Mutiny of the bored (The Borkette-ing of Harriet Miers)

TownHall.com ^ | Friday, October 14, 2005 | by Emmett Tyrrell

[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"

[Spiff]

Why don't you square off, mano a mano, with Harriet Miers in a Courtroom, and let's see who is qualified to post a legal opinion (or an opinion on someone's qualifications to issue a legal opinion) and who is not? My money is not on you.

Wow. How astute. I'm not an attorney. Duh...

Now, lets put Harriet Miers in the same room with Janice Rogers Brown, mano a mano, and we'll see which one knows more about the Constitution, the law, and all related cases and previous decisions. That would make a lot more sense than your stupid scenario.

My money is definitely not on Harriet. Who would you bet on?

[onyx]

*GOOD* to see you, Luis!

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Now, lets put Harriet Miers in the same room with Janice Rogers Brown, mano a mano, and we'll see which one knows more about the Constitution,"

You don't know the answer to that question, yet you already passed judgement.

[George W. Bush]

Fun read. Good writing, skewering opponents with a light touch. Better than most of the drivel the MSM produces.

I still don't support Miers. But I do like this piece.

[blackie]

Wow ~ JH2, ya done good!

Brilliant piece ~ Bump!

[Spiff]

You don't know the answer to that question, yet you already passed judgement.

You're delusional.

[Spiff]

You don't know the answer to that question, yet you already passed judgement.

ps. No more public scatology.

[jveritas]

In fact it is more like 98% to 2% that she will be confirmed.

[mountainfolk]

I'm late in reading this post from yesterday but am glad it came back up. Very good read from Emmet Tyrrell and even better from you. IMO the truth to this whole nomination of Harriet Miers is that President Bush wants to fill the vacancy in the court when O'Connor leaves. He has chosen the best nominee who can get thru the process which is hopelessly biased against the fire breathing conservative candidate that the puffed up punditry had in mind. Which leads to the conclusion that the intent of the anti Miers conservative elite is to have a candidate who cannot be confirmed, because of opposition from both Republican and democrat senators. The elites want a fight, regardless of the impact on this country or the candidate they have chosen to martyr. Simply put, the Pres wants to replace SDO as quickly as possible for the good of the country. Anti Miers elites want the vacancy and the fight for advancement of their own agendas.

[Killborn]

Just making sure the message is loud and clear. :)

[reaganite]

Thanks for the ping. Great job.