Posted on 10/24/2005 11:23:05 AM PDT by Keyes2000mt
As a writer, my computer has many half-finished columns and stories. Now, there are many finished stories and columns, this being one of them, but the reason some are started and never finished is a few hundred words in, I look and say, "This is not going to work." And move onto something else.
Whether he chooses to acknowledge it or not, President Bush has reached this point with his nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. Ms. Miers is a nice Christian lady who regularly attends church and probably has an excellent relationship with Christ. There are many women in my church who are the same, this does not mean they should be on the Supreme Court.
When Ms. Miers was nominated, I kept an open mind. I hoped the Confirmation hearings would show forth what type of judge she'd be. However, as I look at what's come out in the press, I have to ask myself that with what I know now, is there any way I can conclude that Harriet Miers is qualified to be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court? The answer's no.
A Supreme Court Justice should have at least an above knowledge of the Constitution. Nothing in her comments so far have indicated that she has even this. While, I'm concerned with her views on Roe v. Wade and other Constitutional issues, I'm more concerned that she has no apparent judicial philosophy. When Senator Specter says that at 60, Ms. Miers needs a crash course in Constitutional law, it's a terrifying prospect.
With Miers on the court, we'd face the possibility of a judge who is in the best case scenario, is merely a yes-woman for the Conservative wing, or in the worst case, a moderate constantly twisting in the wind trying to find a group of judges to concur with that sounds best. The fact is that either way, the lifetime Miers appointment is the highest form of cronyism imaginable. It's a bad choice all around. It lessens the credibility of Republicans when talking about the need for strict constructionists on the court.
Following the amazing credentials of John Roberts, we are introduced to a candidate who is supremely unqualified. The administration has handled the whole situation poorly from start to finish from the revelation that Miers had her license to practice law in DC suspended because she forgot to pay her dues, to meetings with Senators that went so poorly that some people favorable to the nomination called her to stop them to make sure no further damage was done.
In the end, President Bush and Miss Miers have a tough and unenviable decision to make, but they need to pull the plug on this nomination. She's not qualified and she's not going to be confirmed. For this reason, I oppose the Miers nomination and if she's not withdrawn, she deserves to be voted down by the full Senate.
Special prosecutor was named Dec 30, 2003 - largely based on pressure from DEMs such as Schumer.
Miers was named WH Counsel in February 2005. She was Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy from July 2003 until Feb 2005.
No need for the president to waste more Capital on the lopsided coming defeat.
I grant you that the special prosecutor was named before she became WH Counsel. However, she had 20 years as Bush's private lawyer and confidant. An individual with a good lawyer-client relationship like Bush had with her is likely to ask his lawyer what she thinks about such an important decision, even if she's not formally in the chain of legal authority.
In my wildest dream, 100 Senators say "I vote NAY. I cannot in good conscience vote on the record before me, becuase it provides inadequate information with which to form a reasoned judgement one way or the other."
There are 17 nominations pending.
In my wildest dream, 100 Senators say "I vote NAY. I cannot in good conscience vote on the record before me, becuase it provides inadequate information with which to form a reasoned judgement one way or the other."
17 = Nominations pending in the 109th Congress.http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/judicialnominations.htm
One or the other is off ;-)
I agree. And only a few Senators have come out with hints that "stealth" is something they object to. I think our rulers like stealth and lack of accountability, and will act to maximize stealth, and minimize accountability.
Keyes has suggested that it might be better for the Senate to reject Harriet Miers.
Here are the last two paragraphs of his recent column on the controversy:
"Harriet Miers' promotion of quota-style affirmative action thus raises new doubts about her grasp of and adherence to the conservative judicial philosophy President Bush claims on her behalf. The White House has encouraged people to judge Miers on her record. But as we learn more about her actions, the gap between her apparent beliefs and any reasonable understanding of conservative philosophy grows ever larger.
I fear it has already become too large to be overcome by her performance in Senate hearings. Her actions speak so loudly it may be too difficult to lend credence to mere words. As the bard wrote, "words to the heat of deeds too cold breath give." President Bush has handed conservatives in the Senate a nomination that may be too hot to handle credibly. For their sake and his, it might be better if Harriet Miers takes action now to allow the president to offer a different choice."
Cheers,
Richard F.
I imagine Miers played no part in that decision -- and rightly so. That was a political decision, not one based on legal merits.
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.