Posted on 10/13/2005 10:41:48 PM PDT by goldstategop
Dear Harriet:
I write to you today as one conservative woman to another, asking you to do something that almost no one in Washington, D.C., seems capable of doing: putting your own self-interest aside and withdrawing your name from consideration as a U.S. Supreme Court justice.
Watching from outside the Beltway of Washington, D.C., I see and hear things that are not reported by the mainstream media. As a talk-show host, I hear from our conservative base on a daily basis, and it's not encouraging for your nomination.
By asking President Bush to withdraw your name from nomination to the Supreme Court, you have an opportunity to put the best interests of this administration, the legacy and the legitimacy of the Supreme Court, and the interests of the American people ahead of your own self-interest.
I know this sounds harsh, but please understand this is not meant to be a slur upon your personal integrity, qualifications or desire to join the leading intellectual legal minds of our country.
But, you no doubt have noticed by now that your nomination to the Court has created a firestorm of debate in conservative political circles. And while I'm sure the criticism you have faced has been intensely painful and personal, I hope you know that those who have spoken out against your nomination do not do so out of malice toward you or any of your views. It is driven out of a love and respect for this country and its courts.
I, and others, have reviewed your record of accomplishments and achievements, and it is rather impressive. Many of your colleagues who worked with you for the three decades you served in private practice have praised your skills, work ethic and ability.
I also noted with approval your service as the first female president of the Dallas Bar Association and the Texas Bar Association.
And your service to President Bush and this administration obviously has been noteworthy, given the trust the president has placed in your nomination.
In spite of all of these attributes, you nonetheless are not the right person at this time to be a Supreme Court nominee – at least not now and not without an opportunity to weigh in on the most challenging legal issues of our time at a lower court level. Others have noted that you would be much better suited serving now as a justice on the Appellate Court. In my opinion, you are highly qualified to serve on that court, and you would be doing your president and the conservative cause a great service to serve on that court.
When I look upon the field of potential candidates the president could have picked to fill the seat held by Sandra Day O'Connor, I am struck by the fact that these other individuals have a track record of involvement in constitutional law that is lacking from your resume.
I've reviewed the records of a number of other women who would make excellent nominees to the Supreme Court – as I know you have as well – and their qualifications speak for themselves:
Janice Rogers Brown has an exemplary resume with a diversity of experience. She served as deputy legislative counsel in the U.S. military; deputy attorney general for the state of California; service as Gov. Pete Wilson's legal affairs secretary; service as an associate justice on the California Court of Appeals; tenure as a law professor; service as a justice on the California Supreme Court; and finally service as a judge on the U.S. federal Court of Appeals. Conservatives know she would provide a steady hand in responsibly steering the Court in the path of a constructionist legal approach.
Another possible nominee is Edith Jones. Like you, Ms. Jones served in private practice in Texas. President Reagan named her to the U.S. Court of Appeals in 1985. That's over 20 years of preparation and becoming familiar with many of the same legal questions that today's Supreme Court will have to consider and debate.
And another Texan, Priscilla Owen, was a justice on the Texas Supreme Court and is currently a Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals.
No one doubts the skills, qualifications or understanding of constitutional law that these women possess. Nor does anyone believe these individuals to be malleable to the experiences they would encounter as a Supreme Court justice.
During the news conference announcing your nomination, you made very moving statements about the pride and celebration you and your mother shared when you learned that President Bush would be nominating you to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. That moment when you thanked your family, and particularly your mother, was very powerful and resonated with me personally.
Surely, though, it must weigh on your mind the fact that the assessments from some of the great thinkers and leaders of the conservative movement have not been so kind. Thus far, the chorus of conservative leaders who have spoken out against your nomination includes Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, George Will, Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan, Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol, David Frum, Alan Keyes, Mona Charen, Robert Bork, Peggy Noonan, John Podhoretz, Michelle Malkin and many others.
Republican Sen. Arlen Specter, who ostensibly supports your nomination, nevertheless said of you: "She needs a crash course in constitutional law."
Harriet, these are comments made by individuals from the "friendly" side of the aisle, people who are inclined to support the president and his choices. That so many have spoken out so publicly must make even you pause to question whether you are the right choice for this time.
I want to share with you a personal story that I believe in some ways relates to the current situation you are in.
At the age of 24, I was selected for a temporary assignment as an on-air reporter with the ABC television affiliate here in San Francisco. The station was – and is – a powerhouse affiliate in the fourth largest TV media market in this nation.
