Posted on 10/05/2005 10:18:22 AM PDT by Big Steve
I have some things in here that need to be said. I have heard so many nay-sayers keep saying negative things about President Bush's selection of Harriet Miers as the next Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. It has been said that this is a blown opportunity or a cowardly way out. Having nominated someone without any judicial experience may not be always a wise choice, but it is not always a bad choice, either. Remember, William Rehnquist was in Nixon's Justice Department when he was appointed to the Supreme Court, and he eventually turned out to be one of the greatest Chief Justices in United States history, especially in the eyes of conservatives. He had no judicial experience, either.
A lot of conservatives have felt betrayed by Bush time and time again. I am a big fan of Bush, but I felt he has let us down on failing to control spending and controlling our borders. If he can rectify these two things, he will be among the greatest Presidents in history. He wants more tax cuts and to have them made permanent. He has continued to support our military in the war on terror and the war in Iraq. He has never wavered on these two areas. Finally, he has appointed men and women who share the same judicial philosophy he has to the courts. He has not let us down yet in this aspect, and I don't think all of us conservatives should throw him or Ms. Miers to the wolves just yet. Let's wait and see what kinds of decisions she will make when and if she's confirmed. On issues like abortion, if makes a ruling against the conservatives, then those conservatives who opposed will have been right. But if she rules on our side, then those who opposed her will owe her and President Bush an engraved apology.
There are a couple of big names who have grave reservations about Ms. Miers. Rush Limbaugh, who in my opinion has been the strongest voice for conservatism in this country for nearly two decades, has had grave reservations about Ms. Miers because of a lack of a paper trail. One good thing I see of her lack of paper trail is that the liberals can't go all out on her right away. Eventually, they will once the confirmation hearings come up, but make them do a little more work on knowing more about her before opposing her because she's a Bush crony. If I had one thing to say to Rush on this matter, I would say, "Rush, one area Bush has not let us down on is his selection of judges. Don't throw in the towel, yet. You can still be cautious, but don't throw in the towel. Continue to be the optimist you always taught your listeners to be. I predict the President will come through again." Another one with grave reservations about Miers is Ann Coulter. Ann, in my opinion, is one of the most beautiful women around and is a strong legal scholar. We are lucky to have her on our side. But her criticisms of Miers and John Roberts as not being conservative enough have been really troubling. Lately, she sounds more like a reactionary and not wanting to give the President the benefit of the doubt. In her mind, any selection short of a Janice Rogers-Brown selection is a disappointment. I would say to her, "Ann, I admire what you believe in, but lower your rhetoric a little because it doesn't help our cause. Do continue your cautious approach, but don't flat out oppose a nominee like Ms. Miers until we know more about her. After all, Rehnquist was never a judge and look how he turned out." As much as I would like a Janice Rogers-Brown or a Priscilla Owen on the Supreme Court, they were never under serious consideration. After all, they were just confirmed to their positions 2-3 months ago. Give them a year or two on the bench like John Roberts, and when the next vacancy comes up, float their names again.
Let's all work together and pray we know more about this nominee before we discard her. After all, we don't know Bush's mind; and I don't want to call this man's bluff in a poker game. When his back is to the wall is when he's at his best. Only time will tell if we are right or wrong about this nominee. I am confident we will be pleasantly surprised. Thank you for reading what I had to say.
I'm sure Ms. Miers is a fine woman, hard working and decent lawyer. If her nomination was to a lower court that would be fine. Her nomination to the Supreme Court is like a little league baseball player being elected to the MLB Hall of Fame without any high school, college, minor or major league baseball experience.
This is news/activism or vanity forum material?
Brown and Owens need more time on the bench and Miers hasn't even been on the bench. ???
I am suspecting Bush knows what he's doing and we'll probably like her but he could have appointed someone with no doubt at all.
This is a vanity post. Just my opinions.
What this nomination shows is that President Bush is very much a maverick.
That's not necessarily a bad thing.
ajolympian2004's comments, while apt, and I agree with, may be less important than we think.
Here's the deal -- if I'm in a spot where I have to choose someone for something so important that it must be right, 100%, then I am not going to pour through resumes looking for the most qualified candidate. For example, if I'm in a spot where I need someone who knows about electrical engineering, I'm not going to go through the resumes of all the MIT grads if it's critically important. The person I'm going to call is one of my friends from college. Why? Because I know that when things are deadly serious she isn't going to tell me sweet stories of kitties purring and angels singing. She's going to give it to me straight. I can trust her to do the right thing. I suspect Bush is in the same spot. He can trust Miers to be a strict constructionist. Looking for a strict constructionist solely by going through judicial records and people's qualifications is how we ended up with Souter.
