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

Skip to comments.

What Went Wrong - Lessons the White House should learn from the Miers debacle.
OpinionJournal.com ^ | October 24, 2005 | John Fund

Posted on 10/23/2005 9:15:28 PM PDT by gpapa

Monday, October 24, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

President Bush has returned from a weekend in Camp David, where much of the discussion centered on the beleaguered nomination of Harriet Miers. While the president is determined to press forward, the prognosis he received was grim. Her visits with senators have gone poorly. Her written answers to questions from the Senate were sent back as if they were incomplete homework. The nominee herself has stumbled frequently in the tutorials in which government lawyers are grilling her in preparation for her Nov. 7 hearings.

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


TOPICS: Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: betrayingthebase; bushsquagmier; cronypick; harrietmiers; johnfund; kerik; lessons; miers; scotus; whitehouse
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-85 next last

1 posted on 10/23/2005 9:15:29 PM PDT by gpapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: gpapa
Great, another Harriet Miers thread...
2 posted on 10/23/2005 9:16:30 PM PDT by decal (Mother Nature and Real Life are conservatives; the Progs have never figured this out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

The lesson of this and Mike Brown-gate is to appoint the best man or woman for every job, not just your buddies.


3 posted on 10/23/2005 9:19:31 PM PDT by SmoothTalker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Stellar Dendrite; Do not dub me shapka broham; counterpunch

BUMP


4 posted on 10/23/2005 9:24:33 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist (Harmful or Fatal if Swallowed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TAdams8591; Pharmboy; Das Outsider; meema; Texas Federalist; Rodney King; ARealMothersSonForever; ..

Know-nothing john fund alert...


5 posted on 10/23/2005 9:24:54 PM PDT by flashbunny (What is more important: Loyalty to principles, or loyalty to personalities?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist; decal; gpapa; flashbunny
Mr. Rath didn't return my calls, and local sources say he is laying low now that reporters have uncovered his key role in pushing the nomination of David Souter in 1990. "It was Rath and [then-Sen. Warren] Rudman who convinced [then White House chief of staff] John Sununu to back Souter," recalls Gordon Humphrey, a former U.S. senator from the Granite State who at the time supported Judge Souter as a member of the Judiciary Committee. The profound disappointment conservatives experienced when Justice Souter, another stealth nominee, veered left is a major reason for the resistance to Harriet Miers.

Another reason for conservative suspicion is that it was Mr. Card, a former moderate Massachusetts state legislator, who pushed the Miers choice. "This is something that Andy and the president cooked up," a White House adviser told Time magazine. "Andy knew it would appeal to the president because he loves appointing his own people and being supersecret and stealthy about it." Conservatives still recall that in the White House of the first President Bush, Mr. Card was deputy chief of staff to Mr. Sununu, the prime backer of Judge Souter. Mr. Card told me on Friday that "it would be a complete exaggeration to say I played a role in the Souter selection. I merely supported his nomination as I did all presidential appointments."

Ed Rollins, the GOP consultant who at the time headed the House Republican Campaign Committee and who was Mr. Card's boss in the Reagan White House, remembers it differently. "Of course Andy played a role," he told me. "He was Sununu's top aide." Two other aides who served with Mr. Card in the White House told me he was an enthusiastic backer of the Souter selection. "Now that he's brought us Miers we worry that 15 years later Andy is playing the role of a Serial Souterizer," one said.

6 posted on 10/23/2005 9:29:28 PM PDT by Do not dub me shapka broham ("We don't want a Supreme Court justice just like George W. Bush. We can do better.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: gpapa
Mr. Rath didn't return my calls, and local sources say he is laying low now that reporters have uncovered his key role in pushing the nomination of David Souter in 1990. "It was Rath and [then-Sen. Warren] Rudman who convinced [then White House chief of staff] John Sununu to back Souter," recalls Gordon Humphrey, a former U.S. senator from the Granite State who at the time supported Judge Souter as a member of the Judiciary Committee.......

