Posted on 10/26/2005 4:36:13 PM PDT by LS
When Pres. Bush announced his choice for the Sandra Day O'Connor replacement, I took the same approach I did with the previous nominee, John Roberts: generally support, assume the best, and wait for hearings or other information before concluding otherwise.
That information has been forthcoming, from Miers' own writings, and it ain't pretty. Worse, it ain't conservative, at least on the issues closest to my heart.
From the get-go, Bush adopted a "trust me, I know her" approach. I took that to mean that, regardless of what else she might do, Miers could be counted on to NOT be a judicial activist and to be a staunch vote for life. Her supposed evangelical Christian background argued for as much. I remain convinced Bush picked her precisely because she had no paper trail, but was mistakenly convinced she was more conservative than she really is, perhaps because she is PERSONALLY conservative, but not politically conservative. (Indeed, finding any political philosophy, conservative or otherwise, in Ms. Miers is a search for King Solomon's Mines).
Then she opened her mouth, or, more accurately, unsheathed her pen. Several of her editorials, columns, and comments from the past have now been made available. "A preponderance of evidence," as a lawyer would say, and no hint of a limited judiciary, of Constitutional restraint, or even of pro-life leanings anywhere to be seen.
And I looked. Closely. Sympathetically.
The biggest early warning signs were not that conservatives whom I respect disliked her: after all, Clarence Thomas was routinely criticized as a judicial "lightweight" when his name came up by many of these same conservatives, and he has matured into a magnificent justice. Moreover, many of these conservatives I thought (and some, I still suspect), were vying for "air time" in the growing conservative majority. It's understandable. To set your own work apart, you must be ahead of the curve or behind it, but never in it. Most of all, I was not immediately persuaded by any of these conservatives because they had not read any more of Miers than I had. Most of them were relying on hear-say. It turns out to have been accurate hear-say, but we cannot afford to support (or oppose) anyone merely on the opinions of others, including the President.
This week, though, enough of Miers' writings became public that it was clear this is someone who, to be generous, is not a lock at all to vote against Affirmative Action, or illegal immigration, and, now it seems, even for life. And, as I say, that's being generous. To be critical, the evidence is she's a female Souter, except, apparently, not as smart. (Ouch! Believe me, Justice Souter, that is NO compliment.)
I was wrong.
While I think Miers deserved her say, each new revelation has troubled me more than the last. I shall therefore work to oppose the nomination of Harriet Miers as best I can.
This unfortunately does not mean that my predictions are necessarily wrong: I still think she might be confirmed. Only now I see that as a big, big problem. Let's now hope I'm wrong on this as well.
welcome to the dark side...
Welcome aboard. We could use every man we can get on the battlefield.
I concur.
Elitist sexist DU troll!
LOL!
wow....it takes a big person to write such a vanity, but you've shown yourself to be intellectually honest. welcome aboard! ignore the flames.....
You ignorant fool!
Most of you have already made up your minds and have been busy unearthing whatever supports your position. Big difference.
Those moderates among us (i.e., uncommitted conservatives, lukewarm Jim Jeffords, and RINOs) have been assuring us that she has this (mythological) conservative background, but the reports keep breaking about her supporting affirmative action, abortion, gay rights, and so forth that presumably destroy one of the core reasons some were pushing her nomination in the first place.
Unghh.
Frankly, I haven't been paying all that much attention the past few days (R/L intrudes), but now that I have returned to reviewing the Miers nomination, I believe I am in the process of joining you, LS.
It is our "duty," as he himself likes to say, to let him know when he is wrong, loud and clear.
I had a similar transition. I don't think she's a female Souter, though. I consider her to be more of an empty chair. And I believe she will go along to get along. An O'Connor with a head start.
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.