Because nobody cares if a woman or a man occupies a seat on the Supreme Court. Why not a woman?
That is, unless you belong to this:
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
I'm sure somebody did to Thomas.
I have nothing against Ms. Miers personally
Nor do I.
Because nobody cares if a woman or a man occupies a seat on the Supreme Court. Why not a woman?
That is, unless you belong to this:
Yes. The practice is referred to as "covert propaganda."
It's rampant. Check here -> GAO - Covert Propaganda
I'm sure NOW wrote Thomas a letter.
I have my doubts about Miers, her testimony in 1989 against the Federalist Society bothers me the most, but I have no reason to believe that President Bush would nominate a liberal, and I also know it is his choice, not ours.
18 Committee Members and 100 Senators will judge her qualifications and if you and I or any of these Pundits have an objection to this nomination, we all need to contact our Senators. For Pundits to be calling for her to step aside before the process even starts is arrogance I'm used to seeing from Liberals, not Conservatives. I would have picked Janice Rogers Brown and dared the Dems to Filibuster her nomination, buts that's me and since I'm not the POTUS, it's moot
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Wow, hadn't seen that. Thanks. It looks like the "sacking" was temporary.
So I have I.
Agree.
Would you please explain (using the Constitution) how Harriet Miers is unqualified. Please don't inject your own personal opinion, make the case is if you were a lawyer, not just a knee jerk reactionary
Yeah, and David Frum too! [/sarcasm]
Seriously, besides the usual garden-variety, everyday smears of Miers critics you see here all the time (like the unutterably vile smear of Laura Ingraham day before yesterday for example), have you noticed the up tic in absolute, shameless, bold faced LIES being peddled by the 'zoids over this?
Do you realize you just tarred the WH and the President? And of course the Senate. None of whom wanted a fight, so they all agreed to pick a nominee that could survive the filibuster, that is, the President had to get 60 votes, to get his nominee.
If she is such an inspired choice, then why doesn't the President simply follow the advice of Melanie Morgan, Mickey Kaus, and so many others, and appoint her to a federal circuit court, and then-when another vacancy opens up-nominate her for a spot on the SCOTUS?
Answer the challenge I posed you in post #54. If you have any decency, back up your charge against Frum. If you don't, I don't have even the time of day for you.
The presentation is much more concise, don't you agree, if all of those opposing are simply not mentioned?
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.