Posted on 10/04/2005 11:22:35 PM PDT by ajolympian2004
President Bush tells us that he knows his White House counsel Harriet Miers' heart. I have no doubt that it is a good one. But a good heart does not a great Supreme Court justice make.
In support of Miers' qualifications for the job, longtime Bush supporter Marvin Olasky reports that Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht endorsed his fellow parishioner Miers' heart. At Olasky's World Magazine blog (www.worldmagblog.com), he writes:
Miers has been a member of Valley View Christian Church in Dallas for 25 years, where Hecht has been an elder. He calls it a "conservative evangelical church . . . in the vernacular, fundamentalist, but the media have used that word to tar us." He says she was on the missions committee for ten years, taught children in Sunday School, made coffee, brought donuts: "Nothing she's asked to do in church is beneath her."
Olasky also touted his interview with Miers' pastor:
I talked yesterday with Miers' pastor, Ron Key, who for 33 years (until a few weeks ago) was pastor of Valley View Christian Church in Dallas. "She started coming to church in 1980. She helped out with kids, made coffee, furnished donuts, served on missions committee. She worked out her faith in practical, behind-the-scenes ways. She doesn't draw attention to herself, she's humble, self-effacing."
Conservative author and leading blogger Hugh Hewitt plugged Olasky's interviews in support of Miers. Conservative writer Thomas Lifson also noted the coffee-and-donuts passage in a widely cited piece among Miers' cheerleaders published at The American Thinker (www.americanthinker.com):
As the court's new junior member, the 60 year old lady Harriet Miers will finally give a break to Stephen Breyer, who has been relegated to closing and opening the door of the conference room, and fetching beverages for his more senior Justices. Her ability to do this type of work with no resentment, no discomfort, and no regrets will at the least endear her to the others. It will also confirm her as the person who cheerfully keeps the group on an even keel, more comfortable than otherwise might be the case with a level of emotional solidarity.
That's lovely. But Bush did not promise grass-roots conservatives that he'd put a Harry Reid-endorsed Cheer Bear on the court.
At his Rose Garden press conference yesterday in response to the New York Post's Deborah Orin, who noted criticism of Miers from conservative women in the legal field, Bush himself played a variation on the coffee-and-donuts theme:
She is plenty bright. As I mentioned earlier, she was a pioneer in Texas. She just didn't kind of opine about things; she actually led.
First woman of the Texas Bar Association; first woman of the Dallas Bar Association; a woman partner of her law firm; she led a major law firm. She was consistently rated as one of the top 50 women lawyers in the United States -- not just one year, but consistently rated that way, as one of the top 100 lawyers.
And secondly, I can understand people not, you know, knowing Harriet. She hasn't been, you know, one of these publicity hounds. She's been somebody who just quietly does her job. . . . And I know her. I know her heart. I know what she believes.
There's no question that Washington could use a lot more personal humility. But Bush's derision of those who "just . . . opine" is bizarre. "Opining," after all, is what Supreme Court justices do for a living. And it's precisely Miers' lack of on-the-record opinions about vital matters of constitutional law that has conservatives across the country so troubled.
Nobody is asking Bush to put a "publicity hound" on the bench. But asking conservatives to trust that the blank-slate Miers not only has well-formed views on everything from property rights, the individual right to bear arms and the proper scope of privacy rights, to the Commerce Clause, racial preferences and presidential authority in wartime -- but also has the intellectual candlepower to persuade her potential colleagues -- based on little more than her Sunday refreshment-retrieving abilities is asking way too much.
I quite expect that Harriet will include a heaping helping of crow on the tray she serves.
Considering the previous criteria used for SCOTUS candidates and the abominable record they've had in annihilating civil liberties in favor of government convenience, I think it's about time we got over the notion that what we've been doing previously is worth a damn.
Reid spoke kindly of Judge John Roberts BEFORE he voted against him.
I hope we are not taking our cues from libDems one way or the other.
With her experience with Meals on Wheels at least she's qualified to hand out the coffee to the Supremes.
Not bad really. And in the long run well worth the nomination. After all it's not like Bush didn't try to tackle big issues with no support from the gutless wonders (R) in the Congress.
Bayh introduced Roberts to the Senate through a floor speech, and ended up voting No.
Oh, B.S. We have an ongoing Constitutional crisis involving property rights and free speech rights...both of which are integral to our system of goverment.
Eliminating abortion in exchange for a tyranny is hardly "well worth the nomination."
You just know it's going to come to that.
LOL! My ironical side seems to think this woman is going to end up making Scalia and Thomas look like Michael Moore and Jesse Jackson.
Not bad really. And in the long run well worth the nomination. After all it's not like Bush didn't try to tackle big issues with no support from the gutless wonders (R) in the Congress.
Is that a best case scenario?
Is Bush really fixing for the biggest fight around - Roe v. Wade? Is that what matters most to him?
Maybe. It's plausible, and should provoke thoughtful discussion here and heart attacks in dummieland.
Wow, you abortion people are simply nuts. Certifiably insane.
And its not going to happen anyway. The "right" to abort is being abused and should be limited [all rights have limits], but a sgnificant majority of Americans want it in exceptional circumstances. The only limitation SCOTUS can provide is to return that authority to the states. Abortion will be eliminated [like slavery] only when technology makes it irrelevant. Improved birth control [100% rate vice high 90%] and a culture of abstinence will undo abortion, not SCOTUS.
Not a good record.
And then she'll marry David Souter and they'll quit the court...
She progressed from Democrat to Republican. So did Ronald Reagan.
Well you should know, it seems you have a lot of experience in that dept.
Perharps. But it should be noted that as a pro-life libertarian I'm in the minority here and in most political circles. I voted for Bush in 2000 based on judges and abortion soley. And in that regard I'm sure I'm joined by many Christians conservatives.
A million lives a year is worth the loss of a nominee. The R's will just have to pursue their agenda through other people. This fight is worth the price.
I'm betting it is.
Maybe. It's plausible, and should provoke thoughtful discussion here and heart attacks in dummieland.
It's already provoked less than thoughtful discussion here and probably due to the possiblity that many conservative converts jumped the fence based on fiscal and foreign policy issues with the confidence that abortion would never be addressed so they wouldn't have to confront their closeted pro-choice leanings.
And yet here we are.
The Security Moms were often cited as the difference in the last election. If Bush is aiming to directly assault Roe v. Wade, how will those Security Moms break? I don't think very many of them like abortion on demand, being Moms and all.
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.