Skip to comments.Miers unlikely to 'evolve'
Posted on 10/10/2005 12:33:51 PM PDT by Crackingham
Question: What does Harriet E. Miers, a highly successful lawyer, longtime member of Valley View Christian Church in Dallas and confidant of the president of the United States, want more than anything else?
Answer: The approval of the faculty of Yale Law School.
Or at least that is the fear among conservatives. They worry that although Miers is believed to be a pro-life evangelical conservative, she -- like David Souter and Anthony Kennedy before her -- will be seduced by liberalism. As former Bush speechwriter David Frum noted after Miers was nominated, "The pressures on a Supreme Court justice to shift leftward are intense." Frum noted "the sweet little inducements -- the flattery, the invitations to conferences in Austria and Italy, the lectureships at Yale and Harvard -- that come to judges who soften and crumble."
Ah, yes, the sweet little inducements: Washington dinner parties, laudatory editorials from the nation's great liberal newspapers and, perhaps most important, praise from the smug savants back at dear old Yale or Harvard. Many leading lawyers never forget their roots in the Ivy League, where all-knowing professors throw laurels on judges who "get it" and scorn those who don't. Forget Austria: It takes a very strong (or very principled) constitution to do without that intellectual flattery.
But perhaps that makes Miers the perfect candidate. Perhaps it takes someone who did not go to Harvard or Yale and has never seemed to care. Miers went to law school at Southern Methodist University, which, although a well-respected institution, was unlikely to have been a bastion of progressive thought when she entered the law school in 1970.
As a result, she likely avoided the flaying of conservative justices that would have been tattooed in the minds of most members of today's Supreme Court.
(Excerpt) Read more at pittsburghlive.com ...
I really don't see what is so wrong with her. Unless it is that the really hard core of our side just wanted a Bork like candidate, and nothing else would suffice.
As do most Bushbots, the Olaskys agree with W that:
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Oh, wait, maybe that was Big Brother in George Orwell's novel, 1984; you know, the values are so similar.
I just realized my grandmother was born the day after Robert Bork. That is cool.
No kidding. What this appointment says is, "NEVER issue a conservative judgment, because it will forever outlaw you from being promoted to a higher court."
So, does this mean that if conservative judges hope to be promoted on the merits of their decisions, they will have to issue nothing but liberal decisions? Apparently.
"let's see how long it takes the Bush/Miers bashers to get here...."
"All five of them?..I'm soooo scared!"
There are actually nine of them and they have this cute little ping list for each other.
The function of the Supreme Court is not to be a rubber stamp for the White House. It is also not supposed to be a place where you put people just because they're you're friends or agree with you on religious matters. FDR tried packing the Court and it didn't work. Bush can be notorious for appointing friends to high-level Government positions with no evidence that they have any experience or qualifications for the job (Brown comes to mind, the guy took care of horses for Cripe's sake; how did that qualify him to be the head of a Federal agency?)He messed up with this one, too, and I'm not afraid to say it.
I trust Mr. Bush to have nominated someone that will be in the mold of Thomas and Scalia. You apparently don't. So be it.
I wanted a nominee who liberals said this about:
Justice Janice Rogers Brown
A review of California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown's record to date raises serious questions and grave concerns about her persistent and disturbing hostility to affirmative action, civil rights, the rights of people with disabilities, workers' rights, and criminal rights. In addition, Brown has often been the lone justice to dissent on the California Supreme Court, illustrating that her judicial philosophy is outside the mainstream. Not only does she show an inability to dispassionately review cases, her opinions are based on extremist ideology that ignores judicial precedent, including that set by the U.S. Supreme Court.
They always have their wish list of candidates, not knowing if they could or would serve on the S.C.. They have condemned this person without hearing a word from her. I've never seen anything like it about a nominee from their own paty. Instead of taking on the false charges against DeLay, Frist, Rove, Bennett, ETC, and doing some beneficial research and "fighting" there, they're attacking a conservative judicial choice. Those of us who defend Ms Meirs or are at least open about her potential qualifications are called various names. And if you disagree with Ann Coulter and happen to be a woman, they automatically of course think we're "jealous"! As if she were the only attractive female on earth. Such shallow narrow-minded chauvanism in that pre-programmed (by many here) response.
The nomination is more than "about her." The nomination shrinks from displaying and advocating conservatism.
Post 24 above describes a concern that is not about the nominee as a judge, but rather an artifact of being timid.
Which of the two has done more to advance the conservative agenda?
Jesse Jackson. No contest.
"You can look it up."
Wow. Some steadfast principles you have there.
You're female, aren't you?
---"Too late, you were in after a 'bush basher'...i.e. anyone that doesn't accept "trust me"---
Rush Limbaugh is among those Bush bashers. I guess we should have seen it coming since he's been against Bush all along.
Oh no, wait........he's pretty much carried the administration's water on just about everything. Never mind!
I for one will continue to question this nomination, and I am even willing to deal with the biggest defense Miers supporters have been willing and able to mount so far: name calling.
I don't care; Supreme Court nominations are too important to back down from, even if it's the President you aren't backing down from. He may decide that backing down from Supreme Court nomination battles is the way to go, but many of us on the right won't back down in unison with him.
I'd rather be called a jerk and contribute to changing the Supreme Court for the better than be an agreeable party guy who contributes to the Court's continued destruction.
The Supreme Court is too important to be wrong about, period. "Trust me" is entirely acceptable on 9,999 issues of the day with the Bush administration as far as I'm concerned; but the Supreme Court is that 1 in 10,000 that it is not good enough for.
It is just too big,
it is just too big,
it is just too damned big!!!!!!
And frankly, I'm getting really tired of the fact that Bush is so damn willing to fight his own supporters to the death, but won't even dare lift his sword against a Democratic Senator. He'll shove Miers down our throats, but he won't even bring up the names of J. Michael Luttig or Edith Jones in conversation with the Senate Democrats.
Ummmm... Bunny is on your side here. That was "sarcasm".
Olasky is a good man. Like many good Christians, he is trying to be optimistic. However, many other good Christians know what this nation has to lose if SCOTUS appointments go bad..