Posted on 10/05/2005 10:29:24 AM PDT by new yorker 77
She's polite. Shy. Smart. Modest. Hard-working. Goes to church. Helps the poor. She immediately won the praise of the leader of the Democrats in the Senate. And yet she may end up making Justices Scalia and Thomas look like a couple of card carrying lefties.
I'm exaggerating for effect, of course, but the point is that despite the dramatic tearing of flesh that has gone on in some conservative quarters over the last 48 hours, the indications are that Bush has chosen someone who is extremely culturally conservative. Based on what little we know at this point, he's also chosen someone who favors the Patriot Act, wider presidential authority and an aggressive national security posture.
I understand the disappointment on the right. Conservatives wanted a first-rate legal and ideological gladiator to go do battle with liberals in the Senate. Instead, Bush gave them the Church Lady.
But gladiators don't receive - nor should they expect to be given - any mercy from their opponents. A humble, accomplished, God-fearing woman is a different proposition. Those who know this process understand that the first few hours and days are absolutely critical in shaping the image of the nominee for the public. Thus far, aside from the griping of conservatives, Miers' public image is developing rather favorably and isn't being radically influenced by attacks from left-wing interest groups the way other nominations would have been.
George Will argues this morning that these types of political considerations are unimportant. Qualifications are all that matter and, according to Will, Miers isn't remotely qualified:
The wisdom of presumptive opposition to Miers's confirmation flows from the fact that constitutional reasoning is a talent -- a skill acquired, as intellectual skills are, by years of practice sustained by intense interest. It is not usually acquired in the normal course of even a fine lawyer's career.
I find this line of reasoning deeply elitist and unpersuasive. Will is setting a standard (years of practice of constitutional reasoning sustained by intense interest) that would exclude a vast number of people who would make perfectly fine justices (including Senators like Orrin Hatch) as well as a number of those who've served ably on the court (including William Rehnquist who spent 16 years in private practice in Arizona and then only 3 years in the Nixon administration before being nominated to the Court).
I also find Will's complete and total deference to constitutional scholarship unsettling. Yes, we want talented, high-caliber appointments to the Court which represents, we should remind ourselves, a co-equal branch of government. It's not at all convincing to say, if you follow Will's logic, that a court made up of nine of the country's most eminent, ivy-league pedigreed constitutional scholars is going to be any better for America than a Court composed of justices who have demonstrable talent of varying legal backgrounds and perspectives. And it is undeniable that Harriet Miers is an accomplished lawyer.
So where does all this leave us? I suspect most Republicans and conservatives will become more comfortable with Miers as we move forward and most Democrats, including Harry Reid, are going to find themselves with an increasing urge to sink her nomination.
One way of doing that is to attack her religious convictions and to imply they make her unfit to serve. This is a very perilous strategy. The other way for the Democrats to derail Miers is to argue that she is unqualified due to a lack of experience and/or intellectual-horsepower. Still a tough case for the Democrats, in my opinion, though certainly a lot easier to make when conservatives are already out there doing it for them.
Stratergery, anyone?
The problem is that there is NO evidence to suggest this this.
Will is inclined to this sort of snobbery. I didn't even approve of the way he took after Jimmy Carter. The Olympian tone, I mean.
This would be the first evangelical Christian on SCOTUS in about 70 years.
A church-going woman will never be a Trojan Horse as far as the Left is concerned; nothing would raise their suspicions so quickly.
Of course, it would be against the laws of this nation to subject ANY nominee to a religious test. The libs in the Senate will only be able to use their usual anti-Christian code language in this case, lest they violate their own oaths of office.
And after all is said and done, the so-called conservatives who unloaded ammo this week need to sit down and figure out how much damage they have done to themselves and their causes with this White House. GWB still had 3+ year left in his term. He will almost certainly get another SCOTUS position to fill. He will be kingmaker for the 2008 GOP nomination. Anyone seeing a McCain/Guiliani, McCain/Rice, Guiliani/Rice ticket?
At the presser yesterday Bush must have stated every which way this woman was a conservative, pro-life, God fearing woman without using those words.
I just know conservatives will shoot themselves in the foot by making her prove her credentials so as to sink her nomination.
"If you push something hard enough, it will fall over." - Firesign Theatre
Trojan Horse? Oh brother. I think whatever you see with Judge Harriet, it's what you get.
The President could have served filet mignon - instead he brought out the scrapple.
This is probably correct.
