Posted on 10/10/2005 8:55:12 AM PDT by Warhammer
Misunderestimating The Furor Over Hurricane Harriet By Chuck Muth October 10, 2005
The White House's spinmeisters are either ignorantly misreading or intentionally mischaracterizing the general conservative opposition to Harriet Miers' nomination to the Supreme Court. They continue "misunderestimating" the furor at their own peril.
It's not that conservatives think she's "unqualified." We accept the fact that one need not have been a judge to sit on the Supreme Court. We accept the fact that many a fine justice had no judicial experience before joining SCOTUS. On the other hand, a lot of really lousy former justices had no judicial experience either.
We also accept the fact that Miers is an accomplished lawyer who won't "legislate from the bench." And we're fairly comfortable that she won't "go Souter" on us.
And it's not that she isn't "conservative." Conservatives not only accept that she's a conservative, but is most assuredly a social conservative, as well. We also accept that she's probably a very nice, but tough, lady who "has a good heart" (whatever the heck that means to one's ability to interpret the Constitution).
And it has nothing to do with the fact that she didn't come from an Ivy League school. Most of the other individuals on the short-list of nominees who would have been warmly embraced by grassroots conservative activists and leaders didn't come from Ivy League schools either. In fact, NOT coming from an Ivy League school is probably more in her FAVOR among rank-and-file conservatives who are not exactly enamored with Harvard and Yale ivory-tower liberalism.
And it's not that we don't "trust" the president - although after McCain-Feingold, Teddy Kennedy's No Child Left Behind program, LBJ's prescription drug bill, that pork-filled highway bill, his federal Marshall Plan for New Orleans, losing his veto pen, amnesty for illegal aliens, etc., etc., etc., perhaps that trust should come into serious question.
And it's not that Ms. Miers is a close, personal friend to the president. Although the charge of "cronyism" is, indeed, a legitimate point, that really isn't what all the hubbub is about.
No. This is about Republicans never blowing an opportunity to blow an opportunity.
The visceral objections to Harriet Miers have more to do with the fact that many conservative activists have been toiling in the political trenches for many years to elect a Republican president and a Republican Senate for the expressed purpose of being able to seat individuals on the nation's highest court who have the conservative judicial and intellectual star-power and brain-power we were denied by the Left when they "borked" Robert Bork. The fact is, with Republican kiesters warming 55 of the Senate's 100 seats, a superior Bork-like nominee could have been confirmed to join Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia and Chief Justice Roberts on the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
Instead, we get...Harriet Miers?
We could have had filet mignon. Instead we got hamburger. We could have had Dom Perignon. Instead we got Pabst Blue Ribbon. We could have thrown a touchdown. Instead we ran it up the middle for a two-yard gain. And then to rub salt in this open wound, the president insulted the nation's collective intelligence by claiming, laughably, that he "picked the best person (he) could find." Perhaps he should have extended his search beyond arm's length.
It's not so much that Harriet Miers is "bad," but that we had an opportunity to do so much better.
There are only nine seats on the Supreme Court. Vacancies don't occur very often. Why settle for a second- or third-stringer when there were so many experienced, bona fide super-stars sitting on the bench waiting to get into the game? With the World Series on the line, why send an untested, inexperienced rookie to the mound when you have the likes of Roger Clemens or Randy Johnson at your disposal? This nomination is the sort of decision which would get a major league manager fired on the spot.
Nevertheless, there are still some GOP partisan loyalists out there who are blindly accepting the president's nomination on faith and disparaging anyone else who dares voice objection as not being a "team player" or a "true conservative." These Bushophiles need to wake up and smell the coffee. For the record, here's just a partial list of prominent, bona fide, card-carrying conservatives who have expressed reservations, if not open hostility, to the Miers nomination over the past week:
Former Judge Robert Bork, American Conservative Union chairman David Keene, columnist Charles Krauthammer, talk show host Rush Limbaugh, columnist George Will, Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO), Roger Pilon of the Cato Institute, Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard, columnist Thomas Sowell, columnist Mona Charen, former ACU executive director Richard Lessner, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS), columnist Robert Novak, columnist Bruce Fein, columnist Peggy Noonan, former Bush speechwriter David Frum, columnist Terrence Jeffrey, columnist Michelle Malkin, the Wall Street Journal, Manny Miranda of the Third Branch Coalition, the Federalist Patriot, columnist David Limbaugh, Gary Bauer of American Values, Alan Keyes of Renew America, columnist Pat Buchanan and Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation.
