President Questioned for Supreme Court pick Harriet Miers (Schlafly's Calm, Rational Questions)

TownHall.com ^ | 10/18/2005 | Phyllis Schlafly

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

If U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice 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 George W. 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 Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony M. Kennedy) or President George H.W. Bush (who gave us Justice David H. Souter)? Are you more trustworthy than Reagan or your father?

You said, "She's not going to change. ... Twenty 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 former Vice President Al Gore, former U.S. Sen. 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 your current supporters are upset that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., (who voted against the confirmation of Roberts) said he recommended her, while you rejected the recommendations of people who supported you?

Because 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 William Jefferson Clinton appointed Justice 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, Mr. President, 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?

Because many prominent pro-choice officials belong to churches that are pro-life, such as Reid, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., and Secretary of State 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?

Because your wife, your mother and all the women you have appointed to high office - such as Rice and Republican National Committee 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 at which 30 other Dallas politicians attended in order to be introduced?

Because 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?

Because Souter, after one pro-life vote in his first term on the Supreme 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, might 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 might 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 feminists Gloria Steinem and Susan Faludi, former U.S. Rep. Patricia Schroeder, D-Ore., and former Democratic Texas Gov. Ann Richards? What role did Miers play in White House pro-feminist policies about Title IX and women in combat?

Because Miers' chief qualification for high office is that she is your lawyer, aren't you worried about unfortunate parallels between her and President Lyndon B. Johnson's appointment of his personal lawyer, Abe Fortas?

[drlevy88]

Phyllis should ask 20 or so RINOs in the Senate: "Why aren't you Democrats?" It would make as much sense as this rant.

[DB]

I think her points are very well made.

I'd rather fight and lose than surrender before even trying.

And I've been patiently waiting for more information about Miers. Very little has helped put her in a better light so far...

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Thankfully, for the sake of rational discourse between actual adults, everywhere: attempting to dodge a brace of (doubtless) embarrassing and/or inconvenient questions by squeaking "rant" doesn't actually transform said queries into rants.

[Knitebane]

Another sexist attack on Ms. Meiers!

Er...

Um...

Nevermind.

[Wormwood]

Whoever this "Schlafly" character is, she needs to go back to DU and STFU!

/bushbot

[billclintonwillrotinhell]

The hearings for Miers should be allowed to last until all U.S. Senators on the committee have a chance to ask any and all questions they so desire. I might even open up questioning to the entire Senate for this nominee. Even if the hearings last until spring, at least Sandra Day O'Connor is still willing to serve her country until this mess is all sorted out.

[billclintonwillrotinhell]

LOL

[counterpunch]

This is more obliterating of Miers than George Will's last column.
I didn't think I could get any more anti-Miers until I read this piece.

[John Valentine]

Surely you jest.

[johnny7]

It would make as much sense as this rant.

First off, it's not a rant... and second... it would be a farce to see this internal 'squabble' played out in confirmation hearings.

Bush can only sour things further by staying with Miers... pull her NOW.

[Wormwood]

Surely you jest.

I jest.

/and don't call me Shirly.

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

But I like M&M's
/bot-mode

[tomnbeverly]

OK, I think the President is a smart man and has many smart political thinkers as his advisers. Now why would he nominate Miers?

1. He knows 1/2 his base support will not like it but he believes in her and he also knows if she wins nomination she will be a good conservative justice he also knows that the Dems will see her as a compromise and a good nomination and will not fillabuster her. If she does not pass muster with the judiciary committe it won't be the Presidents fault and will allow him to submit another choice this second choice will most likely be someone like Edith Jones or Janice Rogers Brown. It then becomes harder for the Dems to block this second nominee because the first was Miers.

2. The bottom line is the Republicans are in control of the appointment either way.

Pretty smart if you ask me.

[FastCoyote]

"Whoever this "Schlafly" character is, she needs to go back to DU and STFU!"

It's just more Elitist crap from people who have done nothing for the conservative movement over the last fifty years.

[Mount Athos]

Now why would he nominate Miers?

Okay, you have to admit your theory was pretty much wild speculation, which is totally acceptable to do here. I'll try my own wild speculation, I hope this isn't too out of line.

Why did Bush nominate Miers?

Laura Bush announces to the American public that she will pressure the president to discriminate against men in the selection process. Bush listens, and promptly removes all men from the selection list, regardless of merit.

Laura Bush figures if it is okay to influence the president to discriminate on the basis of sex, why not take the logic further and get much more involved in the selection? Laura says she wants the candidate to be an evangelical SMU grad, just like she is, discriminating in favor of these things, and choosing someone familiar. Laura Bush has a private dinner with Miers (this bit actually happened just before her nomination). Pow, Miers is moved to the head of the list, and the selection "process" is over in a snap. Andrew Card says nothing because he is happy to move her out of the White House.

