Posted on 10/13/2005 6:53:22 AM PDT by jveritas
We can argue that another time perhaps (and we may agree on much of what you say), but as to his judicial appointments, who do you have a problem with?
Yes. A great post.
Ignore anyone who says differently.
Links please!
The REAL question is, will she be a conservative judicial activist, or a true minimalist? Sandra Day O'Connor's judicial philosophy was to rule how she FELT about the case at hand, not on the correct interpretation of the constitution. For example, if Harriet Miers were to vote to overturn Roe v. Wade based on her PERSONAL VIEWS that it is a sinful murder and a denial of the sanctity of life (not to put words into her mouth), she has decided the case correctly. While such a viewpoint is certainly admirable and noble, it is not the proper basis for her job as a Supreme Court Justice to be an interpreter and arbiter of the Constitution.
If, on the other hand, she finds Roe to be an abuse of federal power, and contrary to the 14th Amendment, and bases her decision primarily on counts such as those, then she will certainly be the kind of Justice we want.
Harriet Miers certainly has her heart in the right place, but it remains to be seen if her head is competent for this position. The best thing we can do is wait until the hearings-- if she is able to run intellectual circles around the heads of the senators on constitutional law, she should certainly be confirmed. However, if it becomes clear during the procedures that she is unversed in these matters, then she should not be on the Court.
It's not a question if Harriet Miers has judicial experience (so what?), if she is a good lawyer (she seems to be), or if she is a conservative (I trust she is), but if she has the right kind of judicial sense and philosophy unique for the Supreme Court.
Yep. Plain as day. Consequently, it should be pretty simple for you to answer the following:
Does the fourth amendment protect from unreasonable search and seizure people, places, or personal effects? Must there be a seizure for the protections to be invoked, or does it permit a search without a seizure? Does it permit warrantless searches, or is a warrant required as a predicate to a search? When is a warrant required or not required? What constitutes a prohibited unreasonable search as opposed to a permitted reasonable search? Who is prohibited from conducting unreasonable searches (governmentally sanctioned law enforcement, private security officers, quasi-governmental entities such as homeowners associations, non-law-enforcement state employees such as welfare case workers, public school officials or employees, health inspectors, etc.)? Does it extend protection to rental properties, storage units, residential vehicles (such as RV's, motorhomes, travel trailers), non-residential vehicles, residential and non-residential offices or places of business, electronic devices (computers, PDA's, answering machines, cell phones), pedestrians at public events, student lockers, churches, automobile junkyards, public transportation, etc., etc.
Plain english, plain meaning.
Agreed 100%.
Did you write that correctly?
Did you mean: " . . . she has not decided the case correctly?"
Either way, enjoyed your post. Thanks.
I, for one hope that Meirs makes it. No way she would be worse that who she is replacing.
***
You have any proof to back up that statement?
ACK! 2nd paragraph should read "...she has decided the case INCORRECTLY".
There went my argument (and I even previewed)!
See post 71 for my retraction and clarification.
I trusted W to identify millions of ILLEGAL aliens in the country and enforce the LAW and remove them, especially after 9-11.
I trusted W to make energy independence a national priority, especially after 9-11 when most of our sources are from our enemies.
I tusted W to identify our enemies, declare war, and mobilize the country to victory, espceially after 9-11.
Having rightfully snubbed the UN to remove the Taliban and Saddam from power, I trusted W to aggressively continue the fight to other nations who support Islamo-facism, especially after 9-11.
I trusted W to get government spending under control, especially after the post 9-11 near recession.
I trusted W not expand the Federal Govt., but to make it more effective and efficient, especially after 9-11.
I trusted W to nominate known and qualified strict Constitutionalists to the SCOTUS, not his personal lawyer and friend.
Are you serious?? The points I brought up have been under discussion for the last 4 days at least. Enough links have been posted on each and some of them have their own threads. It is pretty obvious that you posted your talking points w/o even researching Miers' record or history. Unbelievable!
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
There it is! You can decide for yourself!
Why should he find answering your questions simple?
In the late 1990s, as a member of the advisory board for Southern Methodist University's law school, Ms. Miers pushed for the creation of an endowed lecture series in women's studies named for Louise B. Raggio, one of the first women to rise to prominence in the Texas legal community. A strong advocate for women, Ms. Raggio helped persuade state lawmakers to revise Texas laws to give women new rights over property and in the event of divorce.
