Posted on 10/05/2005 9:09:55 AM PDT by rightcoast
Very early reactions by U.S. Senators seem to indicate that Harriet Miers is likely to be confirmed as the next Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Even though Miers nomination is just days old, 18 Senators have expressed support of her nomination, with 8 of these already indicating very strong support and the intent to confirm her as Justice on the Supreme Court.
Those eight Senators indicating strong support are: Mel Martinez (R-FL), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Jon Cornyn (R-TX), Kay Hutchison (R-TX), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), John Warner (R-VA) and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN).
The further ten Senators indicating support of Miers without an express intent to confirm are: Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Jeff Session (R-AL), Richard Shelby (R-AL), John McCain (R-AZ), Larry Craig (R-ID), Michael Crapo (R-ID), Jim Talent (R-MO), Jim DeMint (R-SC); and Democrats Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV).
At this early point in the confirmation process, only one Senator issued a public reaction that most would read as an attack on Miers. That Senator is Barbara Boxer (D-CA). In her statement, Boxer issued a terse statement that read:
"The President has selected a loyal political ally without a judicial record to sit on the highest court in the land. This means that the Senate has a huge job to do as we seek to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the swing vote on the Supreme Court, who has upheld the rights and freedoms of Americans."
The remaining 81 U.S. Senators either did not release a public statement in reaction to Harriet Miers' nomination, or issued an initial "bland" statement that is too vague or non-commital to use as an indication of confirmation.
When the ACLU and NARAL step up and stringently oppose her, I will know the choice was a good one.
Well, so much for George Will's column.
Jon Cornyn, who sits on the judiciary committe, wrote an excellent article in the WSJ, this morning.
Did George Will mention Sen. McConnell in his column?
McConnell led the fight against McCain-Feingeld and is excellent on judicial qualifications IMHO.
No, not in the Miers column. I'm not sure what that post is thinking.
Yesterday, out of the blue, my ACLU-member sister left a snippy message on my answering machine.
That's all I need to know.
"Harriet Miers has an exemplary record of service. Moreover, I agree with her belief that the proper role of a judge is to strictly apply the laws and the Constitution, not legislate from the bench. I commend the President for his choice and look forward to Ms. Miers confirmation."
Also, from Sen McConnell's Senate floor speech the following day:
"Today I rise to commend President George W. Bush for his choice of Harriet Miers to be the nation’s next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Ms. Miers has an exemplary record of service to our country. She will bring to the Court a lifetime of experience in various levels of government, and at the highest levels of the legal profession. She is a woman of tremendous ability and very sound judgment....
She is well qualified to join the nation’s highest court, and the President, after unprecedented consultation with the great majority of us here in the Senate, has really made an excellent nomination. She will make a fine addition to the Supreme Court, and I look forward to her confirmation."
Some Roberts' supporters may vote against her, while some Roberts' detractors seem ready to vote for her.
The fear that lurks in every conservative's heart:
W. knows Miers. That is the difference.
The cartoon is completely accurate.
In the first case, Bush Sr. said "trust me!", because he in turn trusted the judgement of others who supposedly had inside knowledge and knew Souter so very well.
In the second case, Bush Jr. is saying "trust me!", saying we should trust his judgement for knowing Miers so very well.
Both cases involve us trusting the judgement of those with inside info, and both involve no objective indication of a history of conservative judicial philosophy. Bush could have chosen from dozens and dozens of candidates who have a proven documented history of conservative judicial philosophy latter criteria, but instead made a choice that reasonably fills people with doubt.
Souter, and about 3 other justices I can think of, ended up ruling contrary to how those with "inside info" thought they would rule. Those who vouched for them were absolutely convinced. They drifted over time. Such personal judgements are generally unreliable, it has nothing to do with Bush personally. The fear is entirely valid.
Hi, you didn't hit any buttons, I was just pointing out that needlessly personalizing political discussions is probably a bad idea. Feel free to do what you wish with the advice.
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.