Posted on 10/07/2005 6:05:08 AM PDT by slowhand520
Conservatives can trust in Miers
By Newt Gingrich
Originally published October 7, 2005
WASHINGTON // Conservatives should feel confident with the selection of Harriet Miers to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court for a simple reason: George W. Bush selected her. Much has been made in the press about conservative unhappiness with the White House on issues such as spending and immigration and most recently with the selection of Ms. Miers. However, while these tensions are not insignificant, the president has stayed remarkably true to conservative principles on every major decision he has made since winning the Republican primary.
He unabashedly ran as a conservative in the election and even selected Dick Cheney - a man of impeccable conservative credentials - as his vice president. Once elected, he assembled a Cabinet of conservatives, including Donald H. Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft and Condoleezza Rice. He proceeded to cut taxes as promised, and did it again in 2002.
After 9/11, President Bush resisted the prevailing wisdom in Washington that terrorism should be dealt with as a crime, instead treating the attacks as acts of war that required a military response. And after the 2004 election, Mr. Bush put himself front and center as an impassioned advocate of transforming Social Security into a system of personal accounts.
(Excerpt) Read more at baltimoresun.com ...
hmmm...it seems to me that Reaganghost doesn't so much have a problem with Miers or the way Bush selects judicial appointments as he does with a bunch of other things.
Of course Miers should get a fair hearing and an up or down vote, but history has far from settled whether Bush is batting well on Judges.
If Miers gets up there and votes like another Justice O'Connor or Powell, would you say in 2010 that he batted 1000?
The term "fully qualified" nominee is in the eye of the beholder, and we shouldn't let our loyalty to the President blind us to the fact that Miers' experience and background in Constitutional law is thinner than that of most of the previous nominees for the post. Some strangely think that lack of background is a plus, but close court watchers know that many of the Supreme Court most wobbliest principles have come about from court members (like O'Connor) who used the 'real world' viewpoint to make rulings, and who lacked a rigorous view of constitutional interpretation. Miers may be a fine woman and lawyer, but it is doubtful she will be another Scalia.
Uh, that's top 100 WOMEN lawyers, not top 100 lawyers.
"Schaftley's comments are more reasoned than most of the screamers and a little disturbing when she says no woman close to Bush is anti-RvW so we cannot assume Miers is..... anybody know (have any specifics) about that?."
I'm guessing that she means by that, both Barbara and Laura Bush are not anti-RvW.
".I think it may be a valid observation but I don't know"
I dont know either.
"...(makes me wonder about Roberts also BTW)"
Uh, you shouldnt. *Roberts* wife has a prominent position in a pro-life organization. :-)
Constitutionally, a Justice needn't even be a lawyer.
"I am sure that the likes of Patrick Leahy will agree with your approach."
ON the contrary, we found out that Leahy and Harry Reid are the ones who put Bush up to the idea of appointing Miers.
They didnt want a rigid right-wing Judge cloistered in the judicial monastary, and Bush agreed.
Forget it Newtie, conservatives not buying Bush now, wont buy you later for being an errand boy.
"The only grounds for NOT confirming the appointment would be if she had hired an illegal alien to clean her house or some other such scandalous thing..."
LOL. I am hoping this is sarcasm rather than simple idiocy.
The Constitution is silent on the reasons for approving or disapproving nominations. But if competence is *not* a valid barrier for such an important position, then the whole country could go to the dogs. You think it is A-OKAY to put mediocrities into high offices??? Surely not.
"If you argue that she is not qualified... what are the requisite qualifications and why are they not stated in the constitution???"
They are stated in the Constitution: The nominee must be qualified enough for the job to satisfy the Senate and achieve confirmation. The Senators can make their own subjective judgements on whether the nominee is 'qualified'.
Those of us who dont have a Senate vote are free to opine as to whether she is in fact worthy of passing the Senate's confirmation barrier. Having grounded experience in the Constitutional and legal issues that come before the US supreme court is a good thing; (the kind of experience that a solicitor general, a federal judge, or a lawyer who represents clients in appelate cases has). Miers has less of that than other possible proven conservatives that Bush could have picked, hence the gnashing of teeth at a missed opportunity.
We'll see how she does in the job interview. :-)
You sir, are entirely correct. I have argued elsewhere that there are employment choices outside the legal profession which are, over a distinguished period of service, quite capable of producing excellent justices.
May I enquire about the origin of your handle?
