[goldstategop]

Why should we reject Harriet Miers? The Founding Fathers, in particular Alexander Hamilton, feared cronyism would have a corrupting influence on the government. The Senate was designed to check appointments not based on distinguished accomplishments and impeccable character. Our President may be shameless in appointing a crony to one of our nation's highest offices - the United States Supreme Court. That's reason good enough to see Miers defeated by the Senate. If only as a tribute to the Founding Fathers who shaped the Constitution that governs our lives today.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[SteveMcKing]

Reminds me of how Dick Cheney was selected. (If you recall -- he choose himself!)

[Betaille]

PING!

[flashbunny]

[Southack]

You know, after WND predicted that Zarqawi and Bin Laden would nuke the U.S. by Ramadan 2005 (started Oct 4), I wondered what they would do when the date came and went without a big nuclear attack.

After reading their recent bottom-scaping articles on Miers, now I know.

[RobbyS]

Baloney. Hamilton owed his own elevation to his connection with Washington.

[eleni121]

Give the woman a chance to speak! This is not cronyism... far from it!

She is going through hell to get confirmed!

[counterpunch]

Imagine if Bill Clinton had nominated his personal attorney and White House counsel to a post on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Then Vincent Foster would still be alive today.

[xzins]

What is the difference between a crony and a friend? a crony and an associate? a crony and a colleague? a crony and a preferred expert?

[Prost1]

Joseph Farah is, like his buddies M.Savage and P.Buchanan, wrong.

There is no reason to hold a nominee to the Supreme Court to a higher standard than we do our Senators or Presidents.

And though it is "life-time", they can always be impeached for usurping authority.

[A CA Guy]

So is this historically the first time a President put up someone he personally knew or worked with?

If not, how many in the past who Presidents knew were offered as Judges?

[irishtenor]

***Imagine if Bill Clinton had nominated his personal attorney and White House counsel to a post on the U.S. Supreme Court. ***

None of them would have stood the scrutiny. Their past would have been shown to the world and they would have died from embarassment.

[CharlesWayneCT]

I don't mind people voicing opposition, but I'm sick and tired of the anti-miers crowd dragging Hamilton through the mud pretending he supports their position.

Hamilton clearly stated that it was the nomination of unqualified people that was the problem, NOT cronyism itself.

Hamilton didn't fear cronyism, he embodied it. But he was a qualified person.

To suggest that being a close friend of the president should disqualify you for a nomination of any kind is so absurd that, if we all KNEW Miers was a strong strict constructionist, nobody would be raising this point on our side.

Haven't most of the judges we've had problems with been ones where the president DIDN'T have a personal knowledge, a close relationship, from which to judge the nominee?

[spinestein]

[...raising serious and nagging questions about Harriet Miers' role as chairman of the Texas Lottery Commission and the cover-up of the way that story intersects with George W. Bush's National Guard service]

I didn't realize Dan Rather was back on the case.



[If we are all honest with ourselves, it is clear Miers' name was put forward for one major reason – she is a friend and confidante of the president.]

Occam's Razor tells me her name was put forward because President Bush thinks she is the best candidate.




[But senators who claim to be voting for Harriet Miers because she is an "originalist" should indeed be ashamed.]

President Bush says she is a "strict constructionist" (or "originalist") and will rule that way as a Supreme Court Justice. I think many of the people on the right who are opposing her, do so not because they think she won't be an "originalist" as they claim, but because they fear she won't rule in favor of conservative social causes, or against liberal causes regardless of original intent. If that is the case, they should indeed be ashamed.

[Cincinna]

How quickly that idiot Joseph Farah forgets.
Bill Clinton made his WINO co-president and allowed her to conduct secret hearings on national policy.

[JSteff]

Founding Fathers Didn't Envisage Cronyism For High Offices Alert)

Who is he trying to kid? No it is not what the Founding Fathers envisioned but it has been the rule and standard operating procedure in all levels of politics for over 225 years.

It is just how things operate. To say otherwise is naive and unrealistic.

[billbears]

If only as a tribute to the Founding Fathers who shaped the Constitution that governs our lives today.

Since when? The Constitution has been ignored in Washington for over a hundred years. I'm telling you, this is looking more promising to me by the day. Every faux conservative talking head imaginable is coming out against this poor woman. Could Bush, mistakenly of course, have given us an actual Constitutionalist willing to see through Democratic as well as Republican unconstitutional acts and laws?

[Hugin]

There is no evidence that Miers is unfit.

And comparing her to the corrupt Abe Fortas is a new low for Farrah.

[Congressman Billybob]

Actually, the Founding Fathers were heavily into cronyism. Most of them were followers of a certain Jesus Christ, who left his entire Church to 12 of his cronies. One of them turned out rather badly, but the other 11 worked out well.

What an exceptionally dumb argument. Presidents therefore should fill important positions with people they don't know personally? Isn't that how Republican Presidents got disastrous results, like Chief Justice Warren, and Justice Souter? Helloooo?

Congressman Billybob

Latest column: "Hillary Knew, David Knew, Only the Post Reporter Was in the Dark"

[Kryptonite]

Got it. Bork should've been confirmed. We all know that Miers isn't Bork, so she shouldn't be confirmed either.

I am totally on board with all of this - totally. Count me in. I'm soooooo convinced I could puke on Bush myself.

[Ol' Sparky]

We should reject her because there is no proven track record showing she is conservative and plenty of evidence that she is liberal on issues like affirmative action, sympathic to radical feminism and even contributed to Hillary Clinton's campaign in 2000.

We should reject the stealth strategy as only one of the four stealth candidates nominated by Republicans -- despite the same type of assurances we're getting about Meirs -- have ended up being an originalist.

But, we'll trust once again in the name of political expediency and get burned. Then, the same cycle will start all over again.