Another reason for conservative suspicion is that it was Mr. Card, a former moderate Massachusetts state legislator, who pushed the Miers choice. "This is something that Andy and the president cooked up," a White House adviser told Time magazine. "Andy knew it would appeal to the president because he loves appointing his own people and being supersecret and stealthy about it." Conservatives still recall that in the White House of the first President Bush, Mr. Card was deputy chief of staff to Mr. Sununu, the prime backer of Judge Souter. Mr. Card told me on Friday that "it would be a complete exaggeration to say I played a role in the Souter selection. I merely supported his nomination as I did all presidential appointments."

Ed Rollins, the GOP consultant who at the time headed the House Republican Campaign Committee and who was Mr. Card's boss in the Reagan White House, remembers it differently. "Of course Andy played a role," he told me. "He was Sununu's top aide." Two other aides who served with Mr. Card in the White House told me he was an enthusiastic backer of the Souter selection. "Now that he's brought us Miers we worry that 15 years later Andy is playing the role of a Serial Souterizer," one said.

Wonderful. The one who pushed Souter is sent to arm twist conservative Senators, and now a new detail I was unaware of.... Mr. Card was deputy chief of staff to Mr. Sununu. It just keeps getting better.

7 posted on 10/23/2005 9:30:40 PM PDT by Soul Seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham

"Intimidation and arm-twisting. Many longtime supporters of President Bush have been startled to get phone calls from allies of the president strongly implying that a failure to support Ms. Miers will be unhealthy to their political future. "The message in Texas is, if you aren't for this nominee, you are against the president," one conservative leader in that state told me. The pressure has led to more resentment than results."

Amazing who the president will and won't lean on:

Will lean on / attack:

1. Conservative politicians
2. Conservative media / pundits
3. Conservative Bloggers

Will not lean on / attack

1. RINOs
2. Democrats
3. The mainstream media.

What's that "he values loyalty" thing I keep hearing about?


8 posted on 10/23/2005 9:31:28 PM PDT by flashbunny (What is more important: Loyalty to principles, or loyalty to personalities?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Soul Seeker; flashbunny
Guess who once held the job Harriet Miers used to occupy, before being elevated to White House Counsel?

That's right, Richard Darman!

Under Bush 41.

Everything Old Is New Again

9 posted on 10/23/2005 9:34:37 PM PDT by Do not dub me shapka broham ("We don't want a Supreme Court justice just like George W. Bush. We can do better.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: flashbunny

Ah, more sexism and elitism from an ignorant extortionizing Donner Party conservative. Only evil can come of this vicious opposition to the all-holy President and his apostle Miers--after all, the President might appoint Gonzales next! But that would be an exception to all his prior uberconservative appointments, and that's not extortion like you evil Buchananite Libertarian fringe extremist types are trying by saying you won't vote for RINOs in 2006 like we tell you to. Remember, you have to vote for them like we say so we can get conservative judges in!

/moonbot channelling


10 posted on 10/23/2005 9:35:02 PM PDT by LibertarianInExile (The GOP's failure in the Senate is no excuse for betraying the conservative base that gave it to `em)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham
Ho hum.
11 posted on 10/23/2005 9:36:31 PM PDT by decal (Mother Nature and Real Life are conservatives; the Progs have never figured this out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: flashbunny

BTW, watching Meet The Press today and something interesting stood out in Allen's interview. He mentioned Karen Williams. Praised her, cited her record.

A few weeks ago Lindsey mentioned her name, now Allen? Williams is generally considered acceptable to conservatives but she isn't on the "rock star" list conservatives use to make a point. Brown, Luttig, etc.. Unusual two different Republicans make a point to mention her name, then build the case for her. Especially to the extent Allen did this morning.

I sense a trial balloon. My only question is whether this is from the Senators themselves trying to urge the president to pick Williams, or if they've been given the go ahead (despite W.H. denials) to test her name on us.