I was a candidate to take the permanent on-air position, but lost out to a more experienced woman. I felt robbed. Not only did I feel robbed, but I also felt like ABC was hurting themselves by not hiring me. Despite the experience and abilities of the woman that ABC selected, I felt my drive, determination and hunger compensated for my rather scant record of experience in on-air reporting for major affiliates.
Harriet, it turns out I was wrong. It took years of hindsight for me to realize that the person they selected was exactly the right choice and that I would have been a marginal selection – despite the fact that I so badly wished to have that job.
I think perhaps you are in a similar place. And I say that with the best of intentions as that statement can be made. This is not the time for Harriet Miers to be serving on the Supreme Court of the United States, and there are other potential nominees who are ready to hit the ground running to serve the people of this nation admirably.
Take joy and comfort in knowing that you have served your president and this country well. And I believe you are capable of amassing a record of distinction on the U.S. Supreme Court someday. But, in my own humble estimation – now is not that time.
I feel confident that all of the same conservatives who are speaking out against your nomination today would wholeheartedly support your nomination to the federal Court of Appeals – perhaps taking the place of either Janice Rogers Brown, Edith Jones or Priscilla Owens as they move to the Supreme Court.
Please, Harriet, do the right thing. Put the interests of this president, this nation, the Supreme Court and our shared conservative philosophy ahead of your own personal desire to serve on the Supreme Court today.
Withdraw your name as a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Respectfully Yours,
Melanie Morgan
As for trust, GWB broke his subjective campaign promise to me. He said "in the mold of Scalia or Thomas"
Our President says that he knows her heart, to me that means that she IS in the mold.
I believe a claim of that by Priscilla Owen is contained upthread. But at this point, do you expect any potential future nominee to open his mouth and say, "Wait a minute, he's a liar!" about the guy they are hoping might nominate them next time around?
Our President says that he knows her heart, to me that means that she IS in the mold.
I hear what you are saying, but think it is important for you to understand why I feel otherwise.
First, as a matter of my personal trust or sense that the President did what he said he would, I took his word to mean that:
We don't have that in this nominee.
The other point is one that seems to be lost on many FReepers, who think that objecting to this nomination just has to be an objection to Ms. Miers, the person - who probably has a decent heart. You could NOT be more wrong. There is a priniple of open, honest government here, and the entire country is being cheated out of a transparent political process that includes fighting over ideals.
To be blunt, I think President Bush has abused your trust in him. The link below poinst to some "sort of geeky" posts (not inflammatory in any way) that desicribe how the founders intended the President and Senate to process nominations. If you were an objective Senator, and the president said "I have a bill here that I want you to pass. 'Trust me,' it's a good bill. It's about saving social security. Please pass it." You would expect the contents of the bill to be laid out for review, so the bill could be debated on the merits. Do you think a responsible Senator would vote 'Aye" based on "trust me?" I think not, because that is a crap shoot. He (the Senator) might get it right, or he might not.
Stealth in itself is inherently dishonest. You should be ashamed if you are pushing a dishonest tactic. GOvernment serves all of us, DEM and GOP and everyone else. Do you advocate a government process that is not open and transparent, because you think the outcome will be to your advantage? It is this "process of steath" itself that I reject; and that is non-negotiable with me.
Now, here is the link I noted. It hits on post #6, but you should read #7, #12, and #13. Senator Santorum has also voiced objection on the grounds of "stealth."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1502188/posts?page=6#6
There is another view of the basic point I am arguing, and it has to do with the dialoge between you and me, between the "trust me" and the "show me" camps. It illustrates the very nature of our argument. I wrote this yesterday, and will cut and past it complete with typos.
Time will tell. As for my opinion, and you ake this personally please, there is no reasoning with blind trust. I have given up trying to convince you of anything - but aim to conclude our relationship on a civil note.To say that tehre is no reasoning with blind trust is not an attack. Blind trust, or "faith" as it is sometimes called, is just not amenable to reason. That is the nature of faith. I have faith that Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior. That he suffered and was killed to attone for my failure to live up to God's Commandments. That all I need it faith in him and his promise, and I will have the undeserved gift of everlasting life, given by the grace of God, who is all knowing, all powerful, and all loving.
No amount of reasoning with me will cause me to lose my faith in Jesus Christ. And no amount of reasoning with you will cause you to lose your faith in George Bush.
