Posted on 10/10/2005 10:42:41 AM PDT by ejdrapes
OCT. 10, 2005: WHAT THE INSIDERS ARE SAYING More talking over the weekend to more conservative lawyers in Washington. It is hard to convey how unanimously they not only reject, but disdain, the choice of Miers. One commented on this news story that Miers' favorite reading was John Grisham novels: "Look, it's inevitable these senators are going to ask you some obviously stupid questions. You just can't give them obviously stupid answers. How hard is it to say that you are reading Jean Smith's biography of Chief Justice John Marshall?" Another told me of a briefing session to prepare Miers to enter into her duties as White House Counsel. A panel of lawyers who had served in past Republican White Houses was gathered together. After a couple of hours of questions and answers, all agreed: "We're going to need a really strong deputy." It's been reported the reason Miers was named White House Counsel in the first place was that she had proven incompetent as Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy. Her boss, Chief of Staff Andy Card, badly wanted to get her out of his office - but couldn't fire her because she was protected by the president and the first lady. So he promoted her instead. Now we learn that it was Card who was the strongest advocate of moving Miers out of the West Wing altogether and onto the high court - raising the question of whether the ultimate motivation for this nomination is to open the way to hiring a new Counsel by kicking a failed Counsel upstairs. Few of the people I talk to can talk on the public record, although Judge Robert Bork has courageously done so and as time passes others may decide that they have to accept the risks of stepping forward and telling what they know. In the meantime, ask yourself this: Think of all the conservative jurists you know and respect. Have any of them had anything positive to say about this nomination? I can think of only one, Ken Starr, when he was interviewed last week on Fox's Hannity and Colmes. And even Starr confined himself to vague generalities about Miers' "track record." I've reprinted the transcript below. Notice what Starr does not say. He never says Miers possesses a deep knowledge of the law, he can muster no praise for her intellect or abilities as a lawyer, he does not say she'll be a credit the court. He doesn't even say that this is a good nomination beyond a jovial: "She's terrific." In fact, the only specific praise he offers is praise for Miers' formal statement to the press accepting her nomination - a statement that, as Starr would know, was written for her by others on the White House staff. Starr in other words sounds to me like somebody who has been deputized to go on television and find something good to say - and who is searching for a way to be kind without saying anything affirmatively untrue. So, as Ann Coulter mockingly puts it, he emphasizes "how nice, tidy, helpful, and prompt" Miers is. As tepid as Starr's endorsement was, it is just about the only endorsement Miers has received from any conservative with an established reputation in the law. James Dobson, Charles Colson, and Richard Lane of the Southern Baptist Convention have all endorsed Miers heartily. Good men all. But suppose you needed a lawyer to go to City Hall to fight a parking ticket. Would you look to Dobson, Colson, or Lamb for advice on who to hire? I very much doubt it. You'd ask somebody with knowledge of and experience of the law - right? Choosing a Supreme Court justice is a lot more important than fighting a parking ticket. And yet in this matter, almost all the people whose advice you'd want - the people who told you that John Roberts was an outstanding choice - have gone rather curiously quiet, haven't they? Here's the transcript: COLMES: Welcome back to a special edition of "Hannity & Colmes." ... Joining us now, the dean of Pepperdine University School of Law, Ken Starr. Judge Starr, good to see you. Thanks for being here. JUDGE KENNETH STARR, DEAN, PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW: Good to see you, Alan. My pleasure. COLMES: Do you believe the president when he says she is the most qualified person he could find for the job? STARR: Oh, I think she's terrific. First of all, Alan, I've known Harriet Miers for over 15 years. And so forth. And she was the head of 400 person law firm committee on which I was privileged to serve many years ago. She is enormously talented, and I must say I'm a little bit surprised at some of what I read because those who have dealt with Harriet Miers, at the local level, at the state level, she was elected to local office. And I think they're also not taking account that, for example, William Hubbs Rehnquist, now, of course renowned, and he was, of course, of course, an outstanding chief justice of the United States, went directly to the Supreme Court of the United States from an assistant attorney general position at the Justice Department. She's now counseling the president -- yes, Sean. HANNITY: Hi, Judge, how are you? Welcome back, as always, to the program. Do you have any doubts whatsoever that she's an originalist in the mold of a Scalia or Thomas? You know her. I don't know her. STARR: Yes. I don't, and I'll tell you, Sean, I was very comforted by what she said yesterday when one of the first things that she said. Obviously, she's honored, as any lawyer would be. But one of the things that she invoked was a founding vision of the role of the judiciary. And one of the great and burning issues is who decides these