Posted on 10/04/2005 3:35:22 PM PDT by maximusaurelius
3) unless Miers demonstrates in her hearing that she has "hitherto undisclosed interests and talents pertinent to the court's role," the Senate has a duty to reject the nomination to prevent this or any other president "from reducing the Supreme Court to a private plaything useful for fulfilling whims on behalf of friends"; 4) the Miers nomination vindicates the principle of tokenism under the rubric of diversity; writes Will, "for this we need a conservative president?"
(Excerpt) Read more at citizenjournal.com ...
How about some generic reassurance, and also, George Will is an elitist who would react similarly if Bush had nominated a non lawyer:
Miers once owned a .45-caliber revolver, a gift from a brother who was worried about her safety when she lived alone in Dallas, says Judge Nathan Hecht of the Texas Supreme Court, who has known Miers for 30 years and has dated her.
"It's a huge gun - he wanted to be sure she stopped the guy," Hecht said in a telephone interview. The judge recalled one Sunday afternoon driving out to the country, setting up tin cans on a dirt road and trying to teach Miers how to shoot.
The URL is http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1496608/posts
The article from which the extract above is pasted was from AP.
I respect George Will a great deal and look forward to reading the entire article.
Pffttt! George Will is a MoveOn.org pawn. Just trust the President to make the right decision - because he is not John Kerry. Harriet Miers goes to the right church, and that is all that counts.
</ Kool-aid >
I've read her (Miers) statement on the 2nd Amendment. The last nominee to say anything positive on the 2nd Amendment and the individual right to keep and bear arms was Louis Brandeis...who also had zero judicial experience when he was nominated to the Supreme Court. (in 1916 to be exact).
But then I guess the FACTS do not matter as long as the Moveon.org "Conservatives" can find another excuse to foam at the mouth cause Bush won the 2004 election. Once again the "Conservative Establishement" demonstrates they are stuck on stupid.
George Will knows less about conservatism than Harriet Miers does about being a judge.
This lady once packed heat. I like that.
No, it demonstrates that they are conservative. You are not a conservative. You have some conservative views, but you are a Bushite. That is, your underlying philosophy is to support whatever Bush does.
Quote from Harriet Miers: "The same liberties that ensure a free society make the innocent vulnerable to those who prevent rights and privileges and commit senseless and cruel acts. Those precious liberties include free speech, freedom to assemble, freedom of liberties, access to public places, the right to bear arms and freedom from constant surveillance. We are not willing to sacrifice these rights because of the acts of maniacs."
Freedom means bad things will happen to people, and our freedom is more important than protecting people from bad things. She said it much better than I have ever said it.
I think George Will has no basis for concluding that Miers doesn't have qualities which will serve the court and this country.
It would be just like a George Will Republican though to sit back and allow confirmation of Ginsburg, but fight against Miers because she isn't his kind of conservative.
Why don't you just fess up that your philosophy is simply to support anything that Bush does.
I respect George Will, and look forward to reading the whole article. Someone had to say it.
And, as much as I'm glad he won the election in 2004, Bush can do wrong. This SCOTUS pick is the wrong pick. Don't be blinded by loyalty. I still support the President, but I don't need to back any of his decisions, especially ones that have the potential to, and probably will do, immense harm to the conservative cause.
Being a BushBot does not make one a conservative ... BTW "W" is NOT a conservative in my book
Yea, can't be he supports a strong conservative female nominee to the court. Must be because he drank the kool-aid. Yup.
I presume you supported a candidate that you had personally worked with for 10 years, and who you could personally vouch for. Certainly a free thinker wouldn't be supporting a justice because someone else TOLD them they were a conservative?
It's generally considered unseemly to promote friends to high office. In fact, Hamilton wrote about it in federalist 97. The fact is that were it not for the fact that this woman is Bush's friend, she would not be appointed. That in and of itself is a reason to oppose her simply from a good government perspective.
What is this mass evidence? That is the crux of the problem. If you could show me the mass of evidence, I might change my mind.
But, bear in mind, I am not looking for someone to legislate from the bench in our favor. I don't want someone to overturn Roe because she has a personal view that abortion is wrong. Rather, I want Roe overturned because it was a bad decision that has no basis in the constitution.
I especially am humored by the number of people who say he should have nominated Janice Rogers Brown, because "there was no way the dem's could afford to attack an articulate black woman".
It's like they slept through the last 4 years. The dems blocked her for a lower court, we screamed, the media yawned, and the public could care less. We only got her through to her current court by a deal most of these same posters denounced as from the devil.
But they know that 51 senators would have stood up and invoked the constitutional option to promote her to chief justice. The know Bush would have won the fight.
But don't conservatives also believe that the president wins an election, he gets to pick the people he wants to be justices? Or do we only believe that when the president picks choices WE like, and we are arguing against democrats who oppose them?
Or do we support judicial filibusters of nominees we think are insufficiently agreeable to us?
It's one thing to argue and write letters calling on the President to NOT choose someone for the court, many did that with Gonzalez.
But to actively oppose a nominee once he has chosen her, or to decide to destroy the republican party because of the pick of a president who isn't even up for re-election? Is that the sign of sanity?
Are you (collective you) going to oppose your local congressman because Bush is spending too much on rebuilding New Orleans, or put the wrong person on the bench? Are you going to let the democrats take your governorship, your state house, out of spite over Bush not doing what you want?
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.