Posted on 10/05/2005 5:36:27 AM PDT by Pokey78
The fear in the pit of the stomach was palatable; sweat oozed from the brow of every conservative with an Internet connection. On the afternoon of November 2, 2004, online reports of early exit polls posted indicated that John Kerry would likely be the next president of the United States.
In the second consecutive election-year frenzy -- recall the panic in 2000 when TV reporters initially botched the Supreme Court's ruling on Bush v. Gore -- reports of George W. Bush's demise have been greatly exaggerated.
Similar feelings of dread and despair seized the president's supporters on Monday when news of his latest appointee to the high court surfaced. Reacting precisely the way the mainstream media dreams of, those on the right reacted viscerally when the name announced was not Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, or Michael Luttig, but little-known Harriet Miers.
Across the conservative spectrum early condemnations of Miss Miers rang out. Charges of betrayal thundered through cyberspace and accusations of capitulation filled TV screens everywhere. All this despite the fact that the man who nominated Miers is the same man who nominated John Bolton, John Ashcroft, and Donald Rumsfeld.
Though the president has picked a few Cabinet clunkers, he has a stellar conservative record when it comes to judicial appointments; nominating Miguel Estrada, Priscilla Owens, William Pryor, Michael McConnell and yes, John Roberts, who was also initially pilloried by some on the right.
And it is no small detail that Miss Miers was in charge of selecting and vetting these fine judges and that she spearheaded the search for the seat for which she is now under consideration. This fact should not be overlooked by those who remember that Dick Cheney was also in charge of filling what turned out to be his own position.
There are cries of "cronyism" from both sides of the political aisle, implying that her relationship with President Bush somehow makes her less worthy a candidate. But conservatives should revel in this charge as liberals are constantly pointing out that he prefers surrounding himself with like-minded thinkers. Here's hoping she is also a crony of, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Roberts, whom she is said to admire judicially.
To liberals, what's scarier than any space alien is that Miss Miers is an E.C.; an Evangelical Christian. Worse, as president of the Texas Bar Association, she led the fight against the ABA's adoption of a pro-abortion platform back in 1992. There are those who say she merely wanted political matters out of the legal purview, but isn't that the conservative position?
Some conservatives are put off by the fact is that she donated money to Al Gore and Lloyd Bensten during the eighties. A lawyer looking to do business in Democratically controlled Texas during that period generally donated to both parties. The truth is many people supported conservative Democrats until the party took a decided turn to the left with the nomination of the Clinton Twins.
Many fear that her lack of a track record could lead to a Miers defection to the left. One of the reasons many give for the change of direction for supposed conservatives on the Court is that they become corrupted by the Beltway social circle, yet Miss Miers has been on the ground in DC for five years and is reported to be no more affected by the atmosphere than is her boss.
Although they were not "stealth" candidates such as Miss Miers has been painted, Justices Kennedy and O'Connor never hung as millstones around the neck of Ronald Reagan in conservative lore. No one knows or ever can know for certain how a justice will act once on the bench, but maybe we should be taking Miers her at her word when she said in her acceptance speech:
"It is the responsibility of every generation to be true to the founders' vision of the proper role of the courts in our society. If confirmed, I recognize that I will have a tremendous responsibility to keep our judicial system strong, and to help ensure that the courts meet their obligations to strictly apply the laws and the Constitution. "
Despite predictions of doom and gloom -- most melodious to liberal ears -- those on the right should respect President Bush's history of outstanding judicial appointments and cut the lady some slack. There will be plenty of opportunity for recrimination should either she or Roberts fail the president and their oath to uphold the Constitution.
Lisa Fabrizio is a columnist who hails from Connecticut. You may write her here.
Very good column, Lisa.
She's almost on Social Security, for goodness sake.
So?
How does her age effect her possible position as justice?
WHy not pick a 50 year old like Thomas?
Ms. Miers might be a rather uninspiring choice but just imagine the far left, pro abortion nuts President Kerry would have appointed to the bench. It would have been catastrophic.
It seems that the Conservative/Republican side has one of the same bad traits that the Liberal/Democrat side shows all the time. That is one of elitism. Miers is not "Harvard, yale, or Princeton," ie. Ivy League. She has not rubbed elbows with the in crown of the right. These elitist really do not know the world would go on without them, and be better off. I read this morning that Bush is not qualified to choose a Justice to the SC. That is elitist. One of the things the elitist of both side hate most about Bush is he is not one of them. Even though he is Ivy League, it really is not what defines him and he is proud of that. It just didn't seem to color him blue. Miers is going to be good, maybe great, but just not in a blueblood way.
Something that struck me with most of the complaints was that she was not a 'firebrand', and that people didn't think she would 'fight' against the Democrats. Why does everything have to be a battle? Would someone who got into a yelling match with Up-Chuck Schumer actually turn out to be a better jurist? Why do WE feel the need for validation by someone who we believe would be more 'in your face' to the Democrats.
It is my belief that a woman who has had to deal with Texan men for her entire career will be plenty strong enough to deal with the effete Dems on the Judiciary Committee. They probably will never know what hit them. They are so used to dealing with abrasive, aggressive women such as the feminist leaders, Barbara Boxer and Her Heinous, that they won't know how to handle a soft spoken woman who, according to accounts by those who have known her for years, will likely be wielding an iron fist in a velvet glove.
A choice as characteristically fine as Colin Powell, Paul O'Neil, George Tenet, Norm Mineta, Harvey Pitt, Bernard Kerik, Michael Brown, Dick Armitage, Julie Myers?
Should I continue...?
Thanks truthie. Got a lot of positive email...we aren't as fractured as it would seem here on FR.
Given that women live five or six years longer than men (and to me seem to function well even longer than that) the age difference is not as great as it appears.
Agreed.
I was convinced before the President even nominated ANYONE for this position, before he nominated Roberts, that none of the super-vocal conservatives would be happy with a choice unless it provoked a fight. Many are aching for a knock-down, drag-out discussion about the role of the Supreme Court and the judiciary and an opportunity for that philosophical discussion, not a discussion about the qualifications of a particular candidate.
This explains every objection to Miers we've been seeing, and every objection to Roberts. It also explains the reaction to "the Gang of Fourteen" pulling that issue out of the Senate discussion, and that desire was very much in evidence during that time. Many are still not happy that Owen, Pryor and Brown were confirmed without the fight!
Some people aren't happy about simply winning - they want blood in the streets as evidence that they won - never recognizing how counter-productive that can be in gaining further support to their cause.
Ahh yes, recrimination, that will all make us feel better if there are decades of bad law.
That is because no one believes Miers qualifications to be anything but President Bush's familiarity with her. Not even in this piece defending Miers does the writer even mention Miers' qualifications.
Advancement based on familiarity rather than performance, record or qualifications is the definition of cronyism.
Cronyism is something we would expect from Clinton, not Bush. We expect better from conservatives, Bush included.
****************
It's my understanding that her mother is 93. She comes from good stock, it seems.
Justice Miers will make conservatives proud.
The charge of "cronyism" is total bunk.
I'd be far more worried about a candidate unknown to the President.
Go with people you know and trust; this seems a sensible rule, especially in light of recent history.
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.