tremendous issues such as the Supreme Court had before today, an end of life kind of issue. I think she means what she says when she says, "I respect the founding vision of a limited judiciary. HANNITY: The president believes that -- because remember, the president ran two elections saying that he would appoint people in the mold of a Scalia or Thomas. And I believe the president believes she fits that bill or he wouldn't have done it. I believe he's a man of honor and integrity. I don't question that in any way, shape, manner or form. I guess what I'm hearing from a lot of conservatives, Judge Starr, is that they feel they've been burned, that there are important questions here. Too much is at stake right now. Seven of the nine justices prior to John Roberts were appointed by Republicans, and many of them were disappointments. And you know, there's no track record here and they are very, very concerned. STARR: But there is a track record of, I think, extraordinary service in the practice of law and in doing things in a way that did... HANNITY: But what is her judicial philosophy? STARR: I think we know that by virtue of the fact that she has been very clear, certainly in her opening statement, or I should say, when she was first asked what does this mean to you? And when she invokes 1787 and 1789, I think that shows us the right kind of instinct. Now has she been a judge? No. But there are many justices of the Supreme Court who have not been judges. And I think we've gotten a little bit overly accustomed, frankly, to say that unless you bring your robe to the confirmation hearing, somehow there's a question about it. But I think we also need to bear in mind she has been the counsel to the president of the United States and served in other very high White House positions. COLMES: We thank you for being with us tonight. Good to see you. STARR: Oh, my pleasure, Alan
I'm one of the Miers skeptics. But this language from the article doesn't pass the smell test.
Susan Estrich is pretty happy about the Miers nomination. Here's her commentary: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/10/6/135550.shtml
Frum's conduct has raised two questions in my mind:
(1) Was his departure from the White House after his wife bragged about him originating the phrase 'Axis of Evil' voluntary, and
(2) did Harriet Miers play some part in that departure?
I'm not making accusations, mind you, but enquiring minds want to know.
No it doesn't and Frum offers up an out and out lie....
"it is just about the only endorsement Miers has received from any conservative with an established reputation in the law."
I guess Jay Sekulow doesn't qualify, or Leo either.
Intellectual non-entities should not be appointed the Supreme Court.
It's an embarrassing nomination.
seems ridiculous...Card wants Miers for the SCOTUS to get rid of her???
That just seems crazy and stupid all rolled into one. Seems to me if they wanted to get rid of her they could have easily found a nice little job elsewhere for her.
I am starting to discount everything that Frum says.
Ken Starr a conservative -- you've got to be kidding!
I have a tendency to feel the same way. And, for all I know, Ms. Miers will turn out to be the most conservative judge ever nominated. But, unfortunately, I'm not comfortable with "trust me". Not this time, Mr. President. I want Robert Bork. I want Michael Luttig. I want the fight with these leftist scum who have been ruining our country for 35 years.
And, to think, I was spat on, had glass bottles thrown at me launched from passing cars (twice!), and, not to mention, being accused of fornicating with my own mother to being retarded when I was campaigning for the President in 2004, this is what I get.
And, I'm not the only one, I know.
You're welcome Mr. President. Thanks for thumbing your nose at the people who got you elected.
I think you might be correct that Mr. Frum has an axe to grind. Andy Card has probably already been in W's office trying to disavow the story. Watch for him to be sent our to rally the troops.
Ppl do sometimes promote someone just to get rid of them. It's not unheard of.
He cannot be serious.
I'm with you. Apparently, the thought process went like this: "You are incompetent. I can't trust you to handle anything intelligently. There's only one thing to do -- I'm going to get you a lifetime appointmen to the Supreme Court of the United States! Ha! That will teach you to cross me! BWWWWAAAAHHHHHAAAAAA!"
I ain't buying what Frum is selling.
this story is from a guy fired by the people he is claiming are hurting the conservative side of the WH. Are we to believe him because he writes for NRO? I don't. Like some of the girly men at NRO - they talk a good fight, but their toughest job is meeting a publishing deadline.
Evidently Frum is upset because he was only shown the door, and not offered a seat on the Supreme Court.
I was willing to wait and hear more about this woman before reaching any conclusions.
My impressions are getting worse and the hearings have not yet started.
Ken Starr is the candidate that the Democrats wanted Bush 41 to nominate to the Supreme Court instead of Clarence Thomas!
Not to the Supreme Court, FGS.
And so what if she likes John Grisham novels. Why does that matter one way or the other? Does he really think she should have lied? If she would lie about that, wouldn't she lie in her confirmation hearings? Who needs a liar?
I'm not happy about this nomination, but I definitely do not support an all out attack on this woman.
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.