A huge pool of candidates with a documented history of a conservative judicial philosophy, is bypassed in favor of a candidate conspiciously lacking in it. Bush campaigns against affirmative action, but nominates a candidate forcefully for it (as recently as the Michigan supreme court case). Her sex and religion are loudly touted as credentials for Supreme Court justice. Miers is affirmative action personified -- nominated because of discrimination, and strongly in favor of it. Harry Reid's #1 choice, an abomination of a nomination.

[publiusF27]

If U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts' confirmation hearing is any guide, we won't learn anything from Harriet Miers' confirmation hearing.

That first sentence from Schlafly is not true. I learned during Roberts' hearings that he has not checked up on the status of important 2nd amendment cases, and the existing conflict between the circuits, this year. He was unaware that the Silviera vs Lockyer case had been sent to the Supreme Court, and that they refused to hear it.

Roberts was also questioned about the Kelo decision, and seemed more sympathetic to the majority ruling than to the view of O'Connor, whose opinion was joined by Rhenquist.

I wasn't particularly happy to learn that we had a Chief Justice nominee who was indifferent toward the 2nd amendment and who agreed with the left that legislators alone should decide what is public use. But I did learn those things from his hearings.

[Bellflower]

Pretty smart if you ask me.

I think it is pretty stupid to actually think this woman would vote to some day overturn Roe vs Wade. We have absolutely Nothing to go by to assume such a thing. This appointment is far too important to simply hope she would be a true conservative judge voting traditional values and a strict constitutionalist. In all honesty I say that you and many other naive conservatives are far too gullible. And also not thinking this through. Bravo for Phyllis Schlafly.

[arthurus]

. The bottom line is the Republicans are in control of the appointment either way.

I hope that's how it is working.

On the face of it this is a very bad apointment and I have been conflicted much by it.

On the other hand, W has rendered me aghast in the past and about the time I have decided he is his old man redux, the situation changed, or rather, it turned out to be quite other than the rapidly decaying thing it seemed. The Democrats and MSM that thought they had W and us by the throat and were grinning and shouting in triumph as they prepared to make the final squeeze found that they had a handful of straw and and W was on a higher stage in a fresh suit and his audience was applauding him.

Perhaps that is what is happening this time but the waiting to see is an evil thing.

Bush-I had the same proclivity to hang us in anxious suspense as he put off using the hammer we knew he had until at the last moment he quietly put his own blindfold on and took the bullets.

Knowing that W is GHWB's son makes the suspense worse because I keep wondering if this is the time that WII shows that he is WI's true son.

[geedee]

Thankfully, for the sake of rational discourse between actual adults, everywhere: attempting to dodge a brace of (doubtless) embarrassing and/or inconvenient questions by squeaking "rant" doesn't actually transform said queries into rants.

Kent, it's much, much too early in the morning for you to be making so much sense. LOL. Better to save such sage reasoning for when your fellow FReepers have had their morning constitutional, their first doses of java, and have finally pried their top eyelids from their bottom ones.

You obviously don't know the unofficial Official rule of FReeperism . . . don't ever try to debate using common sense before 9:00 AM CST. Better to try the ranting emotional angle before the official "start-time" for Adult FReepers to join the fray.

But . . . in spite of your timing problems . . . good job anyway and I agree with you 100%.

[alnick]

Rational? You call "why should we trust you when someone else made mistakes" rational? Especially given this president's exellent track record on judicial nominees.

You call "Why should we accept Miers when you have Laura, Rice, and your mother in your life" rational?

[doc11355]

"Whoever this "Schlafly" character is, she needs to go back to DU and STFU!" It's just more Elitist crap from people who have done nothing for the conservative movement over the last fifty years.

I hope both of you are trading sarcasm, because, if you're not, your ignorance of the history of the Conservative Movement and the contributions of Phyllis Shalfly is staggering.

[GarySpFc]

I think it is pretty stupid to actually think this woman would vote to some day overturn Roe vs Wade. We have absolutely Nothing to go by to assume such a thing. This appointment is far too important to simply hope she would be a true conservative judge voting traditional values and a strict constitutionalist. In all honesty I say that you and many other naive conservatives are far too gullible. And also not thinking this through. Bravo for Phyllis Schlafly.

The evidence that Miers would vote pro-life is there if you will take off your blinders. I served as vice-president of a major pro-life organization for many years. I also am responsible for updates to two major Bible translations to reflect a pro-life view. Don't you think I understand what is at stake with this seat to SCOTUS? You might want to rethink your position prior to throwing out the gullible tag.

[kitkat]

From The Washington Times:

Phyllis Schlafly: "...and then, in a stunning upset, led the forces that defeated the Equal Rights Amendment (NRA)."

