No suprise that Hugh believes. I, on the other hand, want to, but don't.
Posted on 10/03/2005 7:39:06 AM PDT by Valin
Harriet Miers isn't a Justice Souter pick, so don't be silly. It is a solid, B+ pick. The first President Bush didn't know David Souter, but trusted Chief of Staff Sunnunu and Senator Rudman. The first President Bush got burned badly because he trusted the enthusiams of others.
The second President Bush knows Harriet Miers, and knows her well. The White House Counsel is an unknown to most SCOTUS observors, but not to the president, who has seen her at work for great lengths of years and in very different situations, including as an advisor in wartime. Leonard Leo is very happy with the choice, which ought to be enough for most conservatices.
As I wrote last night, Judges Luttig and McConnell are the most qualified nominees out there, but I think from the start that the president must have decided that this seat would be given to a woman, and it is very hard to argue that she is not the most qualified woman to be on the SCOTUS for the simple reason that she has been in the White House for many years.
When Chief Justice Roberts was nominated, I wrote a piece for the Weekly Standard on the importance of Executive Branch experience, "The Presidents' Man." That piece focused on John Roberts' service in the Counsel's Office under Reagan, and concluded that his nomination brought
to the highest court the sort of experience it deserves among its members, especially in a time of war. It can only help all the justices, even those who will vigorously disagree with the new justice from time to time, to have within their number a genuine voice of experience from within the inner circles of presidential decision-making.
The Chief Justice's experience did not, however, include GWOT experience, and it is here that Miers has a decisive advantage. Consider that none of the Justices, not even the new Chief, has seen the battlefield in the GWOT from the perspective or with the depth of knowledge as has the soon to be Justice Miers. The Counsel to the President has seen it all, and knows what the President knows, the Secretaries of State and Defense, the Joint Chiefs and the Attorney General.
I suspect that the President thinks first and foremost about the GWOT each morning, and that this choice for SCOTUS brings to that bench another Article II inclined justice with the sort of experience that no one inside the Court will have.
If there is another opening, we will get the Attorney General, and for the first time in I don't know how long, there will be a block of Article II enthusiasts within the preserve of Article III. If we get two more, a Justice Luttig or McConnell will rise.
The president is a poker player in a long game. He's decided to take a sure win with a good sized pot. I trust him. So should his supporters.
No suprise that Hugh believes. I, on the other hand, want to, but don't.
Does Hewitt ever differ from the administration's policy?
Tammy Bruce on Fox this morning accused Bush of turning into Jimmy Carter because he has grown the government to levels beyond the dreams of FDR and with his judicial nominee. She cited Owens and Brown as people that would have made better choices. What good is a majority on the Congress and Senate if you are not going to use them???
I picture Hugh with a cup of Hemlock in one hand as he writes this.
Jenna Bush would have been good....she is quite attractive.
Call me nuts, but I concur with Hugh.
I think she is being saved for the Stevens seat.
Andrew Sullivan recently compared Hugh Hewitt to S. Blumenthal....
At the time I thougth that unfair, after all Hugh is a gentleman, whereas S.B. is hardly one.
But I am beginning to see the comparisons.
Bush really is an idiot or a liar, no ifs and or buts.
The sooner Hugh realizes that Bush is not on our side, the better.
Those move on. org commercials were right, Bush is not on our side.
He only really cares about his Texas posse.
Texas can go to hell for all I care at this point. It is because the greed of these Texan Republicans, that the conservative movement is going to suffer another forty years in the desert.
Funny. I wrote a post yesterday that accused Bush of turning into Jimmy Carter in his turn away from the Bush Doctrine in foreign policy.
I remember how Freepers got into a huff when it was hypothesized that Roberts might be pro-homo (concerning a certain case his firm ASKED him to do...and he didn't spend a lot of time on it, either).
The signs are pointing against Miers...but I hope we can just wait and see. But Schumer being positive about Miers isn't a good sign...
"I picture Hugh with a cup of Hemlock in one hand as he writes this."
Very well said. It's funny. They are calling us "Donner Party Republicans" when we fear she is not conservative. Well if I am a cannibal, fine, but frankly I'd rather eat flesh than the bulls&%t that the "Kool-aid Konservatives" are lapping up.
I shouldn't have to be asked if I trust the POTUS on his choice. It should be obvious, and it's not.
That is my problem. I am dissapointed that we are treated
with a stealth candidate. It's like he's more concerned with what Dem's think than Con's.
Dissapointing. Very dissapointing.
Maybe he's not on YOUR side, but he's certainly on the majority of Freepers' side.
So don't presume to speak for the rest of us.
Get a grip. You quote Move-on to validate your thinking? You need to take a valium and go stand in a corner and think about what you're saying, IMHO.
Hugh is a team player, but he is principled on big issues.
He supported Arnold, not because Arnold was pro-choice, but because he could win and it would be good for CA.
Hugh and other CiAns have been rewarded by economic growth and Arnold's sensible respect for the popular vote as expressed in the Prop votes. He just vetoed the assembly's gay marriage bill for this reason.
I want SOMEONE to assure me that she is pro-life AND has contempt for the DC social scene.
I'm only disappointed because I wanted a knock-down, drag-out fight between the blogs and the MSM over a SCOTUS vote, with the blogs prevailing. Now it won't happen, and the filibuster is still on the table.
No excuse for anything less than an A+ pick. We have the entire Government, and Bush doesn't go with another Scalia? I give up. Who's running as libertarian in '08 - if i'm gonna waste my vote, it may as well be for a party that isn't scared of democrats...
I don't know when Huge ever differs from this administration and when he does, he tends to support politicans that have done little good for us.
The big question is: Are all the new programs and spending under President Bush Constitutional? Most of us feel no but he needs to appoint someone to the court that will support all this progams and spending today.
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.