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.
because that would mean critizing the president. some conservatives can't bear that. this was the momemt people have been waiting decades for, and he blew it.
Stand by my previous statement. Brown languished for how long until "the deal"?
Stealth candidate #1 - John Roberts
Stealth candidate #2 - Harriet Miers
Pres GW Bush's two major betrayals to his conservative majority constituency.
How come we never hear about a "moderate liberal"???
But... Souter was nominated by the same man who nominated Clarence Thomas.
GOOD on you! I posted the other day that POTUS would not nominate another Catholic, but added that I thought he'd nominate a GOOD Christian woman and he has.
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.
Redundant?
Of course that makes "moderate conservative" a contradiction in terms.
Yep --- Rush nailed it and the answer is obvious.
The cabal had already made their threats.
Please don't throw me in that briar patch!..............
There's absolutely NO WAY to know for sure that someone won't pull a "Souter"... without a crystal ball, that is.
Miers was suggested by Senate dim leader Harry Reid;
Miers contributed to Algore and Floyd Bentson;
Did Bush switch parties over the weekend, and I missed it?
Very interesting. Why the change? I'm sure she's a fine woman but it seems she might swing with the prevailing tide in a given situation. We didn't need, nor want, another O'Conner.
It is part of his re-election strategery. In his next term his true conservative colors can come out.
On the prolife prospects of a Miers nomination - remember that no prolifer would or could give money to the Democrats especially Al Gore. Furthermore, as Bush's White House Counsel, no doubt Miers advised Bush on the Terri Schiavo case. In other words they let her be murdered and washed their hands saying let this innocent blood not be upon me. I hope the prolife Republicans in this country FINALLY wake the heck up.
I'm not "outraged."
It's so arrogant for Freepers to scream because they don't know much about Miers. So what? Take a deep breath, shut up, and learn.
Bush DOES know Miers, and has for years. She is not nearly the "unknown" to him that many of the other mentioned candidates are.
My jury's still out, but I have no reason to doubt the President's word on this one. He tends to do what he says he will do.
Maybe has something to do with his dad pick Souter, who he did not now on "Advice" from political cronies. Bush Jr seems to want to actually pick people he KNOWS are not doing to be flaming libs in "Republican" clothing.
Because "ALL" liberals are "moderates"...........to the MSM......
A few points:
1) The President would not toss a close personal friend out to the nomination process with the intention of having it fail, having that friend destroyed, and all so he can then nominate someone he really wanted to begin with. That theory doesn't fly.
2) This nominee looks confirmable to me. If she's a close personal friend then Bush knows her philosophy and ideology. I am certain he nominates the rightward most candidate that is confirmable. Both of those criteria are equally important.
3) The Left was poised to attack. They haven't. They can't. The primary opposition is thus disabled and this has been done without putting forth a nominee who is overtly pro-choice.
4) The RINOs whose votes we MUST have are similarly disarmed. They have the cover they must have to support this choice.
This is a brilliant move. True believers wanted more and they persuade themselves the RINOs would let a hardline conservative be rammed down the Democrats' throats. Unlike them, however, Bush talked to the RINOs and knew ahead of time who could be confirmed and who could not be confirmed.
Imagine for a moment a hardline nominee who is rejected and not confirmed. Then what does Bush do? Keep sending up other hardline nominees? Get the all rejected? Would this strengthen or weaken his presidency and control of the agenda?
This is a brilliant move.
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.