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).
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=9684
Here is the link.
Most of these questions have been answered by those supporting the Miers nomination.
UM NO, you have this EXACTLY backwards. The Pres picks, the Senate consents. If the "Conservative" pundits want to interject themselves into this THEY have to explain to US why we should listen to them over the people WE picked to represent us. Bush has NO questions to answer. The Conservative PUNDITS need to explain to us WHY we should pay ANY attention to their temper tantrum. So far they have FAILED to make any case beyond "Whaaaa, she is NOT who WE want". Too bad. We are a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy, you self appointed critics have NO role in this.
"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?"
So, how long had O'Connor, Kennedy and Soutr worked directly with Presidents Reagan and Bush41?
ping
Make up your mind Phylis! Either YOU know all about her and Bush doesn't need to answer any of you questions, or you DON'T KNOW anything about her and are just ignorantly blathering by making statements like the one above. Which is it?
Very good questions.
Bush didn't get himself elected. Why spit in the face of those who gave him the power to nominate? Besides, who will you bow to 3 years from now? He's just a man you know.
Exactly. I used to respect this person but I don't anymore. This is nothing more than DISINGENIOUS grandstanding.
Good God! How many 'conservatives' are going to shamefully exploit this situation to get either their 15 minutes in the spotlight or grandstand?
A liberal colleague sent me this:
http://www.cronyjobs.com/
Kinda funny until you realize, this is how they regard us.
This is the most disingenuous argument of all, raising the past history of others to predict the end result, then asking Bush to prove a negative (I will not be duped as they were).
Agreed, though some questions are a bit weak. Have you read our FreepThread on "In Her Own Words?"
Statistically speaking Miers will probably be dead in 20 years. Again, please prove a negative.
In case you missed last night's Brit Hume show on Fox, Fred Barnes--a Miers supporter--hinted that she might have a small weak spot. This is how NRO summarized Barnes' remarks:
"On Brit Hume's show last night, Fred Barnes announced that Miers might have trouble during her hearings, but only if senators set out to embarrass her by asking her about "the third amendment," "the seventh amendment," and other, lesser-known aspects of the Constitution. Think about that for a moment. I mean, really. Just think about it. The third and seventh amendment are parts of the Bill of Rights. Asking Ms. Miers to demonstrate at least rudimentary knowledge of the Bill of Rights would represent an unfair and hostile action? This is what the Miers nomination is doing to us."
I will bow to no one. I will elect people who will put people on the courts who will strcitly interpret the Constitution, despite what those desperate for media attention might want.
Great post! Absolutely true.
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.