12 posted on 10/23/2005 9:36:37 PM PDT by Soul Seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SmoothTalker; LibertarianInExile
The lesson of this and Mike Brown-gate is to appoint the best man or woman for every job, not just your buddies.

That point bears repeating.

13 posted on 10/23/2005 9:36:37 PM PDT by Do not dub me shapka broham ("We don't want a Supreme Court justice just like George W. Bush. We can do better.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SmoothTalker

Yeah, you 'd think he'd learn from the first term effups!!


14 posted on 10/23/2005 9:37:47 PM PDT by Atchafalaya (When you're there, that's the best!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: gpapa

My only worry now is who the president will appoint after Ms Meirs goes down.


15 posted on 10/23/2005 9:38:31 PM PDT by SupplySider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Soul Seeker
Hopefully, it's the latter.

Williams was part of the lower court decision overturning Miranda, and is rock-solid on almost every issue.

Almost as good as Harvey Wilkinson; plus she's a woman!

And married to a big-shot Democrat down in South Carolina.

16 posted on 10/23/2005 9:39:11 PM PDT by Do not dub me shapka broham ("We don't want a Supreme Court justice just like George W. Bush. We can do better.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianInExile
Sorry, you really screwed that one up.

In order to channel a 'moonbot', you have to CAPITALIZE random WORDS to give emphasis TO seemingly unimportant THINGS.

Oh, and use a bunch OF exclamation points!!!!

Try to REMEMBER that next time!!!!

;)
17 posted on 10/23/2005 9:39:47 PM PDT by flashbunny (What is more important: Loyalty to principles, or loyalty to personalities?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SupplySider
Me too.
18 posted on 10/23/2005 9:40:21 PM PDT by Do not dub me shapka broham ("We don't want a Supreme Court justice just like George W. Bush. We can do better.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: gpapa
While I am deeply troubled by the Miers nomination, and would wish for a candidate who's been proven to fight for judicial conservatism "in the trenches", this statement from the article give me pause:

When Douglas Ginsburg asked to have his nomination to the Supreme Court pulled in 1987 after allegations he had used marijuana, Ronald Reagan won unanimous confirmation in a Democratic Senate for Anthony Kennedy, then a judge with a decade-long conservative track record on a federal appellate court.

Please, someone convince me we aren't facing the possibility of losing as big as we did with Kennedy in this crapshoot, should we get our wish for a proven judicial conservative.

19 posted on 10/23/2005 9:41:46 PM PDT by wigswest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gpapa
"Now that he's brought us Miers we worry that 15 years later Andy is playing the role of a Serial Souterizer,"
LOL!
What's sitting on Bush's desk in the Oval Office right now:


Things To Do

    Withdraw Miers nomination
    Nominate Janice Rogers Brown
    Fire Andy Card





Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown, both of whom won tough confirmation battles for seats on appellate courts only this spring, were nixed by other GOP Senators as too tough a battle for the high court.
That's how you know one of these two is the right choice... if Republicans want to win in 2006, that is.

 

20 posted on 10/23/2005 9:43:44 PM PDT by counterpunch (SCOTUS interruptus - withdraw Miers before she blows it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wigswest
Bork and Ginsburg were known quantities.

Kennedy was a third-stringer, who supposedly assured Senator Helms that he was anti-Roe.

Miers is a disaster in the making.

The only way that a possible replacement could be worse is if it was Alberto Gonzales.

21 posted on 10/23/2005 9:44:49 PM PDT by Do not dub me shapka broham ("We don't want a Supreme Court justice just like George W. Bush. We can do better.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: decal
Great, another Harriet Miers thread...

Since yours is the first response to this thread, you must live for them?

22 posted on 10/23/2005 9:45:38 PM PDT by Nephi (The Bush Legacy: Known conservatives are ineligible for the Supreme Court.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham

I hope that Frist and other Senate Republican presidential hopefuls realize that supporting Meirs or another stealth candidate after her will likely doom them in the primaries.


