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 ...
- bump -
There isn't much "more" at the article. I saw no statements by the TX Justices, just the quote from President Bush.
The exact same things could have been said about Justice Ginsberg.
A couple have voiced concerns, but only a couple. Most are keeping quiet until the hearings which is right.
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
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.
More Texans saying, "trust me".
"Uniquely" being the key word. What about her would be unique? Certainly nothing good.
"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?
The voice of Conservative Texas Supremes certainly gotta count for something. Would they back a left-leaner?
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?
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.
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.
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.
She is uniquely qualified in that no one nominated to the bench in the last century has had so few qualifications.
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*.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.