My sentiment exactly ... I want the best possible candidate nominated by Bush (as in Roberts) and Harriet Miers ain't the one. Not many presidents get the opportunity to nominate two justices to the SCOTUS ... Bush does ... and he's squandering his second opportunity by nominating a flyweight to a heavy weight position. Miers for some federal judgeship, OK ... to the SC absolutely not.
It's a familiar corruption of my last name, styled after the Simpson's "Do the Bartman" song.
Hmm...do you have a list of his judicial nominees that you *DON'T* like? I'm sure he's nominated whoever is your particular favorite. His non-SC nominations have been rather famously the one thing Conservatives are all in agreement about being quite good.
If Miers gets up there and votes like another Justice O'Connor or Powell, would you say in 2010 that he batted 1000?
No, but the same would be true if Owens were to suddenly turned on us like Warren did. If Barry Bonds strikes out every time this year, his career batting average won't be so good, what does that prove? What possible childhood neuroses would cause you to doubt Bush's judgement based on something that hasn't happened?
Uh, that's top 100 WOMEN lawyers, not top 100 lawyers.
It still falls under the ranking of "eminently qualified" in the objective sense.
But what about comparing her to other potential choices considering SUBJECTIVE considerations? Bush (and Miers) had all the skinny on the potential candidates we liked. He also had people counting heads to see whether they would pass. After all that, he REJECTED them in favor of (to him) a known quantity.
What gets me going about this nomination is the injustice and unreasonableness of her detractors. Based solely on the fact that THEY wouldn't have nominated her (while knowing relatively little compared to what the President knew) they are shouting "Betrayed!" and "This makes no sense!".
Wait until you hear from her before rending your clothes. So far, she looks like the nightmare Liberals foresaw when Bush was elected in 2000.
I think that fact points to one reason for the disappointment. The unanimity came with an unstated assumption, that GWB would nominate a candidate in the mold of Scalia or Thomas. People mistook that statement, and right or wrong, don't see Miers as satisfying the promise of "in the mold of Scalia or Thomas."
Following that vein, not only is their disappointment with the nomination, there is also a diminishing of trust in the President - for a nomination where of of his stronger selling points is "trust me."
As I said, "right or wrong," but there is little doubt some party-faithful feel something that resembles betrayal.
I'm inclined to believe that Miers would render opinins that are acceptable to my sense of how SCOTUS should rule. But I am very unhappy with the pick.
If you like Kemp, you probably like Gingrich - I like neither.
"the president has stayed remarkably true to conservative principles on every major decision he has made since winning the Republican primary."
Newt's hallucinating.
Then I'm confused.
Then I'm confused.
I prefer an open discussion of Constitutional principle; correct the overreaching by SCOTUS and other courts into hot-button social issues, the balance of powers between the Senate and the President, etc. But instead of a discussion on principle, we are having a discussion on "qualifications," "cronyism," and "stealth."
I don't like that conservaitism is reduced to stealth. It feels like being ashamed of conservatism, or being afraid that conservatism will lose in the marketplace of ideas. It comes off as "chicken" and "conflict avoidance," not just on the President's part, but also on the part of the GOP-lead Senate.
I guess you could look at it that way. I could make an equally strong case that considering other irons in the fire at this moment, especially the War, a big nasty fight inside the beltway would be bad timing when a so-called "stealth nominee" will accomplish the same end that one of those lightening rod nominees would.
Then I'm confused.
I'm also unhappy that the pick is a divisive diversion within the ranks of the GOP. I don't know if the division is deep or durable, but I don't like it, and it's GWB's fault for making this pick.
And while I believe Ms. Miers would rule according to my sense of constitutional principle, her bona fides and world view do not clearly show that to me. Not like the world view openly expressed by Janice ROgers Brown, for example, in her A Whiter Shade of Pale speech.
I've thought about the nomination enough to have fairly well cemented my objections - and I have always been open-minded as to predictions of Ms. Miers performance as a Justice.
Meanwhile, I'd like to see the GOP-lead Senate take up the debate and confirmation of Myers (9th Circuit), Boyle, Haynes, Kavanaugh and Saad. Myers has been out of commitee for 6 months. Why the delay?
I'm sure the President and other have fully rationalized and justified this pick in their own minds.
But it cannot be disputed that "stealth" comes with a cost. It is not a free pass, and it does not energize all of the conservatives.
This nomination has cause me to have doubts about President Bush that I never expected to have. I dislike it for that reason too. I really really want to trust him. He is making that hard.
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.