Skip to comments.Scalia, Thomas, Miers? Will the Conservatives Help Blow Bush's Stealth Nomination to Court?
Posted on 10/05/2005 8:58:10 PM PDT by quidnunc
Explain, please, why criticism of President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court does not fit hand-in-glove with the proposition that Bush is a boob.
You know, the line holding that in contrast to such bright lights as Al Gore and John Kerry, the Bush bulb glows dim.
Indeed, that he is incompetent, the never-married Ms. Miers is a crony and a lightweight, and her appointment ideologically a missed opportunity rivaling Bush I's nomination of the never-married David Souter.
Or Dwight Eisenhower's nomination of Earl Warren, Richard Nixon's of Harry Blackmun, Gerald Ford's of John Paul Stevens (even now, perhaps the court's most liberal justice), and Ronald Reagan's of the disappointing waffler Anthony Kennedy.
The Miers nomination could prove even worse and after so much invested hope among moderates for someone who would turn the Court onto a more consistently sober course, most notably on such issues as abortion, single-gender marriage, and free expression.
And certainly, at first glance, Harriet Miers lacks the heft of many in the judicial monastery e.g., J. Harvie Wilkinson, Karen Williams, and Michael Luttig of the Virginia-based Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, or Chief Justice Leroy Hassell of the Virginia Supreme Court. She lacks bench experience and (as principally a corporate lawyer) longtime grounding in constitutional law, and in her hearings she likely will not demonstrate the dazzling erudition and legal acumen of the new Chief Justice, John Roberts.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesdispatch.com ...
Making an example that the argument raised by this nomination is not primarily on constitutional principle.
She does have certain credentials but there is not one reasonable person who can claim she is the "Best Choice."
What difference does it make if she's never been married?
Go back to DU! Bush said she's the best choice, you liberal troll!
That's a lie. It is quite reasonable to claim she is the best choice. It's simply a matter of defining what best means in this instance. I assume that you believe it means having a certain public track record or a proven intellect or an educational background.
That is simply an unreasonable and faulty way of defining best. Best in my mind involves the President's perspective of having confidence in her judicial philosophy now and in 20 years, her perceived ability to play a role in helping bring some moderate Supremes rightward, and her viability in making it through the Senate. On these three items I believe she is the best.
I gotta say I agree with the "troll". Miers is not even close to being the best nominee and that is why we conservatives feel sold out.
I think W felt he had to take this route. If the libs threaten a filabuster against one of the "gifted" candidates, the coward repubs will cave. He could not count on 50 Senators to vote the nuclear option, nor count on them to back him when the going really gets hot. Look how they backed Lott. Look how they back anyone or thing when things get hot. Miers may be the best choice despite the lack of glitz the elitist want. She is already better than Souter, Breyer, Ginsberg, Stevens, Kennedy, and O'Conner!!!! It is scary to fight all these years to retake this hill and note your troops are all worried about their re-elections, presidential hopes, or public portrayal by the liberal media. Bush may have just won the battle up front
There is not one person who knows who is the best choice. The fact that she is the President's choice seems to comport with the law of the land. He has won the presidency, twice.
Yes, there is one, George W. Bush. He might be wrong, he might not. But he, knowing her as well as he does, can credibly claim she is the best choice. And he might be right.
hey you 1999 freeper newbie, the web site you're looking for is democratic undergound!!!
(okay, enough sarcasm)
I'll await the hearings to judge her, but I'm not crazy about the fact that the president didn't go with someone at least a decade younger.
She is a virgin?
Warren, Suoter, Miers?
Please enlighten me with the details of how you know this.
Less real life experience
I'll claim that. She's not been a judge and has been "down among the common folk". She hasn't lost touch with real people as most judges do. Lawyers deal with real people. If she's confirmed, I hope she stays clear of the elitist attitude of judges.
Please, please Bush-bashers, PLEASE keep attacking him and the nominee! It will reduce the criticism from the Left while, in the end, mattering not at all among Senate Republicans. Then, once she's on SCOTUS -- SHOCK AND AWE, BABY!!
I agree with this "troll" too. I'm spending a semester in Berkeley, CA. On my jogs, I see all the "Hate Bush" bumper stickers on Volvos known to man. I am tempted to rip one off and put it on my car.
Will he nominate his personal accountant to replace Greenspan?
