Posted on 10/14/2005 3:27:53 PM PDT by JohnHuang2
WASHINGTON -- To the excitement of all Washington, the hullabaloo over President George W. Bush's nomination of Harriet E. (and you can be sure the Senate Judiciary Committee will get to the bottom of this mysterious "E" in due course) Miers builds, picking up wails and execrations daily. What makes the excitement so Continues...
=============================================================
The Borkette-ing of Harriet Miers
OK, on the downside, you-know-who at one time was a Democrat. Hard-core liberal Democrat. Contributed to Hard-core liberal Democrats. Loved FDR. Loved Harry Truman. Was once "pro-choice." Switched parties, became Republican. Strong pro-lifer. Born-again Christian. Ah-ha! Big flip flop there! No core principles!
But enough about Ronald Reagan. Regarding Harriet Miers, nearly two weeks after her nomination was announced, the Bill Kristol-led Rebellion has mushroomed from zero GOP senators opposing Miers to . . . zero GOP senators opposing Miers. To be confirmed, Miers oddly needs to win approval only in the Senate, not the Weekly Standard. So, over the weekend, the MSM resorted to Plan B, quoting over and over the same three rejects: Kristol, Pat Buchanan and Gary Bauer.
OK, in fairness, there were a few senators expressing doubts about Miers and her "murky" record. "I just don't know" the nominee, said Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. "I don't have any enthusiasm until I know someone. Personal integrity is the most important issue. If they don't have that, what they say doesn't matter."
Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas sounded a similar tone, vowing to question the candidate on Constitutional issues and the role of the courts. The nominee "doesn't seem to be a Souter," said Brownback, but he isn't sure. The nominee will "be a free agent once" on the High Court.
Oops! Coburn and Brownback were talking about John Roberts, back in July. Sorry again.
Regarding Miers, Kristol, who admits it's the President's prerogative to nominate whomever Kristol chooses, told Fox News Sunday he doesn't "think any serious person thinks she's the most qualified person, or the most qualified woman to be a Supreme Court judge, and I think she should step aside. It would be good for the President, it would be good for the Court." And you can trust the deep insight of Dan Quayle's former political strategist.
Bauer, who showed his deep affection for Bush by supporting John McCain for president, complained that "the whole (Harriet Miers) strategy is the so-called stealth strategy, picking candidates for the Supreme Court who have no judicial record on things that really matter . . ." Such as regulation of the hapless arroyo toad. And the French-fry-on-Metro-train case. If only Bush had picked a red-meat conservative. President McCain sure would've!
Buchanan, another loyal Republican who ran against Bush as an independent, presents a compelling case: For goodness sake, could we please jump to unfounded conclusions before we hear the lady out? Trust unelected "opinion leaders," they always know all the answers. Buchanan predicted Sunday the nomination will be "withdrawn." Nailing down the exact timeline, Buchanan says she'll withdraw "at some point, maybe before, maybe after the committee hearings. My guess is she will not be confirmed." Silly Bush disagrees. He predicts "she is going to be on the bench. She will be confirmed." Hmmmmm, who to believe . . . the guy who hangs around Lenora Fulani, or the boss of Cheney, Rove, Rummy, Condi, Bolton . . .
Among the things going for Miers:
(1) She's a pistol-packin' mama.
(2) She shoots a .45.
(3) She knows what "Congress shall make no law" means.
(4) She's not from Harvard.
(5) She's not an East Coast elitist.
(6) Bill Kristol's against her.
That alone means she should be confirmed. Plus, she believes in the existence of a Supreme Being. Kristol believes HE IS The Supreme Being.
Contrary to the law firm of Kristol, Buchanan & Bauer, nothing in the Constitution says a qualified nominee 'shall not have attended Southern Methodist University,' or 'shall be a law professor or former law professor or a judge' or 'prolific writer of law review articles and op-ed pieces for the Weekly Standard.' Some say Bush should've just nominated his dog Barney. Yeah, right. Barney could never be confirmed. Barney lacks the "raw intellectual power" to sit on a Court which:
(1) Gives us 10 different opinions for why it's unconstitutional to display the Ten Commandments in Kentucky but constitutional in Texas.
(2) Decides it's now constitutional to engage in sodomy.
(3) Decides it's now constitutional for cities to seize private homes and give them to private developers to increase tax revenue. Imagine the "raw intellectual power" it takes to drain all meaning from the Fifth Amendment's "for public use" phrase! Doubt Miers has it. That's why I support her. I want her on the Court because she "lacks" the judicial "experience" in creating the mess the whining Ivy Leaguers made of our judiciary. It'll take a cowgirl from Texas to fix it.
Anyway, that's...
My Two Cents...
"JohnHuang2"
Have a great weekend, y'all. God bless!
