Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Texas Supreme Court Justices Back Miers
Fox News ^ | 10-17-2005 | AP

Posted on 10/17/2005 11:32:42 AM PDT by Reagan Man

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans hope to begin confirmation hearings on Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers (search) the week of November 7, officials said Monday as President Bush sought to bolster support for her troubled appointment. Officials in both parties said Republicans have proposed a schedule for Miers' confirmation process that calls for a vote in the full Senate before Thanksgiving. It was not clear whether Democrats would agree or seek changes.

"Harriet Miers is a uniquely qualified person to serve on the bench. She is smart, she is capable, she is a pioneer," the president said after meeting with the Texas judges. "She's been consistently ranked as one of the top 50 women lawyers in the United States. She has been a leader in the legal profession. She's impressed these folks. They know her well. They know that she'll bring excellence to the bench."

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: crony

1 posted on 10/17/2005 11:32:47 AM PDT by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man

- bump -
There isn't much "more" at the article. I saw no statements by the TX Justices, just the quote from President Bush.


2 posted on 10/17/2005 11:34:46 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
"She's been consistently ranked as one of the top 50 women lawyers in the United States. She has been a leader in the legal profession. She's impressed these folks. They know her well. They know that she'll bring excellence to the bench."

The exact same things could have been said about Justice Ginsberg.

3 posted on 10/17/2005 11:36:25 AM PDT by Parmenio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
Despite the conservative criticism, none of the Senate's 55 Republicans has yet to announce opposition to the appointment.

A couple have voiced concerns, but only a couple. Most are keeping quiet until the hearings which is right.

4 posted on 10/17/2005 11:37:12 AM PDT by Siena Dreaming
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man

See the volokh consipiracy on the "top 50" comment. She was rated as one of the top 50 most influential lawyers because of her connections to the President.

Being a top 50 most influential woman lawyer != Being the best lawyer or even being the top 50 best woman lawyers.

http://volokh.com/posts/1128789544.shtml


5 posted on 10/17/2005 11:38:02 AM PDT by tdewey10 (Extremely disappointed in the Miers nomination.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

I caught their meeting with Bush and their press conference. You had former Texas SCJ John Hill, former Texas justices James Baker and Cook, along with AG Greg Abbott. They all had positive things to say about Miers. I think this WH strategy will work better then what we've seen for the last two weeks. Allowing the angry right to get the upperhand has solved nothing.


6 posted on 10/17/2005 11:39:21 AM PDT by Reagan Man (Secure our borders;punish employers who hire illegals;stop all welfare to illegals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man

More Texans saying, "trust me".


7 posted on 10/17/2005 11:45:57 AM PDT by oblomov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
"Harriet Miers is a uniquely qualified person to serve on the bench

"Uniquely" being the key word. What about her would be unique? Certainly nothing good.

8 posted on 10/17/2005 11:46:59 AM PDT by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
Allowing the angry right to get the upperhand has solved nothing.

"Angry right" is an okay label too, but I was having so much fun being labeled as "from the dark side."

At any rate, we don't don't know if there is an upper hand here. The GOP is asserting that the angry right is a minority of cynical malcontents who don't vote GOP anyway. They represent the sexist, elitist, religious bigot factions of humanity.

'twill be an interesting play out. The angry right at least got to vent, that has to be worth something, eh?

9 posted on 10/17/2005 11:47:53 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
I suspect that these are highly conservative judges although I don't know for sure.

The voice of Conservative Texas Supremes certainly gotta count for something. Would they back a left-leaner?

10 posted on 10/17/2005 11:50:50 AM PDT by Siena Dreaming
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Siena Dreaming

Do you mean "left-leaning" from a political point of view or a judicial point of view? There is a big difference. Is judicial activism OK as long as it advances conservative goals?


11 posted on 10/17/2005 11:53:38 AM PDT by Parmenio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Parmenio

A good judge will be a constructionist. The lefties are far from that. If the The TX Supremes are backing Miers I would think they are recognizing solid judicial conservativism.


12 posted on 10/17/2005 11:58:00 AM PDT by Siena Dreaming
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
>>>>The GOP is asserting that the angry right is a minority of cynical malcontents who don't vote GOP anyway.

