Posted on 10/17/2005 3:17:09 PM PDT by Map Kernow
Harriet Mierss confirmation hearings are about to begin, so we may be on the verge of learning something meaningful about the presidents choice to replace Justice Sandra Day OConnor on the Supreme Court. Or maybe we wont. We havent learned much since she was named, and one suspects there might not be all that much more out there.
I dont know enough about Ms. Miers even to guess at her qualifications for the job to which she has been appointed. Ive heard good and bad things about her from those whove dealt with her, and Ive read reams of opinion about her, but I still have to count myself as skeptical, as nothing Ive heard thus far even begins to convince me that she belongs on the Supreme Court.
The case for Miers is simple. The president knows her and likes her. Shes a hard worker and a woman who did well as a lawyer in Texas, is devoted to the president and has performed loyally as a White House staffer. Oh, and there is one other thing. Ms. Miers regularly attends church and apparently takes her religion seriously. This, according to White House arm twisters, tells us that she would vote on the court in a way that would please social and religious conservatives.
In fact, it tells us no such thing.
Its nice to know that Ms. Miers is a regular church-goer, and nicer still that she is devout, but we have been told time and again by the same people selling her candidacy today that a nominees religious views need not shape his or her judicial decisions. When liberals questioned whether John Roberts would, as a Catholic, be able to decide cases involving abortion and euthanasia without being unduly influenced by the views of his church, they were assured in no uncertain terms that his views of the Constitution and the role of the Supreme Court, rather than his personal religious views, would prove determinative in such cases.
They were right then and wrong now. One can find devout liberals and conservatives sitting side by side in pews every Sunday. As a practical matter, while it is true that regular attendance may, as numerous polls suggest, indicate a greater statistical likelihood that one will vote Republican, such attendance tells us little about any individual attendees politics and absolutely nothing about how Harriet Miers might vote on cases that come before her as an associate justice of the Supreme Court.
When a Supreme Court justice looks at a case, conservatives and most other Americans would hope that he or she would ask how the Founders might have viewed it in light of the meaning of document they crafted rather than how their minister, priest or the president who appointed them might want it to turn out. We dont know how Harriet Miers views the Constitution or the role of a Supreme Court justice, and most of us are waiting to find out.
Still, I have from the beginning been willing to grant that, since few of us know much about the lady, she may be all the president and his advisers claim. She is, after all, a smart woman and a fairly successful lawyer who may well have thought deeply, though privately, about constitutional questions in spite of the rather mundane chores for which shes billed her clients over the years, but it is going to be up to her to demonstrate it.
What is most troubling about this whole affair, however, is the way the administration has gone about trying to demonize conservatives who have raised questions about Ms. Miers. It began from day one to attack personally the motives, loyalty and judgment of anyone who questioned the wisdom of the nomination. Since then, the ad hominem attacks on Mierss conservative critics have been unconscionably heavy-handed and will haunt the president regardless of how the nomination fight turns out.
Most conservatives have stood with Bush from the beginning. Those of us who know him like him. Weve swallowed policies we might otherwise have objected to because weve believed that he and those around him are themselves conservatives trying to do the right thing against sometimes terrible odds. Weve been there for him because weve considered ourselves part of his team.
No more.
From now on, this administration will find it difficult to muster support on the right without explaining why it should be forthcoming. The days of the blank check have ended because no thinking conservative really wants to be part of a team that requires marching in lock step without question or thought, even if it is headed by the president of the United States.
I appreciate your honesty.
I agree with you!! I'd rather hear from her myself however the Talking Heads are sounding very much like elitist snobs on a mission to have her "withdraw".
Hope she hangs in there and proves them wrong.
"You make the mistake of thinking that you represent all conservatives.
You don't. In fact, there are many more conservatives who are willing to give Miers a hearing than actively oppose her."