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20051007-120157-1091r.htm

She is a Republican, conservative, and a brilliant woman who fights against women being forced out of the home.

[rollo tomasi]

Pres. Bush was pretty smart and "political" when he signed the CFR bill (Thinking the Supreme Court would kill it), yes?

Or did Bush like the Bill (He signed it) and played conservatives for fools yet again.

Don't jump to conclusions just yet.

[George W. Bush]

Because your wife, your mother and all the women you have appointed to high office - such as Rice and Republican National Committee Co-Chairman Jo Ann Davidson - oppose overturning Roe v. Wade, how can we assume Miers will be any different?

Schlafly has an excellent point here. Why is Laura so enthusiastic about Miers if she really believes Miers will strike down Roe?

I notice that Concerned Women for America is asking a similar set of sharp questions. So Phyllis isn't alone in asking. Eagle Forum and CWA are the two big conservative/Christian women's groups with national influence.

[S.O.L.]

It seems that "rant" has been defined to mean any well-stated, common sense opposition to the Miers nomination.

[Mr. Bird]

The politics of abortion spawned a judicial religion that keeps bending debate in unnecessary ways. There is no need to interpret a nominee's church affiliation or history of donations to determine any potential decision on Roe.

The profile of a nominee likely to overturn Roe is that of a learned, principled legal mind willfully ignorant of public opinion. No honest legal scholar can state that Roe is anything other than a horrific example of judicial insanity. It has nothing to do with morality, it is law made from whole cloth.

[.cnI redruM]

>>>>>Miers is affirmative action personified -- nominated because of discrimination, and strongly in favor of it.


She needs to be return forthwith to the private sector because of that.

[Dave S]

Scafly and calm reasonable in the same sentence. An oxymoron.

[Bellflower]

The evidence that Miers would vote pro-life is there if you will take off your blinders.

OK given the evidence which must be solid what is it? It needs to be good and totally convincing. Also, just because you served as a vice president for a pro-life group and did some bible translation does nothing to set my mind at ease. If this nominee's main qualifications are that she is suppose to be a Christian and President Bush's lawyer that is not good enough for me. We simply must be positive on this one. This lady has been both Liberal and Conservative. She goes to church yet her past record is not that of a conservative Bible believing Christian. Once again just what is suppose to be the evidence of her being pro-life, pro-family and a solid constitutionalist? President Bush's Christian conservative base worked hard to get him in office both terms for such a time as this. I hope and pray this candidate steps down and the President appoints someone we can be confident about.

[Christian4Bush]

bttt

[goldstategop]

It sounds a lot like Abe Fortas. And Miers looks likely to suffer the same fate. Phyllis Schafly raised good questions about Miers' fitness to serve on the SCOTUS. We'll hear the Bushbots shouting her down as a traitor just like they've shouted down Ann Coulter and other conservatives who've dared to make waves. The more we hear about the President's nominee, the less people like her. One sure sign of a doomed nomination is the constantly changing rationales for your nominee. The White House needs to pull the plug before this divides conservatives even more.

("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")

[safisoft]

Phyllis should ask 20 or so RINOs in the Senate: "Why aren't you Democrats?" It would make as much sense as this rant.

Good point. While she is at it, add this to the bottom of her questions:

Mr. President, why aren't you a Democrat?

The fact is, in the past 6 months Bush has started acting very much like the RINOs in the Senate.

Every time people bring up the "weakness of the Senate" as a reason why Bush had to nominate Miers, you only strengthen the argument that Bush is either weak, or just like them.

[I8NY]

ROFL! A little Florida sunshine for my morning.

[I8NY]

I had missed this in the Roberts hearings (liked most of his answers, but couldn't stand those bug eyes). Didn't realize that Roberts was a Keloid.

[I8NY]

" I hope both of you are trading sarcasm"

I think that's a given, Doc!

[Sarah]

'Because your wife, your mother and all the women you have appointed to high office - such as Rice and Republican National Committee Co-Chairman Jo Ann Davidson - oppose overturning Roe v. Wade, how can we assume Miers will be any different?

Schlafly has an excellent point here. Why is Laura so enthusiastic about Miers if she really believes Miers will strike down Roe?

I notice that Concerned Women for America is asking a similar set of sharp questions. So Phyllis isn't alone in asking. Eagle Forum and CWA are the two big conservative/Christian women's groups with national influence.'
_________________________

Even Worse! Laura is probably pro-choice. Don't you remember her coy remarks in the early campaign?

[I8NY]

"Scafly and calm reasonable in the same sentence. An oxymoron."

Phyllis _Schlafly_ can be strident at times, but "calm and reasonable" is an accurate description of this piece. A little respect is in order for someone of her consistency, determination and character.