Ms. Miers, whom President Bush announced on Monday as his choice to fill the Supreme Court seat being vacated by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, not only advocated for the lecture series, but also gave money and solicited donations to help get it off the ground.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/03/AR2005100300305.html
*In 1985, Miers was selected as the first woman to become president of the Dallas Bar Association.
* In 1992, she became the first woman elected president of the State Bar of Texas. Miers served as the president of the State Bar of Texas from 1992 to 1993.
* She played an active role in the American Bar Association. She was one of two candidates for the number two position at the ABA, chair of the House of Delegates, before withdrawing her candidacy to move to Washington to serve in the White House. Miers also served as the chair of the ABA's Commission on Multijurisdictional Practice.
On numerous occasions, the National Law Journal named her one of the nation's 100 most powerful attorneys and as one of the nation's top 50 women lawyers.
Miers also has been involved in local and statewide politics in Texas.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/10/7/175323/506
Far from beign a Federalist, Miers was VERY active in the American Bar Association, an organization scorned by the Federalists.
Miers served in the ABA House of Delegates, chaired the ABA Commission on Multijurisdictional Practice, was President Martha W. Barnett's Rules and Calendar Committee chair, served as co-chair of the ABA Section of Litigation's Business Torts Litigation Committee, was a longtime member of the ABA Consortium on Legal Services and the Public, and is a fellow of the American Bar Foundation.
In addition, Miers spent nine years on the Board of Editors of the ABA Journal, three of those years as Chair. At the time she joined the WH, Miers was on track to assume the Presidency of the ABA, having to actually pull out of a two candidate election for the number two post in the organization.
In fact, like Lewis Powell, her ABA leadership experience may well be the strongest credential she has for service on the Supreme Court.
But, as I said before, the Federalists are antagonistic to the ABA. Which makes the following quotes all the more important in understanding the intellectual conservatives opposition to Miers. Knight Ridder has reported that Miers was deposed in the early 1990s and in that testimony she stated:
She also said she "wouldn't belong to the Federalist Society" or other "politically charged" groups because they "seem to color your view one way or another."
Further James Pinkerton has reported:
An ex-White House lawyer told me that Miers was shocked to discover the lawyers in the White House counsel's office were Federalist Society types, all of them scornful of the ABA - her ABA. Consequently, the intellectual conservatives of the Federalist Society are pissed that one of their own didn't get the appointment. One of the Republicans strengths has been their old boy networking and promotion through organizations like the Federalist Society and the network of rightist think tanks. Miers' appointment is a slap in the face of this network.
Thus, we see Prof. Jim Lindgren, a man of emough influence that his blogging on Roberts was used by several Senators as questions, complaining on Volokh that:
I've read nothing intellectually substantial by Miers so far, but then I've just started working through the list. If she has any sharp analytical skills, they are not apparent in the pieces I've read. Given Miers' genuine success in practice, I suspect that she is a better advisor and negotiator than writer. One thing stands out: most of Miers' published writing that I've read is stimulated by her close ties to the ABA.
Of course, although it's bad enough for these Federalist Society types that all of their shining lights were passed over for someone outside their camp, it's even worse that she's a woman. How many times have we read quotes from the Federalist types that she's an "affirmative action" appointment?
And we see a host of right wing males using borderline (or over the border) sexist langauge to lambast her. Ramesh Ponnuru says: "Wearing heels is not an impediment to being a presidential crony in this administration!" Pat Buchanan says: "Her qualifications for the Supreme Court are non-existent . . . Were she not a friend of Bush, and female, she would never have even been considered." Ed Morrissey says: "Not only does Harriet Miers not look like the best candidate for the job, she doesn't even look like the best female candidate for the job."
For us Dems, we need to keep firmly in mind: Just because the Conservatives are having turf battles and succumbing to factionalism, with many conservatives opposing Miers, does not mean that Miers is deserving of Dem support. Sometimes the enemy of your enemy is your enemy.
Neither did I. Does that make my view of the role of Courts under the Constitution more like Rhenquist's or more like Ginsberg's?
Neither was a judge before being nominated.
I consider Thomas to be one of the best justices on the SC ever. But if the standards that Mier's critics demand had applied to him, he never would have made it there.
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.