I've had a few run-ins with some cynical malcontents in recent days who had nothing good to say about Bush, Miers or myself for that matter. This anti Miers effort is being waged mainly by conservative pundits who do represent the minority opinion. Constructive criticism is fine. In this case, however, why not allow Miers her opportunity to speak out in the Senate Q&A session. This is America and we all have a right to be heard. Freedom of speech is great. Just what are you afraid of? You might like what you hear.

13 posted on 10/17/2005 11:58:08 AM PDT by Reagan Man (Secure our borders;punish employers who hire illegals;stop all welfare to illegals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Parmenio
She's been consistently ranked as one of the top 50 women lawyers in the United States.

Another misleading statement that the WH has been trumpeting too. She has been ranked as one of the top 50 most influential women lawyers, which is no surprise by virtue of her position alone. She has not been ranked one of the top 50 lawyers in terms of ability by an reputable publication.

14 posted on 10/17/2005 12:10:10 PM PDT by Texas Federalist (qualified to serve on the United States Supreme Court)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King
"Uniquely" being the key word. What about her would be unique? Certainly nothing good.

She is uniquely qualified in that no one nominated to the bench in the last century has had so few qualifications.

15 posted on 10/17/2005 12:11:58 PM PDT by Texas Federalist (qualified to serve on the United States Supreme Court)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: All

Well one of the Chief "Supremes" from Texas supporting her, John Hill, was a Democrat and accoring to his bio is a member of the "American College of Trial Lawyers, International Academy of Trial Lawyers, International Society of Barristers..." The other Chief recently taught at SMU where Miers went to school *shock*.





16 posted on 10/17/2005 12:18:05 PM PDT by monkapotamus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
In this case, however, why not allow Miers her opportunity to speak out in the Senate Q&A session. This is America and we all have a right to be heard. Freedom of speech is great. Just what are you afraid of? You might like what you hear.

She may well get a chance to speak. But I think the "job interview" is, by design, not going to illuminate her judicial philosophy. That's called the "Ginsberg Rule," or "hide your hand." The hearings will however illuminate her intelligence and ability to undergo an oral examination.

As for "this is America and everyone has a right to be heard," the reason I don't like this nomination is that the nominee has never spoken up, never taken a clear stand on any issue. Delivers mostly "can't we all jst get along" platitudes. And where we can infer that she might have taken a stand, or favored one side, the inference, in 100% of the cases, comes down on the liberal side of the scale. She could clear that up if she'd left some tracks.

I'm afraid of the Senate and the public taking on an important decision, without enough information to inform the decision. Sort of like "informed consent" in medicine, if you can draw the parallel. I don't know if I am "for" or "against" having the procedure until I know more about it's upside and downside.

17 posted on 10/17/2005 12:35:06 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
>>>>And where we can infer that she might have taken a stand, or favored one side, the inference, in 100% of the cases, comes down on the liberal side of the scale.

100%! Come on now. This is exactly the type of rhetoric from members of the anti Miers contingent, that drives so many of us bonkers. As a conservative, if I thought Miers was the hardcore liberal you make her out to be, I certainly wouldn't be leaning towards supporting her confirmation. The Senate hearing for Miers will make or break her nomination. You're not a happy camper over Bush`s choice of Miers and trying to appeal to the fairness factor seems to be an effort in futility.

18 posted on 10/17/2005 3:23:40 PM PDT by Reagan Man (Secure our borders;punish employers who hire illegals;stop all welfare to illegals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
100%! Come on now. This is exactly the type of rhetoric from members of the anti Miers contingent, that drives so many of us bonkers. As a conservative, if I thought Miers was the hardcore liberal you make her out to be, I certainly wouldn't be leaning towards supporting her confirmation.

Listen, I'm giving you my honest impression from the contents of her Texas Law Journal writing. I didn't say she was a flanming moonbat liberal. There is no evidence of that. There is not much evidence of strong leaning either way.

What I meant to convey was that of the piece I read, all of them seem more liberal than conservative. You know, the pap pep-talk you get froom HR? Not the "Get 'r done, men!" pep talk you get from the shop foreman (or whoever you think takes a stand).

Out of all the writings, most aare smack dab in the middle noncommital, on noncommital subjects. Based on the contents, if somebody asked me "is it neutral, a little liberal, a little conservative, etc., I would put all of them in the "a little bit liberal" camp becuase they like Kumbaya.

The data point doesn't have much value (like the greeting cards have little or no value) - so they don't give enough to base a decision on.

You're not a happy camper over Bush`s choice of Miers and trying to appeal to the fairness factor seems to be an effort in futility.

