Posted on 10/03/2005 1:38:07 PM PDT by Rutles4Ever
Bush has nominated Harriet Miers to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the SCOTUS. I'm appalled:
1. She's 60. There were lots of highly qualified younger candidates out there who would have sat on the court for decades.
2. She has no judicial experience.
3. She has no public track record of proven conservative judicial values (what happened to Bush's 2000 promise to appoint people in the old of Scalia and Thomas?). How do we know she won't be another Souter? or Kennedy?
4. She's a Bush crony, which is an unfortunate choice for an administration that has been fairly charged with excessive cronyism (anybody remember ex-FEMA head Mike Brown?).
5. Her resume pales in comparison to those of some of the other leading candidates.
6. Why is the leader of a party that is supposedly against affirmative action making an appointment that can only be explained as an affirmative action choice?
7. And if Bush was bound and determined to make an affirmative action choice, why not go with a more experienced and qualified woman like Edith Jones or minority like Emilio Garza?
This appointment reeks of cronyism, which along with prideful arrogance seems to be the besetting sin of the Bush presidency.
At this point, I see no reason - none, nada, zilch - for conservatives who care about the courts to lift a finger to support this candidate.
Only minutes after Bush appeared at the White House Monday to announce the nomination, Manuel Miranda, a conservative strategist and former aide to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist issued a scathing statement: "The reaction of many conservatives today will be that the president has made possibly the most unqualified choice since Abe Fortas, who had been the president's lawyer. The nomination of a nominee with no judicial record is a significant failure for the advisers that the White House gathered around it."
While cautioning that "the president deserves the benefit of a doubt," Miranda added, "Something has been left unachieved by the Miers nomination. A Republican president has yet to erase the stigma of the (1987) Robert Bork hearings and the David Souter nomination. The nomination of Harriet Miers has not rid us of the repugnant situation that a jurist with a clear and distinguished record will not be nominated for higher service. The nomination did not rid us of the apprehension of stealth nominees."
As I predicted the apologists are totally ignoring the reasoning I gave. I'm not saying that not having married disqualifies her from being nominated. What I am saying is that people have to drop the "She must be a conservative, she goes to an evangelical church" defense, because it's nonsense in this case.
I'd hate to have such fickle friends and allies. If I were Bush, I'd just nominate Gonzales next time and be done with it. Just to piss you off.
They should try it: it's called 'leadership'.
Very mature attitude and par for the course. I'm speaking of qualifications for a lifetime appointment and how they should be based on somewhat more than personal likes and opinions. I am offended only in that I expected better of President Bush. I guess I was foolish to think the man was serious when he campaigned on the issue of appointing Justices like Scalia and Thomas. So far, he's nominated two people, neither of whom is an originalist. And which of those conservative nominees did Bush go to bat for? I guess your definition of going to bat is holding a press conference every few months saying that the Senate should confirm his nominees. Other than that, what exactly did he do to move their nominations through Congress? Yes, this is Bush's pick. It is the nomination by a President looking to avoid standing by his campaign promise to appoint originalists. He's been weakened by all of the Katrina nonsense and he's not willing to fight. So he appoints stealth candidates hoping they can gather just enough votes to get by. Of course, we just have to hope and pray they understand how to correctly interpret the Constitution, but hey....that's secondary. We just don't want to put out the effort to actually select candidates that we know to be originalists. After all, there are only 20 or so that fit the bill. So be it. The conservative base is about the only ones left standing with him. This nomination does little to remind them why they should still do so.
Reminds me of the old joke about a salesman having to decide between heaven and Hell to spend eternity, and the devil's phrase to the disillusioned salesman a few weeks after picking Hell: " Before, you were a prospect. Now you're a client. "
Paragraphs, Shakespeare, paragraphs.
From Nathan Hecht, Texas Suprm. Ct. Justice who has known Miers for 30 yrs.:
"She's an orginalist -- that's the way she takes the Bible," and that's her approach to the Constitution as well -- "Originalist -- it means what it says." He notes that her legal practice involved writing contracts rather than tort law, so she was always looking at the plain meaning of the words: "Originalist."
. . . and from Bush's perspect . . .
Harriet Miers was the one prospective female nominee about whom he personally felt that he could be most certain in predicting what sort of Justice she will become.
"Well... the ONLY piece of evidence I've been given that she is in fact a conservative is that she is an evangelical Christian. I pointed out in response that her lifestyle does not seem to conform to such religious zeal. That doesn't disqualify her from the court, but it does mean that the "Trust her, she's an evangelical" defense doesn't hold."
I'm still having trouble understanding what about her lifestyle doesn't "conform to such religious zeal."
Nothing. We needed a very highly qualified conservative nominee. Instead we got a second or third rate Bush pal. Here's hoping she has a serious nanny problem.
Hearsay evidence. There is even more such evidence claiming she's basically a dim bulb. There were people swearing Souter was conservative as well. There were many candidates with actual qualifications to be on the Court with demonstrated originalist philosophies. Miers is, at best, an enormous gamble. One that will take a very long time to be rid of, shoul it not payoff. Gamble on a position within the Administration if you like. It is inappropriate (and a violation of what the base was promised) to gamble with unaccountable lifetime appointments.
President BUSH knows her beliefs...
I hate it...we "can't get" a full right winger, so perhaps we must trust our President yet again...I love the man, but he's tryin' my patience just a wee bit...
What's he afraid of? Let's FIGHT THE DEMS and kill them all!
We've got a Republican president, a Republican House and Senate, and a mostly Republican electorate. Is it just too outrageous to dream that the president could unapologetically nominate a defender of the Constitution to the Supreme Court? It's not even an election year!
Ms Miers may turn out OK, but it really gets to me that the president sneaked around like this, on both nominees. Trying to please the media and the Democrats is a loser's game!
Yeah, sorry about that. I am seeing that argument being seriously advanced today....
Doesn't an old lawyer thing say, "incompentent lawyers become judges"? She's a lawyer who has never been a judge? Over
Actually, we don't know that she's not a Thomas conservative. If the court overturns Roe vs. Wade and she's the deciding vote, a lot of conservative activists will be stuffing their faces with crow.
True...One thing is different however, Reagan was doing it for himself taking the flak. This lady is getting ahead by riding on a friends coattails.
I Suspect Another "Bush 'Rope-a-Dope!!'"
LOOK;==we Elected the Guy to be a Conservative President. He has been Faced with a Number of HORRIFIC NATIONAL EMERGENCIES & a Dirty War with "Radical Islam" that NO ONE could Possibly want to Fight!
So Far, he has adhered to Conservative Principles; hes has NOT proposed a "Tax Increase," & he has "Gone After the "Bad Guys!!"
I'm Willing to "Give Him a Pass" on his SC Nominations; He's Done OK, so Far.
"W" has OUTSMARTED the 'Dem's at EVERY TURN.
Let's See what happens!
Doc
I really hope I get a chance to eat that meal!
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.