And then the Dems would have filibustered and we'd be in no position to go nuclear shortly after more than half of the Dem caucus voted for Roberts.
What I meant was they just got there and both when through grueling confirmation processes. I think neither want to go through another grueling process just yet.
Does it really matter if Miers is not as "brilliant" as Scalia so long as she votes with him? And maybe Scalia would be better off if he used his brains to figure out ways to make conservative coalitions win, rather than be stuck writing "brilliant" dissents.
I think we who have worked so hard since the mid 60's to stop the liberalization of our culture are bitter. But I feel that Rush, Levin and now Geo. Will have sent a strong shot to the moderate Republicans that we are p.o.'d.
It is now time to rally behind GWB. I asked myself last night if there was something better or a place I could go in the short term. There isn't. So I am left, sadly, with hoping - not trusting - Ms. Miers works out OK. She has been nominated. Nothing I can do will change that.
To keep dragging on my complaining only weakens GWB, our chances in 2006 and 2008, honestly.
After many hoursd of thourough research on Miers, i have come to believe she is a wonderful candidate. Although she lacks credentials that some believe are a necessity, I have very little doubt she will not stray from the voting patterns of Scalia and Thomas, something I can't trust Roberts on. I have found articles from long before she was nominated showing that she is personally pro-life and sensible. Although I wish Bush nominated two justices as qualified as Roberts and as Conservative as Miers, I believes Miers lack of trail is a blessing. I mean, despite what some of us think, Rogers brown would get zero Democratic votes, and would test many RINO's support of her. If she was Bork'ed, we may as well put a bullet in any President ever nominating a JRB candidate ever again, so why nominate Janice in harsh times when we can put Miers, as good as Janice, on now
Hopefully it will be Miers that ends up voting to make the government enforce the borders while Bush is still president. Wouldn't that be an interesting twist of fate?
Sort of along the same vein...I'd like to see less career politicians/lawyers in politics.
FWIW-
The reason Scalia does not figure out ways to win, is because of the choices of other GOP Presidents, including O.Connor, for Supreme Court. 5-4 wins every time.
Ironically Bush who is portrayed as a right winger, as a religious zealot, as some war mongering animal in the MSM is in reality a "moderate". Many of his nominations and positions on issues are quiet "middle of the road".
Being more on the right edge myself, I too feel like he betrayed the base which insured his reelection. Those hundreds of thousands who rallied behind him, the real "silent majority" of America which is conservative in values, hardly appreciate his watered down stance on many issues. He won with a mandate by the people based on certain values he said he had. He presented himself as a "conservative" and the fact that the MSM set him in the right wing corner did not stop his reelection. There is a reason why he got reelected! America IS a conservative nation. President Bush, it’s time to deliver!
Set a conservative in the supreme court!
Seal up the boarder.
Stop the murder of people through the removal of feeding tubes.
Don’t try to make a mark in history! Don’t chase some dream of being “liked”. Piss people off and do that which “the people” who voted for you want you to do. What the small loud mouths out there scream is inconsequential. They are the minority and didn’t vote for you anyway. You are loosing your base. If you want to go down as a mediocre President, continue to pander to those liberals in government.
Red6
Why not post your vanity on your own blog?
I tend to be a staunch supporter of President Bush myself and don't need to check in with the likes of Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh to form my views. However the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court is probably one of the most disappointing things Bush has done. It was a safe political play that avoided a necessary confrontation with the left in this country. Since Woodrow Wilson the left in this country have been systematically trying to seize the judicial system. And Bush kind of caved in to them by appointing a moderate. Bush is loyal to people who are loyal to him to a fault. And in truth Bush in many ways has only himself to blame for his faltering poll numbers. Bush needs to revamp his communications team. They have done an awful job and did throughout the campaign last year. Bush also needs to be proactive in terms of addressing the media and have more press conferences. Lastly I wish Bush would use his veto and put the screws to Congress for reckless spending, which has reached new heights during his administration.
Admin Moderator, if you can move this post to a vanity post, please feel free to do so.
Not all the critics are congenital Bush bashers by any means. Personally, I'm willing to excuse Bush for having to compromise about minor matters, and save his political capital for the most critical decisions.
