nothing about *her* at this point. My comments are directed at the process, the one issue interest groups, and the fact that they and everyone in the beltway uses the Constitution for toilet paper..
The last thing I want is a judicial activist. You misinterpret my remarks if that is what you gleaned from them.
"BTW, I got an email from the RNC asking me to support Meirs and Bush. I basically told them to stick it."
I'm a registered Republican and a politically active one too. I may be registered, but I'm not certifiable. If they contact me, I'll tell them the same thing.
I never thought I'd say it, but this character makes O'Connor look good. I'm with you.
We will see.
"She has advised the President on all of his federal Judicial nominations. There is no way she could do that without revealing a tremendous amount about her judicial philosphy. I would suggest the President knows much more about this nomination that he did about Judge Roberts."
My opinion of him and confidence in him is demonstrated by the fact that I nominated him to one of the highest officers in the land. I did this on the basis of my knowledge of him and my appreciation of his great qualities. Every contact I’ve had with him since he came to Washington and all I've heard about him, has served only to increase my confidence and my high opinion. He is one of the finest public servants this country has ever produced. I have no further comments because I can’t think of anything else to say." President Dwight D. Eisenhower on Supreme Court nominee Earl Warren, Feb 21, 1954
And many are quick to judge.
Honestly, I think that conservatives are sick of supposedly possessing a majority of the congressional seats, and still kowtowing to the democRATs. I'll confess to wanting a decisive and humiliating defeat for the minority party, too.
To quote Cpl. Hicks in Aliens, "Is this a stand-up fight, or another bug hunt?" (outcome not withstanding)
But when I'm done daydreaming, logic prevails, and I can convince myself to be patient.
Trust but verify. The President is not infallible.
Verification in work, but the nomination was only publicized this morning.
(If you were Bush, would you go to war against the Libs with the GOP Senate team he's been delt ?)
Absolutely! This is the most GOP Senators EVER! Both Reagan and George Bush Sr. got conservatives into the Supreme Court with a Democrat senate! Just as we have RINOs in the Senate, we also have Democrats in Red states running for re-election. If Bush had nominated Janice Brown he would have destroyed the Democrat party.
What I 'gleaned' from your remarks was that you weren't paying a bit of attention this morning. The President said she would uphold the Constitution, and SHE said she would uphold the Constitution.
This has everything to do with the Constitution.........that's the President's main priority in selecting judges, and there is a substantial record to back it up.
And if you know nothing about HER, you are not in any position to make a judgement, are you??
But you're very willing to judge before you have the facts, and unless she's a liar (not to mention the President), then she's a strict constructionist, and if you blindly oppose her, then it was only reasonable to assume that you prefer judicial activism..................right?
Great point. And equally important is that those blue-chip conservatives who have been involved closely with her in that process from the outside, such as Leonard Leo, are big supporters.
The conservatives most familiar with her views are her biggest supporters. That says a lot to me. As does the fact that those who know the least about her views are complaining the loudest.
When was the last time a Republican President had more Republican senators.
I can't remember when. Too bad they're led by Wimp Frist & Co.
How come ACLU chief counsel Ruth Bader Ginsberg can be be confirmed 96-3, but you think a conservative nominee is "not confirmable" for President Bush.
Things are starting to shape up, we'll see what else we learn in the coming days/weeks.
David Frum at NRO:
I worked with Harriet Miers. She's a lovely person: intelligent, honest, capable, loyal, discreet, dedicated ... I could pile on the praise all morning. But nobody would describe her as one of the outstanding lawyers in the United States. And there is no reason at all to believe either that she is a legal conservative or - and more importantly - that she has the spine and steel necessary to resist the pressures that constantly bend the American legal system toward the left. I am not saying that she is not a legal conservative. I am not saying that she is not steely. I am saying only that there is no good reason to believe either of these things. Not even her closest associates on the job have no good reason to believe either of these things. In other words, we are being asked by this president to take this appointment purely on trust, without any independent reason to support it. And that is not a request conservatives can safely grant.
Miers' record shows that in November 1988, the nominee gave $1,000 to the DNC Services Corporation/Democratic National Committee. In February of that year, she donated $1,000 to then-Sen. Al Gore's presidential primary race. And in March 1987, Miers gave $1,000 to the primary campaign of Democrat Lloyd Bentsen, who went on to become Michael Dukakis' running mate in the 1988 presidential election.
Not good.
Where do you get all of that? I am at a loss to see why you are so hostile here.
and if you blindly oppose her
Huh? I didn't even imply that. Maybe you ought to cut down on the caffeine.
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.