And Miers probably will be a very social conservative vote on the Court. Which means that in Miers, Bush has probably given conservative Republicans precisely what they have pined for and worked towards for all these years.
The same is probably true of Roberts.
With these two appointments, the Supreme Court will probably be 4-4 conservative-liberal, with Kennedy as the "swing vote", and the conservatives will get their wishes.
The problem with all of that is that word "probably".
Conservative Republicans haven't fought for 32 years to get a pair of "probablies" and "wait-and-sees" out of a Republican President and a Republican Senate.
What was supposed to happen was a pair of "certainlies", which would have required nuclear war in the Senate, but which would have then established a certain outcome.
Because if even one of that string of "probablies" goes awry, the conservatives will have worked all these years to have been played like chumps by the Republican establishment. That social conservatives have to "wait and see" on this reduces them to the status of being the Republicans' "Black Bloc". And that is just not good enough for the foundational cornerstone of the party. It assumes too much discretionary power on the part of the elected leadership. Conservatives did not elect Bush to act this way. He is doing it "his way", which reposes on "probably".
He failed his base, even if the "probablies" turn out right.
She would be the first evangelical Christian put on the court since something like the 30's. That says something.... something substantial. She may very well become the conservative version of the activist left. Scalia and Thomas are conservative because a true reading of the Constitution supports it... while at least a couple on the left rule that was DESPITE the text of the constitution. Miers may end up being the right's version of an activist judge. I prefer someone who rules the right way for the right reasons... but I will settle for someone who rules the right way because she agrees with me. :-)
>>The problem is that there is NO evidence to suggest this this
Not only that, there IS evidence to suggest she will NOT be to the right of Scalia & Thomas. Harry Ried's approval for starters.
It should come as no surprsise the the President isn't an ideological purist - he never claimed to be.
No spending vetoes, and no questions of judge appointees about abortion (so he says) should prove he's not a purist.
I've never heard the President describe his vision of judicial restraint, other the mouthing catchphrases.
Considering the Senate, the President may have concluded that conservatives are still underdogs (who need stealth) instead of proven electoral winners.
You know how important loyalty is to the president. This woman is one of his most trusted. She will carry the torch that Bush held when we elected him.
My objections are the following:
1. She is 60 years old. Yes, I said it. We need someone in their late 40's early 50's at the oldest.
2. She has zero judicial experience. Sure it can be a plus, but she has been a corporate litigator which to me does not signify that she has had the opportunity to review or educate herself on Con Law issues.
3. There are literally scores of more qualified candidates with a proven reliable record.
4. This pick makes GWB look weaker than he already is. It makes him look like he is afraid of a fight.
5. She was Reid's first pick. Enough said.
6. She has no record of ever being a conservative. Has she ever been part of the Federalist Society? Written law review articles? Volunteered or worked for conservative causes or candidates other than GWB?
7. Trust me is not good enough in this case.
Do you want to see any of those tickets?
Among the current justices, 5 received their LLBs from Harvard (Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, and Breyer), one from Yale (Thomas), and one from Columbia (Bader-Ginsberg who also attended Harvard Law). O'Connor (Stanford) and Stevens (Northwestern) were the exceptions.
Not particularly. The dream ticket for me would be Rice/Allen. Unfortunately, that's all it is...a dream.
Roger that ~ well stated, Paradox!
Her vita is very like Rehnquist's.
The constitution was not written by constitutional scholars. :-)
Who was the last one?
Ah.....a Carter voter.
From an Evangelical Christian point of view there is considerable EVIDENCE Miers will be to the right of Scalia and Thomas.
"The constitution was not written by constitutional scholars. :-)"
Ahhahahhahahaha......
So true!
My objections are the following:
1. She is 60 years old. Yes, I said it. We need someone in their late 40's early 50's at the oldest.
So we should discriminate based on age!?! Are you going to tell Rummy, Cheney, even Bush himself to get the hell out because they're past 50?
2. She has zero judicial experience. Sure it can be a plus, but she has been a corporate litigator which to me does not signify that she has had the opportunity to review or educate herself on Con Law issues.
Given the judicial tyranny of the last decade, I for one am glad to have somebody from the "real world." And if you don't think that the real world give a person an education, then you've really bought into the snobbery of the elitist cults.
3. There are literally scores of more qualified candidates with a proven reliable record.
Proven track record of what? O'Connor had a track record, Kennedy had a track record, Souter had a track record. And they all turned out to be great disasters for the conservative cause.