"the MSM resorted to Plan B, quoting over and over the same three rejects: Kristol, Pat Buchanan and Gary Bauer."
Yeah, those are the only ones.
LOL. You are the king.
;-)
The Los Angeles Times:
The written record of President Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court is meager. But her musings in the Texas Bar Journal in 1992 and 1993 offer a window into a different era for Miers.
At the time, she was perched atop a fractious organization of 55,000 lawyers that included law-and-order prosecutors, boardroom advisors and legal clinicians paid in chickens on the border. The crosscurrents were fierce, and Miers fought them by choosing a path that could safely be described as politically moderate and, at times, liberal — by Texas standards anyway.
She called for increased funding for legal services for the poor and suggested that taxes might have to be raised to achieve the notion of "justice for all."
She praised the benefits of diversity, called for measures that would send more minority students to law schools, and said that just because a woman was the head of the state bar did not mean that "all unfair barriers for women have been eradicated."
She was upset that although poverty was rising in Texas, impoverished families received a disproportionately small share of welfare and Medicaid benefits.
And she was an unapologetic defender of her profession, even the oft-maligned "trial lawyer."
"Lawyers are about seeking the truth, preserving a system to achieve fairness and justice and protecting the freedom of individuals against the tyranny of the majority view," she wrote.
Still, her emerging record as a lawyer in Texas could foment concern among conservatives that she would not be a reliable ally — and maybe it should, said Jim Parsons, a state district judge from Palestine, Texas, a friend of Miers' and a self-described "dyed-in-the-wool Democrat" who supports her nomination.
"I've never known her to be either a bra-burning Democrat or the comparable Republican," said Parsons, who was president of the bar in 1990 and 1991. "She's just not an ideologue."
Does she sound like another Scalia or even remotely conservative to anyone?
Nevermind, that the Washington Times reported that 27 Republican Senators wouldn't commit to supporting her.
Major Garrett on Fox News reported that several Senators told him that she has been be spectatular in the hearings or they would not vote for her. Garrett stated her chances of confirmation are only slightly better than 50-50.
I've agreed with so much you've posted here but I'm not with you on this one. Weak! But that's all anyone has in support of Miers. Weak evidence that she is somehow qualified and a plea to trust George Bush.
Good satire has an element of truth. Yours above is LOADED with it!
Here's Mark Steyn's view of the Supreme Court:
But as I've said, I just don't think as a practical matter it's good to have nine dazzling colossi on the Supreme Court, because you do want people, I think, who essentially have a sound view of the Constitution, and will vote on the basis of what is in the Constitution, which isn't, actually, it shouldn't require the kind of intellectual fireworks we've seen on the Court in the last thirty years.
So now you're down to resorting to spamming the threads with your concurrence with the Los Angeles Times. I'm so very impressed.
All Miers' critics at this point asking us to trust THEM.
He did not. Major said that Miers would barely be confirmed, with 55-60 votes.
Clarence Thomas got 52 votes for confirmation.
Yep.
I have been sure Kristol thought that way about himself for a long time.
Does anyone have confirmation?..No?
That's ok...I like it. Print it.
Cool and funny post.
JH me boy!! It gets better every time I read it!!
Great job!!
Excellent!!
And what I want to know is...who are the 3.3% on this board who are "voting for Hillary"!
Outstanding! I am tired of all the carping of people who elected Bush to noinate the "right" people to the Supreme Court and then complain when he does it. Just because "they" don't know her, doesn't mean the man who nominated her doesn't. If you trusted Bush in the election to nominate Conservative, Stict Constructionists to the court in 2004, what has changed? Nothing.
I may not agree with Bush on everything, but there are several things I know with confidence
1. He will never pull out of the war on terror. And by pull out I don't mean the Bill Clinton/Blue dress variety.
2. He will never nominate someone to the bench who is not a true believer in Strict Constructionism and knows the place of the court in the Citizen's protection FROM the government, not from each other (ie Social Engineering).
That's good enough for me. Harriett, I don't know you, but you must be a very nice woman who has proven herself to MY LEADER. I trust him, ergo, I trust you. Fight the good fight. Be humble. Remember that you are there to protect the people from the government. And finally, use some God-given common sense. You'll do fine.
AEKDB
"Nevermind, that the Washington Times reported that 27 Republican Senators wouldn't commit to supporting her."
Unless a Republican declares opposition (none have), you can't read too much into that.
Most Senators will be in 'wait-and-see' mode in their statements. Some have already made supportive statements.
(Cornyn.) Far fewer than made supportive statements of Roberts.
Miers is off to a much weaker start than Roberts, who almost
was assured approval even before the hearings.
Ironically, the conservative uprising will *help* Miers, because it will leave the Democrats confused as to how hard to push on Miers. If they were unified, they could stop her ... but would they really want that?
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.