Bush on the Edge ("There is Almost No Enthusiasm for Her [Harriet Miers'] Nomination...")

Washington Times ^ | 10/26/2005 | Tony Blankley

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

< /snip>

Those who claim that it is only Washington eggheads and activists who are disillusioned, misunderstand and underestimate the consequences of such Washington-based problems. The current Washington Republican negativity to Mr. Bush is as a stone thrown into a lake -- it will ripple outward until it causes waves on the distant shores of the heartland.

< / snip>

More importantly, the president is perilously close to duplicating the estrangement his father experienced from his congressional allies when George H.W. Bush raised taxes in 1990. Just a year out from congressional elections, Republican congressmen and senators are in the process of making the practical judgment whether to distance themselves from the president to save their skins. I don't blame them. (After all, it's not as if he is currently championing their principles and policies domestically.)

If they decide in the affirmative, their constituents will hear criticisms rather than support of the president for the next 12 months. The most dangerous time for any politician is not when his opponents say rude things about him, but when his own partymen do. They will start out respectfully disagreeing, but will build to more flagrant rhetoric as their Democratic Party opponents start raising and spending more money and start rising in the polls.

< /snip>

First, withdraw the unfortunate nomination of Harriet Miers. Not only is there almost no enthusiasm for her nomination, I have never seen as much outright hostility and even anger at an appointment from a president's own party. Replace her with a highly qualified, full-blooded, proven conservative nominee. (Any number of his appointments to the courts of appeal will do.)

Then he can have a principled fight between conservatives and liberals...

< /snip>

[chris1]

Me either. I went for the "Stone Cold" look and love it. I sort of had to. lol.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

I trust the President in making the right choice. I say give him what he wants. You see what a great job he has done thus far.

I thought that too at first but now I think Bush should cut his losses and pick someone else.

[Cboldt]

It is possible to trust someone, but also to look for more information. The president is not some divine figure to me; he's a fallible human being.

Which is why I took care to note that I wasn't directing my observation to you, personally.

I had a STRONG objection to this nomination from the first moment, due solely to the application of "stealth," "this nomination will have us debating the wrong issue(s), something other than the value of traditional jurisprudence."

Since then, based on independent research, I object also on the quality of the nominee - both her judicial philosophy which I see as elitist and modern, and her ilntellectual level; and the sentiment that he is rewarding Ms. Miers based on her loyalty, not on her ability.

I think she is probably a very nice person, and I feel badly that she's in this spot. But back to my point ...

The "trust GWB" position (that is, those who say this is a good pick solely because GWB makes good picks, and/or has a good track record, etc.) has no way out that does not result in diminution of trust. If this is NOT a good pick, for WHATEVER reason, then there was an overextension of trust.

[xzins]

I gave her resume a B+....that's OK.

I gave her pro-life position and A+ (it's very impt to me.)

I gave her pro-gun positon a B+ (I've got no further details about it.)

She's got a few things on the good side.

[PhilipFreneau]

>>>hispandering?<<<

That's is perfect. I'll remember that one...

[counterpunch]

Blankley's got a book to sell and his criticism is a sure way to get on all the talking head shows.

Sadly, this is the last line of defense for Miers. I am seeing the pro-Miers crowd -- in its rapidly shrinking numbers -- no longer even trying to defend against what they no longer can, and instead just resorting to ad hominem attacks against the messenger, most typically attacking their motives.

You've lost guys, set the example for President Bush and show him how to surrender gracefully. I understand you just want to help the president as best you can, and right now, that would be the way.

 

[cynicom]

When any politician is forced to resort to the argument of "trust me", he has already lost the fight.

[OldFriend]

Sorry, the premise of Blandley's book leaves me unimpressed.

So if he chooses to use the book promotion to attack the President, let him.

[counterpunch]

>Wait till the march of the bots begins. They will smear you, trample you and call you silly names.

Allow me to begin, "you ignorant fool."

haha! LOL!
So true.
That's about all they've got left at this point.

 

[Cboldt]

I gave her pro-life position and A+ (it's very impt to me.)

I agree that she personally abhors abortion. But I do not give her an A+ for what I infer her judicial philosophy to be in that area.

She checked off "yes" as to whether she supported using the Constitutional Amendment process to make some abortions illegal.

A Constitutional Amendment takes the matter out of the hands of Courts and the legislature, and that presence of a constitutional amendment would preclude not only legislative activity, but also court activity.

