I'm going down,
Down,
Down,
Down,
Down...
Posted on 10/24/2005 4:29:42 PM PDT by Cedar
Hang in there Harriet Miers By Rachel Alexander
You have to wonder if part of the reason some conservatives are attacking Miers is because of her similarities to Bush. Conservatives are angrier than ever at Bush for compromising on fiscal issues, and think he’s a big government conservative who has betrayed them. Miers is a lot like Bush, and so reminds people of Bush - a down to earth all-American who could easily be your neighbor next door, not the typical politician or lawyer who presents an aloof, brooding, analytical persona.
Intellectual conservatives are irritated because they feel that Bush has put himself on the Supreme Court - they see it as a slap in the face to all the slaving away they did in college and law school in order to graduate at the top of their Ivy League classes. But the truth is, the American people don’t want to be ruled only by the Ivy League. They would like to see at least one justice who looks like them and reflects their values. Intelligence doesn’t always translate into top schools - remember Bill Gates never completed his degree at Harvard. Apparently it wasn’t necessary for him.
Attacks by the right on Miers for being an evangelical are bewildering. Isn’t it a good thing to be an evangelical? It tells us a lot about how Miers will vote, since everyone knows that the vast majority (I would wager over 95%) of evangelicals are very conservative philosophically and support strict constructionism constitutional theory along the lines of Scalia, Thomas, or Rehnquist. Bush was simply reassuring conservatives that Miers would vote as a strict constructionist, but doing it in a safe way that would not ensure her rejection by the Senate. Conservatives know that. So why are they attacking him for saying so? If anything, conservatives should be relieved to learn that Harriet Miers is an evangelical who will vote like Scalia/Thomas/Rehnquist.
Conservative critics need to quit pretending there is a crucial difference between an evangelical Christian strict constructionist, and a strict constructionist. Just because Miers is an evangelical does not mean that she will not follow strict constructionist legal theory - they are not mutually exclusive, in fact, generally, they go hand in hand probably more often than Catholicism and strict constructionism do. Based on that criteria, Miers would be more likely to be a strict constructionist than Scalia.
Conservative constitutional law is not rocket science. Miers is a 60-year old experienced, successful lawyer. She will have several brilliant law clerks working for her helping her draft opinions, as well as other brilliant minds on the court writing opinions, dissents, and concurring opinions. She knows she has a higher bar to live up to in her opinions than any other justice on the court, because of these attacks on her abilities. If anything, she will work harder than any other Justice on the court to draft superior opinions.
Consevative doomsdayers are now circling the wagons warning the Bush administration that he’d better pull her nomination before things get ugly. Well, how could things get ugly? 30 Democrats might not vote to affirm her? No Republican Senators have indicated that they will vote against her - still, although Arlen Specter just indicated that she may no longer have the votes in the Judiciary Committee (thanks naysayers). Generally, the Republican Senators are obligated to vote for her, because Harriet Miers appeals to their constituents as a regular American just like them, not some aloof Ivory Tower judge. Miers is sailing through the Senate hearings, even more tight-lipped than John Roberts. Instead of being concerned, conservatives should be high-fiving each other. Democrats are flustered and confused whether to block her or not. It’s been a brilliant strategy by Bush thus far. Seems to me like conservatives are crying wolf when there isn’t any.
Bits and pieces of information continue to leak out revealing that Miers is a conservative, not a Souter. People are now talking about how she will be more conservative than John Roberts. I still don’t hear anyone taking back their criticism of her, in fact, they’re stepping up their attacks against her!
All the talk about following precedent, or not following precedent, is misplaced. Judges pick and choose when to follow precedent. Although it’s preferred to follow the reasoning and holdings set in prior cases as much as possible for consistency and reliability, in certain cases the precedent was a decision that a judge feels is bad or violates the constitution, such as Dred Scott or Roe v. Wade. It doesn’t take an elitist to figure out when precedent should be followed and when it shouldn’t, and there are many gray areas. There are thousands of conservative lawyers churned out every year by law schools in the U.S. - it’s absurd to claim that the 90% who didn’t go to a top 10 law school and have not been judges cannot understand how strict constructionism works.