There is nothing more critical than Supreme Court nominations, however. It's not that Miers necessarily a bad choice. It's just that there are so many better known candidates to choose from. The fact that she's an Evangelical may save Bush from an Evangelical revolt at the midterm election, which I had feared if he made a poor nomination, but it certainly has disappointed a fair number of people who hoped and trusted that Bush would do the right thing.
I think your analogy is incorrect. SCOTUS is the major leagues, not the hall. To be inducted, one must have retired from playing.
The little leagues would be outside the legal profession entirely. The civilian and government lawyer roles would be A or AA minor league. Circuit courts are the AAA farm club.
If an A farm team player has the capability of playing at the major leagues, and catches the eye of the scouts, then why can't they play in the majors? Just because they didn't work their way up through the system doesn't mean they don't have the ability to play at the top level.
How do you know she is a moderate? I see no evidence. You might be surprised once she starts weighing in.
BS. Early ( founding father days ) justices were not judges either. The constitution does not say anything about being a judge as a qualification.
I prefer a smart, God fearing person as opposed to a "judge". I am of the opinion that any American of above average intelligence is qualified, bar certified or not. The problem we have had is trying to get people that are qualified and we have seen what it got us. I dare say I would make just as good justice as any one else he could have picked. If you can read at a college level, you can interpret.
You sport analogy is off base as many sport fans idolize rookies to Hall of Fame status after one good first year.
How can you argue that those two don't have enough seasoning at the same ime you say it's okay that Niers was never a judge?
Big Steve, you sure use a lot of words to say basically nothing. Here's a few words that say something:
President chose a cipher and a crony. We should lobby Republican Senators to vote her down, so that President Bush will nominate a proven constitutionalist. We might not get another opportunity to change the complexion of the Supreme Court for a while. Stevens ain't leavin' until he dies, and that might be at age 95.
O'Conner can be encourgaged to leave in the meantime, before a new nominee is appointed. With her gone, the balance of the court will shift marginally to the right.
The fact that we are still talking about this and groping is a sign that all is not well to say the least.
Here is something I posted on a thread about the Will article, and he places a lot of emphasis on McCain FeinGold/Campaign finance reform (CFR):
CFR is truly an abomination...Will is dead on here. In fact, I have heard some argue that a Pres who signs a bill he believes to be unconstitutional is (hypothetically, obviously) worthy of impeachment for knowingly violating the oath. Not a bad point if you think about it (but again purely hypothetical).
Now...that said...let me try to bring some balance to this because these threads are descending to the level of the evolution/creation threads (you're an idiot, no you're an idiot).
Here is what we know.
First, to say that Bush is not a domestic conservative is a huge understatement. He has in fact presided over and supported and pushed through some of the worst measures in 30 or 40 years, including prescription drugs and McCain Feingold. Let's don't even get started borders, and the "assault weapons" ban. This is obviously a huge source of distrust for conservatives and moderates even. They simply don't trust him to do what is right. That mistrust (which GWB and Rove have earned) spills over into this appointment, which is the most important domestic act yet (even more so than the Chief...where we could only lose ground...here we can gain).
So in that context of mistrust, he give us a nominee that he and only he knows. If the political guys in the White House are as smart as they tell us, they should have seen that this would create a firestorm. Which it has. And it's not just the cranks like people here at FR. It includes Will, David Frum, Ann Coulter, and Rush (to varying degrees). The Fed Soc., ACLJ and Dobson have chimed in positively.
And I am certainly in the mistrust camp.
But let's take a step back and try to match apples with apples. It is true that Bush is a disaster on the domestic front generally. BUT..he has had some outstanding Court of Appeals appointments. Anyone that appoints Michael McConnell has a good judicial screening team. And he stood by those that were filibustered and eventually got folks like Owen into their seat. That took a bit of grit. Why he's not always like that on the domesic front, I have no idea, but he has done really well on C of A. In fact, I think his C of A appointments will rival Reagan's (not that this will get a lot of coverage).
And we would all probably agree that his personnel in his administration is damn fine.
So...matching apples to apples....there is hope to think that while this choice is hardly awe-inspiring, it might in fact turn out to be a reliable vote. She probably will not be a Scalia or a Thomas...but you know what? She can hire those clerks to make her look like a Scalia or a Thomas. I remember right after Thomas went out, he actually hired some old Scalia clerks. That had to give Scalia some confidence that he was on the right track! If she is not too proud to do that, I suspect we will see some pretty snappy writing out of her.