That's exactly why Bush chose stealth candidates, because of the RINO senators and their weak majority leader.
That's not only a cheap shot, it's ignorant. Miers is White House Counsel, not his family lawyer. Belittling her position is uncalled for. She was managing partner of a major law firm and deserves respect.
Her Mama's still kicking at 91. If Harriet pushes it that far, she will have outserved Sandra Day O'Connor.
His personal accountant might be "deserve respect" too!
It doesn't matter that she wasn't a judge. But it sure would help her if she had clerked for a Supreme Court Justice or tried cases in front of them.
How utterly UNoriginal. Parroting Ann Coulter. What a dumb ass comparison.
You people want a fight --- the hell with the nominee getting torn to shreds and then defeated.
JMJ, you can't see past your nose.
I'm perfectly capable of independent thought. I had thought of this before reading Ann Coulter's column. I totally disagreed with her about Roberts.
I predict that Meirs will withdraw her nomination next week, which will be good for everyone. We don't need bush league designs to rule the day.
Maybe he could appoint the WH decorator as Secretary of the Interior or the WH mechanic as EPA administrator. Sorry.
Nobody questions it is his choice to make.
Sure you did...lol.
She won't withdraw. No reason to withdraw because you and the DPC are pitching hissy fits along with pundits who are aching for a fight too --- gives them fodder for columns and books.
Thank you for calling me a liar. That is a very pleasant way to have a meaningful discussion. I hope you enjoy the rest of your evening.
I've known a few judges and they can be more in touch with common folk than high-octane lawyers in large law firms. When I was in law school Scalia and Thomas came for a few days and they went out for beers with the first and second year law students.
Yes. It does. And I said why.
But it sure would help her if she had clerked for a Supreme Court Justice or tried cases in front of them.
Help? How? All I care about is that she agrees with the Constitution as it was written. No "Living Document" bullcrap. And no "hidden laws or rights" that aren't even implied.
Agreed. I'm sorry too. And I don't need Ann Coulter to program my brain about how this is a possibility.
They're conservatives. How many TRUE conservatives are snobs?
William H. Rehnquist was never a judge and he was a very good justice. But he had a background with the court (clerked for a Supreme Court Justice) and he was the Assistant Attorney General for the United States giving him the opportunity to deal the SCOTUS a great deal.
I predict you'll be posting even more idiotic nonsensical drivel on this and other Miers threads.
Agree 100% with the troll, although I don't know why this term is used so often on Freep.
There have been Supreme Court Judges that were never judges before. I think it's a good thing as I said she's dealt with people and isn't likely to be an elitist. She knows what the average mans concerns are.
She fails on so many different levels-even prior to being subjected to the scrutiny of the U.S. Senate-that it's not even amusing anymore.
-Separation of powers
She will have to recuse herself from every single case that makes its way to the Supreme Court docket which involves this administration in even the most tangential way.
Think about that!
I don't care how you choose to rationalize it, that's what it is, pure and simple. This nomination should be just as objectionable-if not more so, considering its provenance in a purportedly conservative, Republican administration-as the gross nepotism exercised by John F. Kennedy at the DOJ during the early 1960s.
This woman has left no discernible impact upon her chosen profession, after spending literally decades of her life devoted to it. This is an individual who is sixty years old, and yet has left not even the most shallow imprint upon her chosen vocation. Replace the word "stealth" with "unqualified" and you'll see where I'm heading with this.
Yes, and they were not always good justices. Please read the post to which you responded (#40) to see my notes about Bill Rehnquist's background.
I would like to point out, being a judge or justice does not automatically make one an elitist.
Your prediction is wrong. I have better things to do with my time.
I feel that W has made a big mistake that will hurt us all. I hope I'm wrong. I really do.
" I predict that Meirs will withdraw her nomination next week, which will be good for everyone."
I hope you are right, because I don't see any real evidence about her real judicial philosphy coming out.
Well from my observation I've never seen Bush make a bad pick for the judiciary before and I see no reason to believe he has now. Just look at what he's up against even in his own party. All of this attacking, bickering, and eating our own sure cannot help.
So was Hillary Rodham-Clinton.
I read it. So?
being a judge or justice does not automatically make one an elitist.
I think as judges move up the courts that they lose any idea of who the average American is. The Scotus backed land grab is an example.