Criticism that Miers will “legislate from the bench” because of her prior experience in that branch of government is similarly misplaced. If anything, that experience has given her an opportunity to learn precisely what are the responsibilities of the legislative branch. Her service for the executive branch is similarly a net positive.
Critics contend that we still don’t know anything about Miers’ views on the Constitution. But we knew practically as little about John Roberts’ positions on the Constitution, and conservatives had little problem supporting him.
One has to suspect that some conservatives are drumming up a controversy about Miers in order to force a filibuster, which would then allow Frist to invoke the “nuclear option;” voting to remove the ability to filibuster through a simple majority vote. Then, the reasoning goes, Bush can show the Democrats who’s boss when Miers is confirmed by a simple majority. But why does he need to? Why risk losing support for Miers? The more her conservative critics attack her, the more likely that she could lose majority support in the Senate.
So hang in there Harriet Miers. Conservatives can’t take you down simply because they predict conservatives will take you down - it’s a bit redundant.
(Also, I can't really argue the plus and minuses of S.C. nominees. I'll just let the more knowledgable slug it out!)
What a cheer leading piece of junk this article is.
All style, no substance.
"Bits and pieces of information continue to leak out revealing that Miers is a conservative, not a Souter"
so 'conservative' has now been redefined to mean support for affirmative action and the creation of a women's studies lecture series?
rah rah for the big tent!
No, a conservative is a gambling boss who calls herself Christian.
I didn't see much style either. If this is what the 'pro-Miers' side is reduced to, they may as well throw in the towel.
"Intellectual conservatives are irritated because they feel that Bush has put himself on the Supreme Court - they see it as a slap in the face to all the slaving away they did in college and law school in order to graduate at the top of their Ivy League classes. But the truth is, the American people don’t want to be ruled only by the Ivy League. They would like to see at least one justice who looks like them and reflects their values. Intelligence doesn’t always translate into top schools - remember Bill Gates never completed his degree at Harvard. Apparently it wasn’t necessary for him. "
Apparently, it is evil to work hard at getting into a good school and doing "book learning". The poor learners should rule the world. And by the way, Gates was accepted at Ivy league, but he had a rich daddy and so was able to go off and start a company.
This is very insulting crap from the Bushbots.
I came on this thread because it is just that. I'm tired of hearing her and Bush slammed day in and day out on FR. I support Bush's pick of her. The liberals are having a field day because conservatives keep making comments like yours.
The person who wrote this believes in their political party more than they believe in their principles.
Yep. The dirty little secret is that the uber-conservatives see Bush as a dummy, and they can't stand that somebody who appears to be less intelligent than they are got elected to the White House.
And that's why they feel justified in unleashing the "dummy" charge against Miers too.
Just another form of elitism.
"Just because Miers is an evangelical does not mean that she will not follow strict constructionist legal theory"
Double negatives anyone? Apparently this writer went to the Harriet Miers school of clear writing.
The whole trust thing,,,,check this out
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003576.htm
You could try a website that isn't dedicated to defending the Constitution and opposing corruption, perhaps you'd find what you're looking for there.
I'm going down,
Down,
Down,
Down,
Down...
Well, if this wins majority support, it stands as an object lesson.
Takes the absurd and makes it utterly stupid.
"Yep. The dirty little secret is that the uber-conservatives see Bush as a dummy, and they can't stand that somebody who appears to be less intelligent than they are got elected to the White House.
And that's why they feel justified in unleashing the "dummy" charge against Miers too.
Just another form of elitism."
I'm glad you aren't an anti-elitist elitist, or are you? Or perhaps you are just acting like a dummy, so you can be smart, a sort of uber-not-dummy-dummy.
My, my, my; how you must twist and turn to put lipstick on this pig.
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.