I too am just shaking my head with this appointment. Another opportunity wasted. But I don't think she is going to be less than a reliable vote.
Nothing can undo what this President has done to the First Amendment.
Nothing short of legislative repeal can undo what he has done with the prescription drugs entitlement.
But again if you put oranges next to oranges, and apples next to apples, I think you can conclude rationally Miers will be a solid vote.
God I hope so.
She switched parties from being a Democrat to being a Republican, which to me smells like a moderate. And Harry Reid certainly seems to like her. I know some will say well she was a "conservative" Democrat. No such animal in my opinion. You are either a liberal or moderate Democrat.
Read post #10.
In the past 25 years, only one of the four stealth candidates appointed by Republican presidents ended up being a conservative originalist.
Why should we except the direction of the court change when the same failed strategy is being used once again, this despite having 55 Republican seats in the Senate?
Flashback to 1981:
United Press International
July 8, 1981, Wednesday, AM cycle
SECTION: Washington News
BYLINE: By WESLEY G. PIPPERT
DATELINE: WASHINGTON
In Texas, television evangelist James Robison expressed his support for Mrs. [Sandra Day] O'Connor based on a conversation Tuesday with presidential counselor Edwin Meese.
A Robison aide said Meese told the evangelist:
''Sandra O'Connor thinks abortion is abhorrent and is not in favor of it. She agrees with the president on abortion. There was a time when she was sympathetic toward the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) movement, but the more she studied and found out about it, the more she changed her mind.
''She is very conservative ... Sandra O'Connor assured the president that she was in agreement with him and she totally supports pro-family issues and the Republican platform.''
Reagan was a democrat. People tend to get ore conservative the older ( wiser ) they get.
I realize the 'flaw' of my analogy with the majors vs. the HOF. It was intentional. The SCOTUS is many times more prestigious than the MLB HoF.
Yeah, there are examples of those who went right to the majors like Dave Winfield. In this case there are 9 possible positions on the Supreme Court... just 9! Not even close to the best qualified person was selected. NOT EVEN CLOSE! President Bush wimped out on this selection.
I hope it works out. Counting on the 'benefit of the doubt' I habe no choice but to give President Bush.
The court doesn't work like that. It is not a committee in the sense that they all get together and hammer these things out.
The Justices hear a case. They go play golf. They tell their clerks what they think about the case and then let the clerks write it out.
They do not "campaign" amongst each other on cases.
"But if she rules on our side, then those who opposed her will owe her and President Bush an engraved apology."
I like your essay and your sanity. But I totally disagree with that. The context for the mistrust was created by no one other than Bush/Rove. His domestic record from the conservative perspective is what this is all about - not this choice, as such.
I have yet to hear him utter anything except more of the same. For example, just when you thought GWB had done it all, then he talks about how "institutional racism" hurt the New Orleans response. Not even Clinton had the gall to say something like that, b/c he knew that conservatives and moderates even would go bonkers! If anyone needs to apologize, it is Bush/Rove (not that I would ever naively think that could ever happen).
Conservatives are correct to be suspicious.
My essay is an attempt to suggest that, post suspicion, things may turn out ok. I still think that for the reasons suggested.
However, as I have pointed out elsewhere on FR, it isn't just merely the lack of a paper trail that gives many coservative pause, including Mr. Limbaugh.
I would ask any Miers supporter why Prsident Bush DIDN'T nominate a Micheal Luttig or Janice Rogers-Brown, a jurist with undenialble qualifications and a publicly known record of conservatism on the bench? Inevitably, the answer MUST turn upon the fact that such a candidate could not or may not be confirmed in the Senate for whatever reason. The Presdient only needs 51 yes votes in a chamber where there is ostensibly a 55-vote majority. If that is insufficient, then either 6 or more Republicans wouldn't vote for such a nominee, or 6 or more Republicans will not support the Constitutional Option if needed.
Thus, intentionally or not, President Bush has signaled that he does not have sufficient votes to either confirm his nominee regardless of how conservative they are or there are insufficient votes to sustain the Constitutional Option. Either way, he appears to operate from a position of weakness rather than strength. This is not the same President who re-nominated previously filibustered candidates and got them confirmed to the bench.
Many conservatives want to put an end to Democrat abuse of minority power through parliamentary trickery as much as they want to place another conservative vote on the Supreme Court. By this pick, it seems the President has ceded the field to the Democrats with regard to the filibuster despite the efforts of ordinary Republican voters to give him the tools he needs to defeat them.