23 posted on 10/23/2005 9:46:33 PM PDT by SupplySider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: gpapa

"Conservatives still recall that in the White House of the first President Bush, Mr. Card was deputy chief of staff to Mr. Sununu, the prime backer of Judge Souter. Mr. Card told me on Friday that "it would be a complete exaggeration to say I played a role in the Souter selection. I merely supported his nomination as I did all presidential appointments."

Ed Rollins, the GOP consultant who at the time headed the House Republican Campaign Committee and who was Mr. Card's boss in the Reagan White House, remembers it differently. "Of course Andy played a role," he told me. "He was Sununu's top aide." Two other aides who served with Mr. Card in the White House told me he was an enthusiastic backer of the Souter selection. "Now that he's brought us Miers we worry that 15 years later Andy is playing the role of a Serial Souterizer," one said. "


===

Getting another "Souter in a skirt" as some put it, is exactly what concerns a lot of us, especially since Miers support for affirmative action came to light.


24 posted on 10/23/2005 9:49:29 PM PDT by FairOpinion (CA Props: Vote for Reform: YES on 73-78, NO on 79 & 80, NO on Y)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nephi
Nope. Just a case of wrong place, right time.

Not reading anything on this one, or any other one, until the hearings start, and maybe not then.

Bunch of heat here and no light - is it possible to use these threads in place of heating oil this winter?
25 posted on 10/23/2005 9:49:35 PM PDT by decal (Mother Nature and Real Life are conservatives; the Progs have never figured this out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: gpapa

"Conservatives still recall that in the White House of the first President Bush, Mr. Card was deputy chief of staff to Mr. Sununu, the prime backer of Judge Souter. Mr. Card told me on Friday that "it would be a complete exaggeration to say I played a role in the Souter selection. I merely supported his nomination as I did all presidential appointments."

Ed Rollins, the GOP consultant who at the time headed the House Republican Campaign Committee and who was Mr. Card's boss in the Reagan White House, remembers it differently. "Of course Andy played a role," he told me. "He was Sununu's top aide." Two other aides who served with Mr. Card in the White House told me he was an enthusiastic backer of the Souter selection. "Now that he's brought us Miers we worry that 15 years later Andy is playing the role of a Serial Souterizer," one said. "


===

Getting another "Souter in a skirt" as some put it, is exactly what concerns a lot of us, especially since Miers support for affirmative action came to light.


26 posted on 10/23/2005 9:49:42 PM PDT by FairOpinion (CA Props: Vote for Reform: YES on 73-78, NO on 79 & 80, NO on Y)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SupplySider
Frist is DOA for the 2008 race.

Right now, Fred Thompson has a better shot at snagging the nomination.

Unfortunately, he's not running.

:(

27 posted on 10/23/2005 9:49:42 PM PDT by Do not dub me shapka broham ("We don't want a Supreme Court justice just like George W. Bush. We can do better.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: decal

http://www.rightsideredux.com/projects/miers/procon.htm


28 posted on 10/23/2005 9:52:21 PM PDT by Do not dub me shapka broham ("We don't want a Supreme Court justice just like George W. Bush. We can do better.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham
The nominee herself has stumbled frequently in the tutorials in which government lawyers are grilling her in preparation for her Nov. 7 hearings.

Cram session isn't going well.

29 posted on 10/23/2005 9:52:21 PM PDT by Soul Seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham
Whoopdee-doo.
30 posted on 10/23/2005 9:53:25 PM PDT by decal (Mother Nature and Real Life are conservatives; the Progs have never figured this out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: gpapa
Interesting insight of the moderate republican from Massachusettes, Andy Card, fomer deputy to John Sununu in thw HW Bush WH:

Ed Rollins, the GOP consultant who at the time headed the House Republican Campaign Committee and who was Mr. Card's boss in the Reagan White House, remembers it differently. "Of course Andy played a role," he told me. "He was Sununu's top aide." Two other aides who served with Mr. Card in the White House told me he was an enthusiastic backer of the Souter selection. "Now that he's brought us Miers we worry that 15 years later Andy is playing the role of a Serial Souterizer," one said.