All of these people are wrong and the president is right? All of these people aren't "true conservatives"? All of these people aren't "team players"? Come on.
George W is not the Pope. He is not infallible. He made a mistake. But it's a mistake which can and should be rectified. The nation need not settle for second or third best with this lifetime appointment. President Bush should take a "mulligan," withdraw this nomination and appoint someone such as Judge Janice Rogers Brown instead. Absent that, Ms. Miers should take herself out of the game - for the good of the conservative movement and for the good of the nation.
-----------
Chuck Muth is president of Citizen Outreach, a non-profit public policy advocacy organization in Washington, D.C. The views expressed are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Citizen Outreach. He may be reached at chuck@citizenoutreach.com. Talk show producers interested in scheduling an interview with Mr. Muth
should call (202) 558-7162.
--------------------
Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.
To be honest.... I'm more worried about Roberts than I am Miers. Roberts is smarter than everybody else in Washington. My experience is that these type of people are the ones that you need to worry about..... the ones that you may not want to trust.
I would guess that when it's all said and done, Miers will be more conservative than Roberts is.
Ya know the Bush Supporters are starting to sound like Alan Keyes Supporters.
And what are you 'waiting to see?' What do you expect will come from the confirmation hearings that will convince you this was a good nomination?
"Those that don't have the facts pound the table"
That's what hearings are for. It's not a requirement that we know everything about a candidate before he/she may be nominated. It is the duty of the Senate to ask the right questions and make the determination of whether enough has been learned to justify confirmation.
Those who can categorically state that she will not be a good judge or that she doesn't hold the correct philosophy are jumping the gun. They can't possibly know that unless they know her personally.
Anyone who can't reserve judgment until the hearings have concluded are basing that judgment on partial information at best. Those that denounce her based on that same partial information are pushing a different agenda, one that says that "information doesn't matter. Don't need that."
A BAD judge for US, is a GOOD judge for them (Dems), no? Therefore do you really think the MSM is going to report about these "bad" judges Bush has let through? No. Those are the judges they want MORE of.
We have to do our OWN research, not rely on some White House talking point memo. How many have been good? How many are crappy? Let's put a finger on it so we have a better idea of just what we're getting!
I don't agree with my wife about everything she says, or does.
LOL BTTT
I'm "waiting to see" a question that isn't so loaded.
Got one?
I'm saying let's investigate the "trust Bush", "trust Miers" claim by seeing what they've really given us over the last 4 years.
Is it really a great record, or merely so so?
"That's what hearings are for."
(sigh) Did you pay no attention to the Roberts confirmation process? We have established, after much effort, that Supreme Court nominees CAN'T answer questions about how they'll vote on specific issues since said issues may soon be adjudicated before the Court. Hence, we will find out little, if any, useful information from the confirmation process, itself.
You gave us two decisions from one judge.
Is that all you've got?
Don't put words in the mouths of others. My primary objection is that she is not a conservative heavy hitter, that she has not proven an ability to do the intellectual heavy-lifting needed to decide to do the right thing and then to convince others that it is the right thing.
So, according to you, I can't notice and remark on the primary objection that I see articulated here, one which you just restated using different words. Whatever.
"Got one?"
How is this a 'loaded' question? You're arguing against those who oppose this nomination. You don't even state your for the nomination, instead you're saying you want to 'wait and see.' It's fair to ask, "wait and see, what?" What is it you think will develop during the confirmation process that will convince you that those who oppose the nomination are wrong? If you can't answer the question, then it appears all of your argumentation is just blind Bushophilia masquerading as intellectual debate.
You're the one saying trust Bush! I've simply pointed out ONE reason NOT to. If someone gives me a list of all judicial appointments made by Bush I will gladly google them tonight at home & investigate. Or perhaps someone else knows if there's already a website out there that has done this?
Since you're great at investigating... ;)
That's what hearings are for.
My issues are primarily other than "predicted performace," but they do flow from the fact that her con-law philosophy is unknown, and she is a crony. The latter point not to be taken in a bad way, but she does owe some of her personal success to her attachment to the President. The crony charge will be leveled and addressed, but it's a discussion that is not the one I'd prefer.
This was a missed opportunity to have a conservative dialog with the public. The nomination shows weakness. The fact that weakness is the reality does not appease my disappointment.
I would have thought the answer to that would have been obvious: wait and see how she does in the confirmation hearings and then decide if she's a good nominee or not.
It's a hard concept, I know.
You can remark howsoever you wish. Just don't claim that my concern is different than what my concern is, and don't rephrase my concern to be something else than what it is.
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.