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
Because he appointed her to the Supreme Court.
And you undercut your own argument. If she can sit on a circuit court, she can sit on the Supreme Court.
You'll just have to wait for the hearings, broham. You could always run for president in 2008. Then you could make all these decisions in whatever way you wanted to make them.
I call on Melanie Morgan to resign her position on Move America Forward.
snip
"JUL. 4, 2005: DARK HORSE ... ... in the Supreme Court sweepstakes: Keep an eye on Harriet Miers, White House counsel. Miers was the first woman president of the Texas Bar Association, a co-managing partner of a 400-lawyer firm in Texas, a one-time Dallas city councilor, and by the by, the personal lawyer to one George W. Bush. She joined his staff as governor, served as staff secretary (Richard Darman's old job) in the first administration, and now oversees the White House's legal work. She is quiet, discreet, intensely loyal to Bush personally, and - though not ideologically conservative - nonetheless firmly pro-life. Plus she's a woman. Double plus - she'd be a huge surprise, and the president loves springing surprises on Washington and those pundits who think they know it all."
Now explain how she is unqualified?
"Double plus?"
FGS.
Anybody interested in the ramfications of stealth ought to read these posts, for a clinical analysis of how it disrupts balance of powers.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1502188/posts?page=6#6
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1502188/posts?page=7#7
Actually, the reason to reject her nomination is not just due to her lack of qualifications. It's about respecting the separation of powers.Seems I'm not the only lunatic in the asylum. The process that the President and the Senate are putting over on the people stinks to high heaven. It's not the nominee, it the process.The insufficient information regarding Harriet Miers makes it impossible for the Senate to independently evaluate her fitness for the bench. The Founders gave the Senate confirmation power to ensure that the President's most important nominees had an extra layer of scrutiny. To pressure the Senate to accept any nomination out of "trust" for the President defeats this particular check-and-balance.
Frum was hardly a critic in July was he?
Objective qualifications? Or subjective qualifications? The candidate must satisfy both, and a focus on the objective side alone is folly, sophistry, and does not advance the debate on a substantive basis.
No, he was not.
Somebody owes you an apology.
And there was another one where he said, "You heard it here first."
I don't see the problem with spending at least a year on a lower court-where she would have ample opportunity to demonstrate her mettle-before elevating her to the highest tribunal in the land.
This is the equivalent of asking a baseball player who just graduated college to forgo all three levels of the minor leagues, and enter MLB immediately.
" The presentation is much more concise, don't you agree, if all of those opposing are simply not mentioned?"
Well, it's certainly a lot easier.
And it doesn't make it look quite so lopsided.
"Look, here are 8 people you've likely never heard of who support her (plus thomas sowell, who issued one of very defintion of a luke warm 'endorsement' of miers)"
"Oh, those huge names in conservative politics who are against the nomination that I forgot to mention? Well, they're has-beens anyway!"
Hey AF Vet:
White House warns holdouts
Posted by af_vet_1981 to empirekin768
On News/Activism 10/13/2005 9:20:25 PM CDT · 166 of 477
Anyone trashing Harriet Miers is evil.
--
Is melanie morgan evil?
This graphic is outrageous! Shame on you! Those of us that wanted the president to live up to what he said he would do on SC nominations could care less whether it was a man or a woman. What we care about is that he produces what he promised. He did NOT promise a "trust me" candidate. For you to insinuate that our lack of acceptance of Mier is in some way sending the women's movement back to this mid eastern archaic time is preposterous.
I guess we have our share of fools here on FR too.
First, Frum wasn't going to go the mat on a womans wavering past and lack of qualifications on a hunch hypothisis that she could be a nominee.
Second, I don't think the President thinks she's a lib. He things she's a good friend, will be good to him while he's in office, and she will vote the right way on abortion. That's it. I think he thought we would all be bought off from criticism from her pro-life stance. The problem is, all of that will go back to the states if it's not a constitutional right any more and abortion will still be legal almost everywhere, save Utah. There's much more to that seat than just the abortion stance.
Third, we will learn nothing from the hearings. She will not answer any questions that will devulge her judicial philosophy. If she did, we don't know if she would interpret constructionism the same as we do, and we don't know if she would say one thing and do another as Souter did. In addition, this is not a stable, I believe what I believe lady. She is all over the map in the last 15 years. That worries many of us of her "growing" on the bench. If anybody has a past that would lead you to suspect some inconsistancy and growing it's hers.
These are the reasons we would like to see this end now. We just want promises kept and for the life of me I can't see this being it. If it doesn't end now, we find out while she's on the bench. Then it's too late.
In case you have forgotten, after the hearings there is usually a week or two before her nomination is voted on in the Committee and another week or so before her Nomination goes to the floor of the Senate. If you're so against this nomination get off your ass and convince your Senator to vote against her nomination
No, she did not trash her. She is just being stupid and imagining she was elected to some office. She has lost her credibility for nothing. Stupidity in action.
So we now know that Frum was for Harriet Miers before he was against her
One more time: point us to the language in Frum's July 4 entry that justifies your Clintonesque smear of Frum that he was "for Harriet Miers before he was against her." If you have any decency. Do that, or offer a public apology to David Frum.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
it is a joke..making fun of the pro-miers people.
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.