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"
Bumped 'n' bookmarked.
But for Frum, et. al., the next worst outcome would be for Miers to perform well at the hearings, be confirmed for the Court, and then vote with Roberts, Scalia and Thomas on high profile issues.
Jack Kelly
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1502664/posts
BTTT...:)
Great read!
"Roberts, Scalia and Thomas on high profile issues."
Has Roberts really been on the court long enough to be placed with Scalia and Thomas? Give him time.
LOL, good one Johnny.
Jack Kelly's assessment on Roberts, not mine.
Plus, she believes in the existence of a Supreme Being.
I think it is interesting and important to note the relative proportion of membership in various religious groups on the Supreme Court. I think that would make Harriet Miers the only evangelical on the court.
And that could be why some conservatives, consciously or unconsciously oppose her. So, if Harriet Miers is confirmed, she will be the only evangelical on the U.S. Supreme Court. “Faith and Trust Alone”
Because I have Faith in the President and that brings me to Trust his choice of Harriet Miers.
Miers was serving the as the ultimate gatekeeper as Staff Secretary in 2002, when Bush signed McCain-Feingold in 2002.
Does that mean that she tried to keep Bush from signing CFR but was insuffiently influential? Or that she didn't see any problem abridging our freedom of speech?
Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Miers' bio:
She was appointed Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary on January 20, 2001. As a female Staff Secretary, Ms. Miers acted as "the ultimate gatekeeper for what crosses the desk of the nation's commander in chief." In addition to this important role, Ms. Miers supervised more than 60 employees in four departments.
What a silly "argument." Tyrell doesn't even attempt to refute Kristol's point (the beginning of which surely is correct, whatever one's view on the latter part of it). Instead, Tyrell's only rejoinder is, "Oh YEAH? Well HE WORKED FOR DAN QUAYLE SO HE'S A POOPY-HEAD!"
(By the way, don't good conservatives tend to think that Quayle, although no genius, was unfairly maligned to a great degree?)
Brilliant riposte from the master of logic, Tyrell.
Mr. Sessions (R)Mr. Sessions affirmative…. “My conversations with Harriet Miers indicate that she is a first-rate lawyer and a fine person. Her legal skills are proven and her reputation throughout the legal community is excellent. It is not necessary that she have previous experience as a judge in order to serve on the Supreme Court. It’s perfectly acceptable to nominate outstanding lawyers to that position. I look forward to the confirmation process and to learning more about her judicial philosophy.”
Mr. Cornyn (R) Mr Cornyn…affirmative "The President has announced his nominee to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court of the United States: Harriet Miers, currently serving as White House Counsel. As he did with Judge John G. Roberts, Jr., the President has chosen an outstanding nominee for our nation's highest court. The Senate should consider this nomination in both a thorough and expedient manner.
"Harriet Miers is a brilliant legal mind. She is a woman of outstanding character who clearly understands what it means to follow the law. She is deeply committed to public service, and has a distinguished history of professional achievement. It is clear that her past experiences have well prepared her for the honor of serving our country as a Supreme Court Justice. I strongly support her nomination.
"It is important that we put aside partisanship, and that the Senate fulfill its constitutional responsibility of advice and consent. This fine nominee must be treated with civility and respect, not as a political pawn. I hope that we in the Senate can move forward in a manner worthy of the American people."
Mr. Coburn (R) Mr.Coburn..affirmative. “Harriet Miers deserves a fair and thorough hearing and confirmation process. I look forward to learning more about her qualifications and judicial philosophy in the coming days,” Dr. Coburn said, adding that he plans to meet with Miers this week.”
Mr. Graham (R) Mr.Graham...affirmative “President Bush has made a solid pick for the Supreme Court.
“Harriet Miers has been in the legal trenches throughout her career and has a tremendous understanding of how the law works in people’s everyday lives. Her legal experience combined with her life experience makes her a solid choice.
“I hope for and anticipate a smooth confirmation process with a significant bipartisan vote in support. In my opinion, there will be no filibuster as she is a mainstream conservative who will be a strict constructionist on the Supreme Court." .
Unlike the highly negative reaction of some Koolaid drinkers to the pundits who criticize this appointment, I don't hate Emmett Tyrell forever, and I look forward to reading his future columns. I've always enjoyed his work.
But this is not one of his better efforts. It's not funny and it makes no useful arguments. The basic thrust of the whole thing is, "These guys are idiots to try and oppose a done deal. I'm going with the winner."
I tend to agree with the comment above that he is trying to differentiate himself from his rivals on National Review and the the Weekly Standard, and maybe improve his own circulation numbers.
IMHO, it would be more accurate to say Cornyn, Graham supportive;
Sessions, Coburn wait-n-see.
It tells us that the likely vote is at least 3 votes for, maybe 4 given how she does in hearings.
No Senator would come out against hearings. That's a slap-in-the-face to the White House to be that adamant against, unless there is some 'smoking gun' disqualification.
Leave it to the columnists to speak out like that, a Senator won't.
That is what these people have been trying to do..turn the Senators against hearings or get Miers to withdraw before the hearings somehow.
Something tells me Kristol isn't on your Christmas card list.
I had forgotten that Kristol was Quayle's former political strategist. lol
Nice job, John. Kristol is such a wannabe....
John, Another priceless piece
With Roberts we conservatives rightfully howled in protest when the Dems tried to use Robert's Catholic faith as an issue. Now Bush is trying to use Miers' evangelicalism as an advantage. Religion should have nothing to do with these picks. We want an originalist, who will respect the Constitution as written. The Constitution is crystal clear about no religious tests:
Article. VI.
Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
That's real easy, they're all on "Hang Harriet" threads
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.