31 posted on 10/23/2005 9:54:24 PM PDT by Maynerd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: decal
Great, another Harriet Miers thread...

You are not obligated to read or respond to them.

32 posted on 10/23/2005 9:55:51 PM PDT by msnimje
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: decal

I realize you are seeking attention, but since you have nothing to contribute in relation to the topic, then leave. And, I'd advise if that is beyond your ability, that you be ignored from this point.


33 posted on 10/23/2005 9:56:03 PM PDT by Soul Seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham

I don't understand why one or two people keep pushing Williams. I don't have anything against her or know all there is to know, of course, but at first glance I don't see anything particularly exciting there either.


34 posted on 10/23/2005 9:56:22 PM PDT by USPatriette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: gpapa
Similar pressure has been applied in New Hampshire, site of the nation's first presidential primary in 2008. Newsweek has reported that "when George W. Bush's political team wanted to send ambitious Republican senators a firm message about Harriet Miers (crude summary: 'Lay off her if you ever want our help'),"

What a brilliant way to spend political capital - use is AGAINST members of your own party.

35 posted on 10/23/2005 9:58:04 PM PDT by msnimje
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: flashbunny
Excellent observations, flashbunny. The President is rather quick on the trigger when challenged by conservatives.

This calls for another round of the kool.


36 posted on 10/23/2005 10:00:11 PM PDT by Graymatter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: flashbunny

LOL

Where are the true conservative defenders of Saint Harriet and King George, namely MNJohnnie, Sinkspur, Af_vet_needs_to_be_committed, et al?


37 posted on 10/23/2005 10:01:09 PM PDT by Maynerd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion; Maynerd
"Of course Andy played a role," he told me. "He was Sununu's top aide." Two other aides who served with Mr. Card in the White House told me he was an enthusiastic backer of the Souter selection. "Now that he's brought us Miers we worry that 15 years later Andy is playing the role of a Serial Souterizer," one said."

I didn't realize that Card played such a big role in the Souter debacle. Just one more reason to be against this nomination....*shudder*

38 posted on 10/23/2005 10:02:11 PM PDT by wigswest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: wigswest
In fact, it became clear Ms. Miers is a complete mystery. "We spent about 1,200 hours together and had in excess of 6,000 agenda items, and I never knew where Harriet was going to be on any of those items until she cast her vote," Jim Buerger, a former Miers colleague on the Dallas City Council, told the Washington Post. "I wouldn't consider her a liberal, a moderate or a conservative, and I can't honestly think of any cause she championed."

This is, I believe, the most disturbing report I've seen yet. Ms. Miers seems not to have a guiding philosophy but, instead, "wings it" with each decision.

Sounds like the next Sandra Day O'Connor...

39 posted on 10/23/2005 10:11:28 PM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: counterpunch

I agree!

"By far the strongest, however, is Brown's - the court's main opinion, in which she was joined by three other justices. She gave Proposition 209 a broad and forceful reading, interpreting it to outlaw not just explicit quotas but also race and gender "goals," because "a participation goal differs from a quota or a set-aside only in degree.

Brown set the measure in historical context, hailing it as a statement of the venerable rule that no one should be treated better or worse than another on account of race. She quoted the late Yale Law School Professor Alexander Bickel: "[D]iscrimination on the basis of race is illegal, immoral, unconstitutional, inherently wrong, and destructive of democratic society." The U.S. Supreme Court had veered from this principle, Brown noted; Proposition 209 represents a decision by the California electorate to return to it, reasserting a goal of "equal opportunity for all individuals" rather than "entitlement based on group representation."