[expat_panama]

Because Miers hasn't written anything memorable or important by age 60, how can we assume she has the capability to write Supreme Court opinions?

Actually, she managed the editorials for the Texas bar for several years.  She wrote jumbled incomprehensible contradictory platitudes that none of the Miers people want us to notice.

[George W. Bush]

Laura is probably pro-choice. Don't you remember her coy remarks in the early campaign?

I don't think she was very coy about it. Neither was Rice. Or Powell. And George, Senior and Barbara are well-known on the issue, being on Planned Barrenhood boards and leading the pro-choice wing of the GOP until his 15-minute conversion with Reagan when he became VP. After you lead the pro-abort charge and work to fund and subsidize the abortion industry, you just can't be too convincingly pro-life. And the current Co-Chair at the GOP is a pro-choicer.

His wife is obviously important to him and his mother is widely considered to be closest to him in his immediate family. Do we really think he will just ignore them? It's a little hard to imagine.

[Paulus Invictus]

Shirly Ujezct was the pen name I used in letters to the editors of the local leftist rag when I wanted to criticize the local pols. It worked. They never got the joke.

[publiusF27]

KOHL: Many people, including a majority, I believe, of people in my state, as well as myself, were quite disturbed by this ruling which appears to place much private property at risk by greatly expanding the eminent domain powers of local government.

We discussed this when you were in my office, and you told me that you were, quote, "surprised," by the decision. So could you expand on it a bit this afternoon and explain why you were surprised?

ROBERTS: I did tell you that was my initial reaction. I remember hearing about the decision driving, actually, back from a judicial conference with another judge.

And we all learn in law school the first, one of the first cases you study is called Calder against Bull. It has a basic proposition: The government can't take property from A and give it to B.

When I read the decision, I understood what the majority's position was: the difficulty of drawing a line between things that are obviously public use like a railroad, a road, things that are traditionally the subject of the exercise of eminent domain, and other activities that are not as clearly within that range.

Of course, Justice O'Connor in her dissent thought the line could be drawn between whether it was available to the public or not, and that certainly was available. The majority did say that it was not rule on the starkest example, in other words just determining to take the property from A to B because you think B could make better use of it.

The issue arose, as you noted in your question, in the context of an urban renewal redevelopment project, and that may be limited to that context or may not.

I do know there's been extensive legislative reaction to the decision. I know a number of states have passed laws already saying we do not authorize the use of the power of eminent domain to take for a use that's going to be from one private owner to another. And that's certainly an appropriate reaction to a court's decision in this area.

What the court is saying, what the majority is saying, is because of the difficulty of drawing a line, this issue is really left up to the legislature. And if the legislature wants to draw the line in a particular place, it has that authority.

But it certainly is a decision that was closely divided, 5-4, and it has gotten a lot of legislative reaction.

The point I would only make is perhaps it's a good example of the fact that legislators have a responsibility to protect the rights of the people just as much as courts.

And one way they can protect the rights of the people in this area, if they think it appropriate, is to restrict themselves in saying, we will not use the imminent domain power to the broadest extent that the Supreme Court has said we are authorized to do.
*******

---

*******
Not a ringing endorsement of the minority, but sounds to me more sympathetic to that view than the "available" view of O'Connor. Legislators get to decide whether something is public use if they want, but we still have a government of limited powers because, if they choose, they CAN limit their own powers! Wow! How do you repeat that nonsense with a straight face?

[publiusF27]

Oops! I meant not a ringing endorsement of the majority.

Sloppy writing. DQ me for the SCOTUS. ;-)

[SteveH]

How Do We Know Miers is Pro-Roe?

[adam_az]

"I wasn't particularly happy to learn that we had a Chief Justice nominee who was indifferent toward the 2nd amendment and who agreed with the left that legislators alone should decide what is public use. But I did learn those things from his hearings."

I am still not convinced about Roberts. I don't think he'll turn out as well as many seem to think.

[I8NY]

Thanks for cluing me in. What makes this case worse for me, being from CT, is knowing that the people involved are a bunch of crooks and New London has a fundamentally corrupt and dysfunctional city government. I think it's required of the courts to do a little digging (you don't have to do much in this case) to determine that. So Roberts trying to limit the precedent to this case only doesn't reassure me one bit.

[wolf24]

"/and don't call me Shirly."

-A Supreme Court Justice? What is it?

-Its a person who wears a black robe, but that's not important right now.

[FastCoyote]

"I hope both of you are trading sarcasm, because, if you're not, your ignorance of the history of the Conservative Movement and the contributions of Phyllis Shalfly is staggering."

Calm your fluttering heart doc, it's just sarcasm of the dripping kind.

[Gondring]

Schlafly defeated the ERA, not the NRA. :-)