Posted on 10/14/2005 12:38:54 PM PDT by Theodore R.
Questions About Miers that Bush Needs to Answer by Phyllis Schlafly Posted Oct 14, 2005
If John G. Roberts' confirmation hearing is any guide, we won't learn anything from Harriet Miers' confirmation hearing. So here are some questions we would like President Bush to answer.
You said, "Trust me." But why should we trust you when experience proves we could not trust the judgment of President Reagan (who gave us Justices O'Connor and Kennedy) or President George H.W. Bush (who gave us Justice Souter)? Are you more trustworthy than Reagan or your father?
You said, "She's not going to change.... 20 years from now she'll be the same person, with the same philosophy, that she is today." Isn't that claim ridiculous after Miers already made a major change in her philosophy from Democrat (giving personal contributions in the 1980s (when she was age 43) to Al Gore, Lloyd Bentsen and the Democratic National Committee's campaign to elect Michael Dukakis), to Republican in the 1990s (contributing to George W. Bush and others)?
Do you understand why Bush supporters are upset that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (who voted against Chief Justice Roberts) said he recommended her, while you rejected the recommendations of people who supported you?
Since your supporters voted for you to change the direction of the Supreme Court away from activism and toward constitutionalism, do you understand their sense of betrayal that your two appointments have failed to do that: Roberts for Rehnquist was a non-change, and Miers for O'Connor can reasonably be expected to be another non-change?
When President Clinton appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg, it was clear from her paper trail that she was a radical feminist who would surely vote to keep abortion legal. Why do you insult your supporters who expected you to give us a justice who would be the ideological opposite of Ginsburg?
In presenting Miers as the most qualified person for this Supreme Court appointment, is there any evidence to convince us that she is more qualified than Judges Edith Jones, Janice Rogers Brown, or Priscilla Owen?
Since many prominent pro-choice officials belong to churches that are anti-abortion, such as John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, and Condoleezza Rice, why should we believe Miers is pro-life because that's the position of the church she attends?
And why are Miers' advocates constantly talking about her religion anyway? Is her religion a qualification for office?
Since your wife, your mother, and all the women you have appointed to high office (such as Condoleezza Rice and RNC Co-Chairman Jo Ann Davidson) oppose overturning Roe v. Wade, how can we assume Miers will be any different?
Do you really think that serving on the Texas Lottery Commission helps the resume of a Supreme Court nominee?
Miers is a corporate attorney who served on the Dallas City Council as a representative of the business community. Can you provide any evidence that she or the business community cares about the social issues that conservatives care about such as the definition of marriage, the Pledge of Allegiance, the Ten Commandments, the Boy Scouts, abortion, euthanasia, or the sovereignty issues?
Why do you tout Miers' activity in the American Bar Association when most conservatives regard ABA influence as a negative rather than a positive?
Do you really think that pro-lifers will be convinced that Miers is pro-life because in 1989 she bought a $150 ticket to a dinner which 30 other Dallas politicians attended in order to be introduced?
Since Miers hasn't written anything memorable or important by age 60, how can we assume she has the capability to write Supreme Court opinions? Is there any constitutional or conservative principle on which Miers ever took a stand?
Since Souter, after one pro-life vote in his first term on the Court, was ridiculed by the press as "a black hole" from which no opinions emerged, then "grew" left to avoid the scorn of the media, aren't you concerned that Miers (who has never written anything on constitutional issues) would suffer the same fate?
Since O'Connor demonstrated her lack of judicial philosophy by unpredictably switching back and forth, so that the media praised her as the most powerful woman in America, aren't you concerned that Miers' lack of judicial philosophy would take her down the same path?
Why do you offend traditional women by choosing Miers, who helped create and raise funds for a radical feminist lecture series at Southern Methodist Law School that featured as speakers Gloria Steinem, Patricia Schroeder, Susan Faludi, and Ann Richards? What role did Miers play in White House pro-feminist policies about Title IX and women in combat?
Since Miers' chief qualification for high office is that she is your lawyer, aren't you worried about unfortunate parallels between her and Lyndon B. Johnson's appointment of his personal lawyer, Abe Fortas?
Mrs. Schlafly is the author of the new book The Supremacists: The Tyranny of Judges and How to Stop It (Spence Publishing Co).
Phyllis is kind of late getting on the Grumble Train. This sounds really tired.
Any stats on the chances of seeing the light (becoming a conservative) and deciding to go back to the darkness (liberalism)? I think that once you "embrace" conservatism, it's harder to go back to being a lefty than vice versa.