Justice Brown is committed to racial equality because she is committed to individual rights, and to protecting individuals, of all colors, against government abuse, even when the abuse is based in a popular consensus. Just as the small hotel owners of San Francisco should be free unjustified government coercion, and no contractor should be denied business because of race, so Mr. McKay should be free from arbitrary exercises of state power. Since many small entrepreneurs are members of racial minorities, protecting business against intrusive government meddling is more relevant to their welfare than most of the incendiary causes in Jesse Jackson's bag of tricks.


Brown is also a strong believer in individual property rights:

""Private property, already an endangered species in California, is now entirely extinct in San Francisco," she observed. The City had become a "neo-feudal regime." She reprimanded fellow jurists who automatically give a pass to confiscatory land-use restrictions. "Once again a majority of this court has proved that 'if enough people get together and act in concert, they can take something and not pay for it.' But theft is theft. Theft is theft even when the government approves of the thievery."


Read the article from 2003 about her:

Judging Janice Rogers Brown

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10636


40 posted on 10/23/2005 10:12:26 PM PDT by FairOpinion (CA Props: Vote for Reform: YES on 73-78, NO on 79 & 80, NO on Y)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

JRB in 2005 = GOP in 2006

SCOTUS interruptus - withdraw Miers before she blows it


41 posted on 10/23/2005 10:18:13 PM PDT by counterpunch ( SCOTUS interruptus - withdraw Miers before she blows it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: flashbunny
Sorry, you really screwed that one up.

He also forgot the misspelled words. Talk about busted.

42 posted on 10/23/2005 10:19:23 PM PDT by TChad (Neil Bush for Fed Chair!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
Judging Janice Rogers Brown

She was my hope from the very beginning. So, does that make me:

a. sexist

b. elitist

c. racist

d. all of the above

43 posted on 10/23/2005 10:24:17 PM PDT by wigswest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: USPatriette; decal; Soul Seeker; LibertarianInExile; Extremely Extreme Extremist; Cboldt
Karen J. Williams

Age: 54

Graduated from: University of South Carolina Law Center

She used to be: A lawyer in private practice in Orangeburg, S.C.

She's now: a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit (appointed 1992)

Her confirmation battle:

Williams is a solid conservative without a smoking-gun abortion decision to her credit or debit. She came to the attention of the right when she wrote a decision in 1999 scrapping the Miranda warning for criminal suspects (the Supreme Court reversed her 7 to 2). Since then, she has urged the courts to show broad deference to the president's war powers and rejected the notion that the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance means that the pledge shouldn't be recited in public school. Both stances are sure to please Bush's base. Not much here for anyone else.

Civil rights and civil liberties

In a 2004 appeal in the case of Zacharias Moussaoui, allegedly the 20th Sept. 11 hijacker, Williams dissented from a ruling giving the trial court the power to order the government to produce witnesses to testify on Moussaoui's behalf. The majority held that Moussaoui's right to a fair trial outweighed the government's interest in withholding the witnesses to protect national security. Williams' dissent said this approach prevents "the Executive from accomplishing its war-making, military, and foreign relations duties."

Over a dissent, in 2005 she rejected the asylum petition of a Chinese woman who said her government had required her to insert an IUD after she had a child without permission. Williams emphasized that the woman had left the IUD in place while in the United States, though the woman testified she had done so for fear that the Chinese authorities would punish her for removing it were she to return. Williams also distinguished between "insertion" of the IUD, which did not involve physical abuse, and "compelled IUD usage." The latter might rise to the level of persecution, she wrote. But because the woman (who did not have a lawyer) didn't directly raise IUD use in her petition, it was irrelevant to the court's decision.

In 1998, Williams dissented from a decision affirming a $60,000 jury award for a prisoner who suffered permanent damage to his jaw after his prison doctor did not make sure that he got follow-up treatment. Williams acknowledged that the doctor could have given instructions that the prisoner needed to go to an oral surgery clinic outside the prison as soon as possible. But it was reasonable that he didn't do so, she argued, because other prison doctors testified that they had been discouraged from calling the clinic.

