SOME QUICK THOUGHTS ON HARRIET MIERS: (Miers supports gay adoption and Int'l Criminal Court?)

The New Republic Blog ^ | today | Ryan Lizza

[Rodney King]

Neither do I, as stated in post 1. However, it is worth finding out the answer.

[dirtboy]

However, it is worth finding out the answer.

Agree there. It's going to be an interesting few weeks here.

[HairOfTheDog]

IMHO, I think we need fewer "quick thoughts" and more patient evaluation.

[frankjr]

"POTENTIAL AGENDA ITEMS FOR 1999 of the American Bar Association"

You are correct that it is just a list of potential agenda items. It was most likely added as an agenda item by the ABA bar members working on International Law so they could get more chargable hours. Who knows? But an agenda item that was pushed by an unknown source(s) can not be tied to Meirs recommending an ICC.

Sure, her viewpoint on and ICC would be a great area to discuss during her confirmation hearing.

Mama mia!

[LibWrangler]

The blog you are linking to, only shows an agenda of topics that were to be discussed by the committee Miers chaired.

She wasn't supporting those views.

Dear Mr. BassAckwards: You posted it, then followed up by saying we need to find out if it's true.

(It isn't true.)

[Rodney King]

Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot that at FR we are not allowed to post and discuss issues that are firing around the internet until we know 100% certain what the answer is.

Thanks for enlightening me.

[demkicker]

I have now come to the conclusion that she is no Souter, but, she is also not going to be an intellectual conservative heavweight who will serve as a beacon to a generation of young conservative lawyers as Scalia has, which is too bad.

Why would you make such a statement? You have no way of knowing this to be true or not. There's too much negative assuming going on, IMO.

[Rodney King]

she is also not going to be an intellectual conservative heavweight who will serve as a beacon to a generation of young conservative lawyers as Scalia has, which is too bad.

Simply because she is not known in legal circles as one. There are very well-known legal heavyweights in the conservative movement like Lutting, McConell (not the Senator, the other one). She is simply not known as one of them.

[demkicker]

Surely you know that just because Miers isn't "known" as a legal conservative heavyweight, doesn't prove that she will not be one. Geeze! Why are you jumping to unfair conclusions?

Lots of Supreme Court justices have had what appeared to be a conservative track record who, once on the court, have been deeply disappointing. Using your logic, I could make irrational assumptions about judges you wanted Bush to nominate and conclude that they just appear to be conservative but will turn out to be liberal based on Souter & O'Connor.

No one can predict with certainty the kind of justice Miers will be, but she is our President's choice. I know him to be a man of faith and he has known Harriet Miers for many years and knows her well. He knows her much better than any of the other potential nominees and for that, we should probably be grateful. In the end, every pick comes down to trust and with so much at stake, I'd like to think Bush is confident in her philosophy, ability and loyalty.

Trust, my friend.

[Rodney King]

doesn't prove that she will not be one. Geeze! Why are you jumping to unfair conclusions?

Of course it doesn't prove anything. But why not go for the sure thing?

[demkicker]

But why not go for the sure thing?

That was my point. There is NEVER A SURE THING. In the end, you have to hope the nominee has been vetted well and that the President is confident in the fact that he truly knows that she will uphold and apply the Constitution. Like I said, it all boils down to trust in all nominations.

[LibWrangler]

No problem, RK. I like you too much to watch you making an arse of yourself by running around shouting fire without seeing the flames.

No charge for the enlightenment.