Bush has just pissed off millions of his most ardent supporters. Is this everyone on the right? No. But it is a quite large number and we will not give him the benefit of the doubt in the future. It is truly a jump the shark moment.
I'm sure the lack of your support pains him a great deal.
"But in looking for a link to give you, I found that she was actually ranked one of the top 100 most influential lawyers. "
Even worse, apparently she was part of the 100 most influential because of being a Bush appointee, so it is a self referential statement.
Refreshing to see someone admit a mistake, you are a better man than me :)
"I'm sure the lack of your support pains him a great deal."
He doesn't care what I think, I don't care what he thinks. I'm just telling you that Bush is now a lame duck, even in his own party. He will now be as respected as his dad.
The fact that he initiated the freeing of 50 million Muslims means nothing to you?
You likely didn't vote for him in the first place.
"The fact that he initiated the freeing of 50 million Muslims means nothing to you?"
I give him an A+ for WOT. Most other things, he is fair to abysmal. If you don't understand this, then there are some illegal aliens I'd like to send your way.
"You likely didn't vote for him in the first place."
Yeah, like someone believes that. What, was that all you had left to pull out of your ass? A stupid comment like that?
"You likely beat your mother with a stick". That's an equally stupid comment, maybe you can use that next time in case you run out of other witty things to say.
You're right, of course, and that's precisely what bothers me about Miers as the nominee. A Dim would nominate a clear-cut judicial activist and the party would fight tooth-and-nail until that person was confirmed.
I am sadly disappointed that our side won't reciprocate. It almost makes one wonder if the Dim's (as a whole) aren't more committed to their cause than we are. It's the end game, and we act like we don't want the ball.
Yeah, I know all about the gang of 14 and the sniveling bunch of RINO's in the senate. Blah, blah, blah. The fact of the matter is, neither Bush nor the RNC are as concerned with the make-up of the Supreme Court as they are about winning elections.
I do not, and have not, voted straight-party Republican for over 20 years to "win" on election night. I voted for a philosophy, not a party. The unwillingness to nominate a clear Constructionist is not being Conservative.
It's running from it...
Nothing a lawyer says or writes is unimportant. These are people trained to use language with great precision. Like diplomats.
Let's wait and see what he has to say during the confirmation hearings.
That ought to tell us a lot.
Until then, let's not make assumptions about him. That's just viscous (sp?) and might result in another FR meltdown.
Do you want that on your conscience?
Oh, the cowboy and the farmer should be friends . . .
This is getting a bit out of hand.
My advice to both sides, stop the freaking whining.
Things got "out of hand" the morning of October 3. They may get "back in hand," but each day this Miers farce continues, it looks less and less likely.
GW seems to think he can continue to implement his agenda without the "elitist" conservative punditry he's consciously alienated, and maybe he can. But regardless whether he can or not, it'll be interesting, and maybe a little harrowing, to see what happens the next three years to his ability to govern.
Yes, that's right. The vast majority of the conservative illuminati is AGAINST this nomination. Can you ever think of a time a Republican President has had a nominee face this kind of friendly fire?
When will the White House, RNC and their supporters here at Free Republic realize that this is because this is such an OBVIOUSLY horrid pick for SCOTUS and withdraw this nomination?
You have totally misunderstood my post. Oppose or support whomever you like, just stop the damn whining and the victimhood crap.
It's not THEIR fault the Bush Administration blew it, and people can continue to keep shooting the messengers saying "stop pointing out the obvious, wouldja?" and that won't make Harriet Miers any better of a pick.
One good way to stop conservatives from voicing their displeasures? Make the choice for whomever replaces Harriet someone who can conservatives can get behind and defend. It doesn't have to be a dream candidate (i.e. Janice Rogers Brown) but it also shouldn't be an inexperienced, intellectual lightweight bowler with a humidor full of M&Ms in her office. That might make for a nice lady, a good co-worker and a great neighbor.
A woman fit to serve as a Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States, it does NOT make.
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.