'won't really know much of anything for a couple of years at leas"
Yeah, another persuasive argument for her nomination.
You beat me to it!
You missed my point. I said more hearts and minds needed to be changed first. And no, I don't think voters are ready at 'any point in time' to vote on any issue. That's not elitist, that's common sense.
The anti's might be right.. considering the representatives they(GOP) elect.. Most ARE RINOs.. Very few elected republican representatives are for tearing the federal government down to its roots.. <<- a republican.. all else are RINOs..
I would wildly speculate that %40 or more of the GOP is RINO. But what choice have the voters had?
It is not an argument at all merely the statement of a fact. And that fact applies to ALL appointees including Clarence Thomas who was attacked in the same way as Mier which the same arguments that he "could not be the best candidate" blah, blah, blah.
You haven't the acumen to discern anothers argument. You can't even make your own.
Your comments make no sense. VOTERS elect people not the GOP. And if the majority of the party are "rinos" then there is no such thing as "rinos"
Only lunatics are for "tearing the federal government down to its roots" as if that nonsense had any meaning anyway.
Not like they even know what those roots are anyway or understand the Constitution which was set up to create that government.
Was Thomas questioned (attacked??) about aff. action or something? I cannot recall.
You said that somehow it is "not time" to overturn Roe (shorthand expression there, I think you know what I mean). How can it possibly be preincipled to decide overturning as a matter of timing? Dred Scott - "Oh the people aren't ready to overturn that, yet."
Do you really think "timing" is a relevant criteria for reaching conclusion on Constitutional matters? And don't go all sophist on me and get into there has to be a case and all that. I know that. But if a case came, shoudl the court say, "Well, Roe was incorrectly decided, but it's just not time, yet, to correct the error."
And as for the effect of Roe (shorthand again), you object to returning the issue to the people "just now, because ... [ you insert reason here. I am not going to put words in your mouth on this reason ]".
I say the people are already capable of being in charge of their own affairs, and I think it is elitist to say that the people need to have their options in this regard held in check by 9 men in black.
Your way might reflect some "common sense," but whatever "common" it is, I reject it.
I take the approach of the dissent in Planned Parenthood. ROe and Planned Parenthood are badly decided law. They were at the time, they are now, and they should be overturned at the earliest possible opportunity. Just on legal grounds, and restoring debate and control of the issue to the people.
My post was not to you so you could have saved your self the trouble of responding.
Like I said....I didn't feel like it, so lets move on
Calling a statement of fact an argument indicates you have no knowledge of logic. We can add that to the other areas of which you seem to have no knowledge: history, politics.
If you want to read what a conservative pundit who is for the Miers nomination is saying, I would recommend Hugh.
Well, I wasn't as sure at first either. The day of Roberts' swearing in at the Supreme Court, her name was announced. I didn't even know who she was! But I also hadn't had a dog in the fight. Remember when it was clear Roberts would be confirmed and everyone was looking forward to the next pick? A bunch of people here were campaigning for this or that person! No doubt they all were well qualified (I'd probably look like an idiot in their presence.:), but this was the president's pick to make. I don't think he meant to offend anyone on the right, especially considering the relatively poor quality of some rebuttals from them ("Sexism"? That charge was blown out of the water by the myriad of people who were hoping for either Owen or Brown to be nominated). If Bush would have forseen the outcry, I doubt he would have named Miers.
Just my $.02.
There was great outrage that such a young man was nominated with so little experience etc. same as Miers. Even most conservatives had the same beliefs.
He was defended by Sanford, Hatch, Simpson and Spector in the Senate when the RATs attacked.
Just because RINOs (moderates) have acquired increasing power in the party leadership since the 70's doesn't mean they don't exist. From your ignorant statement, I take it that you are not a strong conservative.
"Calling a statement of fact an argument indicates you have no knowledge of logic. We can add that to the other areas of which you seem to have no knowledge: history, politics."
Yes, even Bush supporters, I'm sure are bowled over by your weighty argumentation and refutation. Please, I beg all of you to pay attention to the aptly named "justshutupandtakeit up the shoot" and be enlightened by the circular reasoning and strawmen worthy of 6th grade debate class.
"They make up their mind in advance that Miers is the best choice, then cry about others making up their mind in advance that she is not.
They whine about the attacks on Miers, then launch attacks themselves against those who disagree.
They scream about how their voices should be heard, yet whine when other voices with opinions differing from their own are heard. " ...from Joklahoma
Indeed. Their strawmen arguments are worthy of what we expect from Liberal Democrats. They certainly want to cling to power for the sake of power...if only principle were involved.
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.