However, if she support a Con amendment, she does for a reason. Once could be impatience with the court in relinquishing control (reversing Planned Parenthood, Roe), the other being a belief that the court could not credibly reverse, i.e. deference to stare decisis as O'Connor did in Planned Parenthood. Interesting historical note, AFAIK, the Dred Scott decision was never reversed, showing that on occasion, an extra-court process comes into play - in that case, the 14th amendment.

So, again, her personal pro-life stance does not illuminate her judicial philosophy at all. And her "check box" for supporting undertaking the Con Amendment process, without further expression of why she made that pick, can go either way.

Another useless data point, that can be spun by Miers supporters as advocating a pro-life legal outcome.

Oh - a parallel in our history is prohibition. A Con Amendment took the decision out of the political process "once and for all" (Hahahahahah). We all know how well the prohibition was respected - it made more than one gangster family rich, Kennedy and Al Capone come to mind. But a Con Amendment is the ultimate "top down" solution. Today, with no such centralized edict, one can still find dry counties in the USA. And that is the way it should be, local control with the ability to make fine grained changes without imposing "my way or the high way " on everybody else in the country.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1505169/posts?page=12#12

The contents of some of her speeches are coming out too, and likewise, they are vague enough that they can be spun either way. However, using the conventional parsing, Ms. Miers appears to advocate "self-determination" regarding abortion, which means absence of legal limitations on obtaining an abortion.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1509389/posts <- Speeches reviewed

[counterpunch]

Sorry, the premise of Blandley's book leaves me unimpressed.

Then save it for your book review.
Because it is irrelevant to the discussion and nothing but a diversionary ploy to change the subject.

 

[xzins]

I will keep my eyes open for facts.

She did support a Human Life Amendment to the constitution. That also is a positive for me, but I do see your concern. You wonder if she, a pro-life Christian, wants the amendment because she can't think of a "legal" way to rule pro-life, given the weight that precedents are given in our legal system.

[OldFriend]

Save your snide remarks for someone who WILL be impressed!

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

I find it hard to believe that Ellen Goodman, Eleanor Smeal, Barbara Mikulski, and Susan Estrich would be rushing to her defense, if they knew her to be firmly anti-Roe.

[devane617]

"Mier-grane", "Mier-grane", "Mier-grane", headache! Pass the Oxy and Vodka!

[Terabitten]

Bommer's been here since 1998. I doubt he's a DU troll.

[Cboldt]

You wonder if she, a pro-life Christian, wants the amendment because she can't think of a "legal" way to rule pro-life, given the weight that precedents are given in our legal system.

Right. But in general, my point is that being for a pro-life amendment doesn't really illuminate her social -or- her judicial philosophy on the matter. She needs to express WHY she holds that postion in terms other than "I don't like abortion."

She may privately advocate status quo, and publicly advocate the Con Amendment process because it is unlikely to be implemented. She may privately hold that abortion is wrong, but publicly rule that ROe & Casey are settled law, based on social reliance on de-stigmatization of abortion, etc.

In short, she hasn't advanced ANY explanation that illuminates how she might rule from the bench.

[kjam22]

You know everyone is worried about Miers and whether she will be "conservative enough". Roberts is the one I worry about. I would guess that Miers will end up being more conservative than Roberts.

Roberts is clearly smarter than everbody else in Washington. My experience is that people who are smarter than everbody else are the ones that you often can't trust.

[kjam22]

The problem is that we want to know where she stands... and so does the left. She's being coached to be vague, because if she comes out and says "abortion is the same thing as killing a baby... and mothers who abort should do jail time... and I will absolutely vote to over turn Roe VS Wade..... and I'm going to roll back affirmative action.... and the 2nd ammendment means you can carry a gun anywhere you want and shoot the guy who even looks crossways at you.... and government entitlements are unconstitutional.... and federal income taxes are unconstitutional... and federal loans to foriegn countries with us tax dollars are unconstitutional...."

I mean where does it stop.... and do we really think she can take a definite stand on these topics right now and get confirmed? The WH is giving her the only advice they can... be vague. Just like Roberts was vague. He was just smarter about how he did it.

[SerpentDove]

>>I find it hard to believe that Ellen Goodman, Eleanor Smeal, Barbara Mikulski, and Susan Estrich would be rushing to her defense, if they knew her to be firmly anti-Roe.<<

My FRiend, you have hit upon an excellent point, which must be repeated again and again! I believe most of the good FReepers who support this nomination do it with the well-placed intention of overturning you-know-what (a hope that I share, incidentally, yet I am against this nomination).

Please keep making this point, as I intend on doing.

It is a very persuasive point.

SD