4. This pick makes GWB look weaker than he already is. It makes him look like he is afraid of a fight.
As has been said many times, never play poker with GWB. It's amazing how conservatives think he's the greatest when he does things they like, and then turn right around and think he's a weak moron when he does things they disagree with.
5. She was Reid's first pick. Enough said.
God forbid that any conservative can actually be "liked" by the other side of the aisle.
6. She has no record of ever being a conservative. Has she ever been part of the Federalist Society? Written law review articles? Volunteered or worked for conservative causes or candidates other than GWB?
Reagan had a very liberal record...right up until his time for choosing speech in 1964.
7. Trust me is not good enough in this case.
The "Church Lady"? Isn't that special.
High Court Weighs in on Assisted Suicide By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 29 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Newly installed Chief Justice John Roberts on Wednesday sharply questioned a lawyer arguing for preservation of Oregon's physician-assisted suicide law, noting the federal government's tough regulation of addictive drugs.
The 50-year-old Roberts, hearing his first major oral argument since succeeding William H. Rehnquist at the helm of the court, seemed skeptical of the Oregon law, and the outcome of this case was as unclear after the argument as before.
At the outset, Roberts laid a barrage of questions on Oregon Senior Assistant Attorney General Robert Atkinson before he could finish his first sentence...
One can only hope - but this looks like a very very good start :-)
Have you seen anything that says she is to the left of them?? His odds for being right about what he says are as good as Wills' are.
Let me get this straight... Her OWN words and beliefs (and past actions) carry less weight than the words of an opposition leader?
Nope.
Pence/Sanford
Or variants thereof.
Thats okay, but another Freeper mentioned that Jimmah Carter claimed he was a Christian too, and he has done visited almost incalcuable damage on the American judiciary. I just can't take this one on faith.
GWB hasn't failed anyone ~ Stop Sniveling and Get A Grip!
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. -- Albert Einstein
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.''
Ping
When Roberts was nominated, I was concerned as he was relatively unknown as well. However, by the end of the confirmation hearings, I was satisfied with him. I feel he will end up more or less as conservative as Rhenquist was.
Miers could well end up being a conservative, but there's just as much of a chance she could end up as a Souter.
Why not Ann Coulter? She's also a lawyer, she's only 43, and she's hot. Imagine the male libs on the court (well probably not Souter) being intimidated by her sexiness...
Can we think of any Bush appointee who is a committed conservative? I hope the Roberts nomination turns out well. There is some hope for him. The Bush defense of the Church Lady and the Democrats' support of her make me deeply suspicious. Obviously a deal was made in advance. The Senate Republicans were told, "You will back the nominee," before they knew the name.
The Bush administration and the current GOP leadership have made the Republicans the Party of Appeasement. They always seek to placate the Left by surrendering the high ground.
It reminds me of the Byzantines defending their city in the Fourth Crusade. All a Western knight had to do upon entering a hole in the wall was pull out his sword. The soldiers could have turned this first invader into tomato sauce. Instead, they ran like bunnies, the beginning of the end of that battle, the beginning of the end of Constatinople.
I will vote GOP with my nostrils pinched shut, but I will vote for conservative principles, not for those who fake it (like McCain, et al.).
Nicely said! Also, I think most of us that are sick of the elitist bastards running things can seriously appreciate getting a new point of view into the mix. Last night on the "Jim Lerrrrrhhherrr" report they had a very special elitist idiot from Stanford. Whew......spare me one like that.
But how will she be on eminent domain? Second Amendment?
Bill and Hillary both went to church regularly (separate congregations) in their mad pursuit of power. Church attendance is a great cover. Besides, the vast majority of church membership is with mainline denominations whose leadership is to the left of Dan Rather
FINALLY!! Someone is beginning to sound rational about this appointment. I am sick of the Ann Coulters, G. Wills, etc., elitism and comments that only people with certain pedigrees should be on the Court. Give me a break! I was an EA to a Fed Judge for 25 years and I used to "oversee" law clerks as one of my many duties. Without exception, the ones from the Ivy League schools were a royal pain in the bunns (arrogant, rude, drunks, lazy, spoiled, undependable). The ones from smaller, more conservative law schools were like angels from heaven to have around (dependable, flexible, clean, well-dressed, nice manners, good writers/spellers and determined to succeed)(and not drinkers).
#6, Right to life.
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.