This is the heart of the concern about Miers, not her conservatism or lack of a paper trail.
Actually, that's not how Souter happened. Bush I went to his friend, the experts, and asked them about Souter. Warren Rudman assured him that Souter was a good conservative. Bush nominated him. So actually, Bush followed your approach, not the resume approach.
I should have added though that I agree with you as far as her voting conservative. Once she is on the court does anything else really matter other than how she votes?
Let's hope that the committee actually manages to use their time asking questions instead of pontificating on their personal beliefs and pet legislation. That's where my pressure is going to be. It's the committees responsibility to find out whether or not she will be a good choice, not to use their time grandstanding. This time I want them to ask 3 or 4 questions with their time.
Obviously, you are entitled to your opinion, that doesn't make it right. We can change the complexion of the court, but your comments don't help in that way. If Bush can trust this woman, give her a chance. If she is a disappointment, then you can say, "See, I told you so." If she is a blessing, then you will owe her and the President an engraved apology. Stevens will retire soon, and Ginsberg is not in the best of health, so Bush may have as many as four appointees to the SC, so stop being a pessimist.
Saying I told you so doesn't cut it, we can do NOTHING if we don't approve.
Seems some of you are into appeasing the Dems, I say it is time to fight, we have the fire power to do it now.
Let them filibuster and we'll go nuclear.
You are right. I'm one of the dubious-on-Miers crowd. The president has made it so that conservatives, in the end, have no choice but to support her. But it annoys me big-time that he continues the R tradition of loving the conservatives on election day and not giving a d$$m any other time. It annoys me that he pulled this stunt with almost no regard to how difficult it is going to make it for us local pols to get out the vote in 2006. It annoys me he has put our Senate majority at risk by demoralizing the base.
I am already seeing the fallout from this at the local level. It's going to be a lot harder to get conservative volunteers for 2006 than it was two years ago. Of that, I'm certain. The extent of the problem is not yet clear.
I can talk myself blue in the face to some of our stalwarts. But they still don't like the direction the Pres has taken things and at this point, they are sitting things out--Miers was the straw that broke the camel's back.
Miers may turn out fine. She may not. But Bush has a big-time problem with his base for which noone other than W is responsible. He needs to pay a lot of attention to fixing it--NOW. Otherwise, he's going to have a rat Senate for the last two years of his term.
The only way he learns about the problem is if we express our opinion vocally and loudly. I will be dragged kicking and sreaming to supporting her. And I will continue to kick and scream until W stops ignoring the people that elected him. So in the terms of the loyalists here, I'm going to be a 'whiny crybaby' who 'doesn't understand strategery.'
But don't blame me. Blame W. He's the one that has backed conservatives into the corner we are in and left loud complaining, sitting out 2006, or blind loyalty, as our only choices. The loyalty stuff is wearing thin. The other choices suck; but here we are and W brought is to this point.
Frankly, I'm probably not smart enuf to understand strategery like the good FREEPERS do; 'cause to this old local pol, all I can see is a piss-poor political decision regardless how the confirmation comes out and regardless what kind of judge she turns out to be. You dance with the one that brung you; and W is eyeing the babe across the room and thinking that his conservative date is a little to frumpy for his tastes these days.
I am not into appeasing anybody. The dirty little secret is, no matter how conservative or not-so-conservative nominee is, the Dems will launch a character assassination. They need to raise money. Stop being pessimistic, and start being optimisitic about the choice Bush has made.
In my experience, people are generally hurt less by people with solid common sense and rational thought, than they are by life time experts.
If you would read my first reply you would know I am optimistic but I want to be sure.
Again, let the Dems do as they wish, who cares? We will beat them as we have the votes.
I like Bush as well as you probably but I want someone whom I know has conservative values.
I think it is from a position of weakness, not the weakness of the President personally, but the weakness in support from Senate Republicans. We are much closer to the next election now, and because the GOP took a few hits in the last few weeks, President Bush must rebuild momentum and his position by getting a few more wins under his belt.
Rita was the first, Roberts was the second. The two together were not enough to overcome the strength deficit yet. Miers will be the next win...and then things will look better.
The President must win with the hand he has...not the hand he wished he had. The Supreme Court, imo, is way too important a hand to bluff, which sending up a likely to be filibuster nominee would be. He needs someone in there now to deal with critical upcoming cases, so time is of the essence. So the President has chosen to win less...but win nonetheless.
I can't see how that does our advancement wrong.
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.