I am not saying that you see George Bush as a god. Don't go there. I am saying that it is literally impossible to mount a reasoned argument against "trust." And you have erected that barrier to reasoned discussion.
I still note, that the "I SUPPORT HARRIET BUT I HAVE NO REASONS AS TO WHY" mantra continues. It's rather intellectually dishonest, but hey, this is a nomination based on "trust" not merit, experience or qualification - I'm getting that now.
No, I don't, which is why I was surprised that anyone would have refuted Dobson's claim that Rove said the "good" female nominees had taken themselves out of the running and the best they could do was Harriet Miers.
"Rush said Wednesday 'I am opposed to this nomination.'"
Sorry 'bout that--excuse me for including Rush in MY post, then.
Brownback and Sowell, however, seem to be on the fence--especially since both sides on this thread include Sowell in their camp.
It would be a good idea if both sides would realize that, while having allies is a good thing, utilizing logical argument to convince your opponent of the righteousness of your cause (instead of trading illogical comments like insults and ally lists) is better.
You're right.
Beyond that, the other defense of her nomination I've read is that she might be a Texas cowgirl, and if she is this is a plus because we have enough know-it-alls on the Court already. OK, you can sort of see the point in this argument.
But really, is this what a SCOTUS nominee is supposed to look like? Not a bad lawyer and not too smart or too qualified?
Why don't we stop sending over in-shape Marines and soldiers to fight and instead send over fat slobs in poor health. I'm sick of all these well-trained, prepared soldiers fighting for America.
The logic of "unqualified, inexperienced and maybe not smart enough makes a great nominee" absolutely confounds me.
Sorry, I don't think that explains why most of the conservative legal scholars of today have opposed Miers. One could well argue that the lack of class exists in the President's affront to conservatives through his nomination of Miers.
Yes, but that is what is sorely lacking from the "We Love Harriet" camp. The best attempt I've seen is at Beldar's Blog where he analyzed her case record as a lawyer. About the best you could conclude was that she might not be an awful lawyer.
---I'm not real impressed with Beldar's stuff, frankly, though it's obvious he was trying hard. The best arguments I've seen about Miers aren't dedicated to refuting the arguments about her competency (those are really just silly, she is not the constitutional scholar or legal mind that we deserved) but are dedicated to pointing out why she is the best we could get right now. There's a MOOSEMUSS thread out there that was pretty good. And Thomas Sowell's article is right on that, too.
Beyond that, the other defense of her nomination I've read is that she might be a Texas cowgirl, and if she is this is a plus because we have enough know-it-alls on the Court already. OK, you can sort of see the point in this argument.
---I can, but why not a California Supreme Court justice who's proven she's not one of the gang instead? Ann Richards IS a Texas cowgirl, and there'd be riots in the suburbs if Bush had appointed her. Not that suburbanites would be wrong to riot if he'd appointed that witch, either.
But really, is this what a SCOTUS nominee is supposed to look like? Not a bad lawyer and not too smart or too qualified?
---Agreed.
Why don't we stop sending over in-shape Marines and soldiers to fight and instead send over fat slobs in poor health. I'm sick of all these well-trained, prepared soldiers fighting for America.
---LOL.
The logic of "unqualified, inexperienced and maybe not smart enough makes a great nominee" absolutely confounds me.
---It comes down to trust and 'we couldn't do any better right now.' When those are your two principal arguments, you're going to have a hard time convincing the right wing. The left wing falls for that shit all the time ("Solar power will work, trust me!" "I invented the internet, trust me!" "I was a war hero, trust me!") and yet never gets 'trust me' judges for some reason. Maybe because they know THEIR base would revolt and permanently fracture if a 'trust me' nominee was put up.
I think the social-conservative-libertarian-broken-glass-party-hack GOP coalition can be put back together, but I think 2006 will be an interesting year (in the Chinese curse sense).
No amount of reasoning with me will cause me to lose my faith in Jesus Christ. And no amount of reasoning with you will cause you to lose your faith in George Bush.
You are very good at debating, I must say. You see, my faith in Jesus Christ is exactly why I put my trust in George Bush on this matter, I know who is really in control of the outcome and I rest in that.
Thank you very much. I aim to be fair in debating too.
And I think you obtained the point I was making with my declaration of faith - that once declared, reasonable discussion is shut off, and the hymns begin.
God bless you! And I agree, things always work in ways that are under His watchful eye.
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.