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
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.