Separation of church and state

In 2005, Williams voted to reject a 2005 challenge to the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools by a father who objected to the phrase "under God." Williams said that the pledge is a patriotic exercise, not a prayer. She also relied on "the history surrounding our nation's founding," noting references to God in the Declaration of Independence and by the Constitution's framers.

Criminal Law

In 1999, Williams attacked the Miranda warning. Miranda v. Arizona is the storied 1966 decision of the Warren Court that requires the police to read criminal suspects their rights. ("You have the right to remain silent ...") If the police screw up Miranda, a suspect's confession often gets thrown out of court. Two years after the Supreme Court made Miranda warnings the law of the land, Congress passed a statute expressly to get rid of them. (The law said that a confession would be admitted into court "if it is voluntarily given" and gave trial judges the job of making case-by-case calls about voluntariness.) But over the next 30 years, the Department of Justice never tried to use the law to prosecute a criminal case. In 1998, Miranda critic Paul Cassell filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging the Fourth Circuit to recognize Congress' power to override the 1966 decision. Williams took the bait.

Over a dissent, she ruled for herself and a second judge that Congress had the authority to get rid of Miranda because the warnings were not required by the Constitution. The third judge on the appellate panel pointed out in dissent that Williams wrote her opinion without any briefing in opposition, saying "the majority takes on more than any court should." The Supreme Court reversed Williams' ruling 7 to 2, with Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas in dissent.

Free Speech

Williams voted in 2002 to strike down a Virginia law that prevented the Sons of Confederate Veterans from putting the Confederate flag on the group's customized license plates. Williams said the license plates were private rather than government speech.* In singling out the SCV by exercising special editorial control over the plates, she wrote, the state was discriminating against the group based on its viewpoint.

Habeas Corpus

Over a dissent, Williams in 2003 wrote an opinion for a majority of the Fourth Circuit rejecting the habeas petition of an inmate who filed his appeal one day late because of an error by his lawyer. She said the fact that the inmate was on death row was irrelevant to whether his late petition should be heard. She found that there were no extraordinary circumstances beyond the inmate's control that prevented him from filing on time.

http://www.slate.com/id/2127241/

44 posted on 10/23/2005 10:24:31 PM PDT by Do not dub me shapka broham ("We don't want a Supreme Court justice just like George W. Bush. We can do better.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Soul Seeker
Fine by ME, quit replying to me, then - or are you one of those people who just HAS to have the last word?
45 posted on 10/23/2005 10:26:00 PM PDT by decal (Mother Nature and Real Life are conservatives; the Progs have never figured this out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: wigswest; FairOpinion; Maynerd

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/hentoff050505.asp


46 posted on 10/23/2005 10:27:46 PM PDT by Do not dub me shapka broham ("We don't want a Supreme Court justice just like George W. Bush. We can do better.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: wigswest

The point is that Janice Rogers Brown would make a great SCOTUS judge not because she is black and female, but REGARDLESS of her gender and race, based on her judicial philosophy, and gutsyness of making it known what her opinions are, which should be the basis of the nomination.

Her being black and female are "icing on the cake", in that it would make it harder for the Dems to attack her.


47 posted on 10/23/2005 10:29:23 PM PDT by FairOpinion (CA Props: Vote for Reform: YES on 73-78, NO on 79 & 80, NO on Y)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: counterpunch

"JRB in 2005 = GOP in 2006"

I agree. It would reenergize the base.


48 posted on 10/23/2005 10:31:58 PM PDT by FairOpinion (CA Props: Vote for Reform: YES on 73-78, NO on 79 & 80, NO on Y)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham

A good article from a great media presence (I cheerlead shamelessly for JWR)


49 posted on 10/23/2005 10:32:53 PM PDT by wigswest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

Yes, I agree with you absolutely; this was the point of my post ;)


50 posted on 10/23/2005 10:34:30 PM PDT by wigswest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-85 next last

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