It is. I pointed that out. When one side has support based in trust, argument is futile because trust cannot be compromised. You have been assimilated.

19 posted on 10/17/2005 3:32:09 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
100%! Come on now. This is exactly the type of rhetoric from members of the anti Miers contingent, that drives so many of us bonkers. As a conservative, if I thought Miers was the hardcore liberal you make her out to be, I certainly wouldn't be leaning towards supporting her confirmation.

Oh. I just reread my original post, and think your shock at 100% is perhaps an overreaction. Just as example, if she wrote 20, and I reaad 20 (I think I read about 15), most of those are neutral. I didn't keep socre, but lets say 12 of 15 were neutral. ALl fo the others, all 3 of them, leaned to the left. 3 of 3 is 100%. That's what my original post says, but without assigning numerical examples to help the reader.

20 posted on 10/17/2005 3:34:42 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
Wasn't going to answer you again. After I thought about this sentence you posted to me, I changed my mind.

>>>>You have been assimilated.

You have a closed mind. And, you're deadwrong too.

21 posted on 10/17/2005 3:50:43 PM PDT by Reagan Man (Secure our borders;punish employers who hire illegals;stop all welfare to illegals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
Hey. It was joke. I don't get miffed for being called "from the dark side."

I understand your position is based on trust, and all I'm asking you to understand is that I have no way to sway anybody from a position of trust.

I post to you, personally, in general, because I know that for every poster here, there are 100 to 1,000 lurkers. This helps the process. I don't want to hurt your feelings. You have been a very cordial and civil debate partner. I apologist for evey word I said that hurt your feelings.

22 posted on 10/17/2005 3:57:52 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
>>>>I understand your position is based on trust...

If you mean trust in PresBush`s judgement exclusively, you'd be wrong. I'm not a BushBot or a Bush cheerleader either. I have strong disagreements with the President on several key issues. Bush spends like a liberal, he's seriously expanded the federal bureaucracy and has ignored the immigration issue.

Back to the topic.

Miers has a record in the legal profession that exceeds 30 years of experience. Her overall qualifications are pretty good. She was a managing partner in a large Texas law firm, headed up the Texas state bar association and was legal council to the most powerful man in the world. I think her resume speaks for itself. It's true that Miers hasn't much of a papertrail. Not being a judge can work against you in that regard.

William Rehnquist had never been a judge when Nixon nominated him to the SCOTUS. After moving to Arizona, Rehnquist became a GOP legal council, aka.political hack. He was legal council to Barry Goldwater`s 1964 campaign. When Nixon chose Rehnquist, he had been in private practice for about 20 years and in 1969 was appointed assistant US-AG.

I would have been overjoyed if Bush had picked Michael Luttig. Problem with nominating Luttig, or one of the other well known conservatives available, that it probably would have led to a RINO Senator like Spector, Collins, Chaffey or Snowe, or a mavarick like Hagel and McCain to vote against them. Bush had a tough decision to make and I for one will respect that decision.

I think you do yourself harm by keeping a closed mind on the Miers nomination. So be it.

23 posted on 10/17/2005 4:37:17 PM PDT by Reagan Man (Secure our borders;punish employers who hire illegals;stop all welfare to illegals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
I think you do yourself harm by keeping a closed mind on the Miers nomination.

To the extent I do, you are absolutely right. And I don't mind it at all when a person confronts me with a reasoned objection. Those are amenable to dialog and shifting of position. But "trust" is not amenable to shifting. That is an ON/OFF thing. No debating with it ;-)

We aren't as far apart as you think. COme alittle closer and I'll help you into the dark side ;-) (that ws a joke too) ... thanks again.

24 posted on 10/17/2005 4:49:08 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
Press Release from White House:

President Discusses Harriet Miers Nomination with Former Texas Supreme Court Justices

Among these Judges are likely those appointed to the Texas Court by Bush, and mindful of Federal appointment possibilities now.

25 posted on 10/17/2005 4:57:47 PM PDT by Plutarch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Plutarch

Among these Judges are likely those appointed to the Texas Court by Bush, and mindful of Federal appointment possibilities now.



I think of those in the picture only two were appointed by Bush to the Texas Supreme court.... Baker and Abbott who is now Tx AG. As the picture subscript notes they are all former justices so none are serving in that capacity now.


26 posted on 10/17/2005 5:14:17 PM PDT by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson