Posted on 10/05/2005 12:50:24 PM PDT by smoothsailing
Cut Her Some Slack
By Lisa Fabrizio
Published 10/5/05
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 D.C. 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.
I don't expect they will try to badger her. I expect they will instead come off with a superior patronizing attitude attempting to paint her as unqualified -- feeding off the tripe being but out by the beltway establishment Republicans who are pissed because one of their homies didn't get picked.
That's when we'll see what she's made of and from what I have heard about this lady is that she has a backbone of steel, will have done all of her homework and will very politely and calmly open an industrial strength can of Texas whoop ass on them.
Everyone is saying that Roberts knowledge wowed them and that's true, but wowing the likes of fat Teddy, Biden or Nina Totenburg dosen't take a lot. My guess is that this lady will surprise the hell out a lot of the critics.
Count me in. I don't know why, but I have a good feeling about it.
Accept current illegals as here to stay for the most part, but at least control the borders. At the same time reform immigration laws and make it a little less of a battle to immigrate legally. IOW, stop the bleeding.
The more illogical screaming about her, especially in the face of mounting evidence that she is what she is purported to be, I think I will go along with this one...
Besides, it makes the Constipationalists and the Buchananites go insane and WORLDNUTDAILY was at it's nutty best the other day, so it's all good :)
Clueless are those who pretend to be constitutional scholars or continue to ignore the number of judicial nominees that have been filibustered. Clueless are those that depend on the likes of Ann Coulter for a seal of approval. Clueless are those who continue to hold the President accountable for unresolved issues on which he never took a satisfactory position (to them) in the first place. Clueless are those who want a bloody battle, regardless of the outcome, even if the war can be won otherwise.
Bush campaigned on a short list of issues, one of which was the judicial nominees. He stood up in front of the press and reiterated those pledges yesterday and said that Miers meets the standard. It was so obvious when he said more than once that he knew this nominee would not change that he had learned from his father and yet the clueless masquerading as the most well informed know he didn't. To you I say congratulations, with that kind of psychic ability you would have thought you wouldn't have supported Bush in the first place and made sure that you're own man was sitting in the White House.
Because he won the Cold War and freed 700 million people. You get cut a lot of slack for doing something like that.
Yes, we may all be pleasantly surprised.
Harriet is a stealth candidate, an admission of weakness and pandering. If you put lipstick on a pig it's still a pig. She's too old and a mediocrity.
Just ask yourself, is this the swing jurist we worked 25 years for? The best candidate possible to stop the erosion of constitutional law? Anyone who answers yes is just a fat liar.
Sixty is too old? Looking at past history of the court, she'll likely have 25 years on the bench. As to mediocrity, how many law firms have you headed? How many bar associations have you headed? How many times a day does the POUTS call you into his office for advice?
"Sixty too old? Looking at past history of the court, she'll likely have 25 years on the bench. As to mediocrity, how many law firms have you headed? How many bar associations have you headed? How many times a day does the POUTS call you into his office for advice?"
Too bad he doesn't call me into his office,we wouldn't have CFR, the Pill boondoggle, illegal immigrants, a ballooning budget, the Education department, and a bunch of other spineless sops to socialism. As far as bar associations, why would I want to hang around with a bunch of leftist lawyers?
And who is POUTS? Is that what you do all day?
We both have every right to our own point of view.Why don't we just leave it at that.
"But even being a "true unabashed conservative" does not guarantee that your appointees won't turn toward the "dark side" i.e. O'Connor and Kennedy."
Of course you're right. None of us know how this will really turn out yet.
Excellent!
The problem with both appointments is that the GOP is setting a precident that conservatives with a record will not be appointed to the Surpreme Court. Bush is letting the Rats set the rules to the game. That is unacceptable, the left can appoint the head of the ACLU, but the right can not appoint anyone that has ever expressed a conservative thought? And we going to allow this without even the hint of a fight? And the kool-aid drinkers call this a brillant move? LOL, win the battle, lose the war, split the party is not brillant thinking, .
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.