Posted on 10/15/2005 5:00:50 AM PDT by harpu
Many of my friends on the right have signed up for the conservative revolt against Harriet Miers. Count me out -- at least for now.
I don't know enough about President Bush's most recent nominee for the Supreme Court to stand up and shout, "Hooray for Harriet." Her judicial philosophy remains a mystery and the White House's attempts to explain who she is have been ineffective, to say the least.
But I do know enough about Mr. Bush's judicial appointments over the past five years to give three cheers for his record on picking judges. Almost to a man and a woman, they are judicial conservatives who are already shifting the ideological balance of the federal judiciary to the right. Conservatives who have rushed to bash Mr. Bush for his selection of Ms. Miers should brew themselves a cup of chamomile tea and go back and review the roster of Bush judges. They'll sleep better, though it's probably too much to hope that they'll wake up with a more open-minded perspective on Ms. Miers.
Mr. Bush was elected in part on his pledge to remake the federal judiciary, and he's demonstrably followed through on that promise. That includes the appointment of John Roberts as chief justice of the United States, 43 appointees to the appeals courts and nearly 200 judges on the federal district courts. There are 871 judges in the federal judiciary, including 50 current vacancies. By the end of his second term, Mr. Bush will have appointed one-third or more. Ms. Miers has served on the committee that advises the president on judicial picks and, as White House counsel, has been chairman of that committee for the past year.
This reshaping of the judiciary hasn't been easy, and Mr. Bush has had to fight to keep his word.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
I'm not challenging her assertion but indicating that an assertion like hers without hard data is the same as Bush asking us to trust him. What I am irritated about is the poor salesmanship of the effort to appoint Miers. All of the data supporting her should have been in the forefront as her nomination was made.
If I did any research it would be to prove her assertion to be correct, because I would like Bush to come out of this smelling like a rose.
I got an idea---you do the friggin' research.
We elected Bush in 04 and he has delivered with his judicial appointments. Let the hearings begin. BTW when do they start?
Seems to me that the moderator has got his/her/or it's values kind of screwed-up. OR, you're just a bigger whiner than harpu.
Thanks for posting.
The lies, distortions, and character assassination "conservatives" have spread about Harriet Miers have been worthy of DU. I am disgusted.
But what else are the alarmist, cannibals, extremist, subversives, and DUer's to do?
Weren't Reagan's judicial selection fine also...except for two SCOTUS selections? Weren't Bush41's judicial selections fine....except a SCOTUS selection?
If you look at all his appointments, and not just the judicial ones, Bush has made some outstanding appointments. We have all remarked that his people, unlike clinton's, are real grownups, and for the most part really competent. I won't list all the good names, because there are so many of them.
But he does occasionally make a poor appointment. Mueller at the FBI is an example. And he does sometimes retain a poor (or even stupid) appointment, such as Tenet at the CIA. Nobody's perfect.
The more I look at the Miers appointment, the less I like it. I think this is one of his big mistakes. Not because he was trying to put one over on us, but because it's a MISTAKE. He was talked into it by Card and Laura. He was flattered into it by Harriet. Under pressure, decided he had to appoint a woman to a woman's slot. Then he eliminated a couple of the best candidates because he had grudges against the senators from their states. Then he sent Karl Rove out to lie or obfuscate about the unavailability of any other woman candidate.
Bush made the decision, however much he was pushed or swayed. Unfortunately, he made a real whopper of a mistake. Even the best leaders do that occasionally. Miers simply can't be trusted not to go soppy or multicultural on us, not to become another bleeding heart liberal; she has shown plenty of symptoms of that already, if you read her writings and examine her record.
And Texas was still Democratic.
So before the hearings, to question his nomination of Miers is to say that one feels he has either had a drastic change of political heart or has lost it.
I find both of these possibilities to be a stretch that is inconceivable.
Since the nomination that has brought Meirs to prominence nothing is known about her or her attitudes except for what pundits and the MSM speculate.
Barry Goldwater comes immediately to mind.
*YAWN!* How many different ways are there to say "Trust Bush"? I guess we're going to find out in the next month and a half....
"her comments about the Federalist Society and the NAACP should still be applicable today, since those organizations haven't changed."
But the public perception of them has changed substantially, I would argue.
"The lies, distortions, and character assassination "conservatives" have spread about Harriet Miers have been worthy of DU. I am disgusted."
I fully concur. The formerly conservative naysayers need to take a collective deep breath.
Re Barry Goldwater: Did he have much power moved to the left? I lived in Canada for a long time and don't recall what he was doing, other than just being a Senator.
I just gave back to Harpu what he started.
What's your excuse?
No problem, I was quite heartened to find that info. I think the environmental issues are a good indication of conservative trend, as I think environmental issues are usually the easiest for the leftists to sucker people with.
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.