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.
"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!"
I guess this is where all the "compassionate conservatism" phony baloney ultimately leads. Bush needs to find an exit strategy and get on with it.
Still just watching ---- interesting comments.
Together they make an excellent ideology.
No, a conservative is a pretend Christian who likes to pretend that The Bible says gambling is evil.
I agree with you.
The problem with intellectuals is they think they know everything. It is elitism rearing it's against Miers. They can't stand the fact that someone who's not one of them could hold an office with such power.
I agree.
Give the lady a chance before the Senate confirmation hearings!!
Like the Pharisees.
Thanks, we're greatly out numbered here on FR.
As far as I'm concerned, President Bush is batting 1000% with nominees to the bench like Owens, Brown, Pryor and Roberts, just to name a few.
Give the lady a chance BEFORE making up your minds!!
And who might that be, hmm? (I claim no Christianity by the way.)
Whether the Bible says so in so many words or not, the evil of gambling is self-evident, and you don't need a Mathematics degree (or even a law degree from SMU) to figure that out.
And why don't you find a website dedicated to the principle of finding someone guilty even before the trial starts!!
And you've got the nerve to mention the Constitution???
Miers did all that. In fact she worked her way through school. I can empathize.
The she went into the private sector. I can empathize with that as well.
And finally she used her mothers assets and hers as well to pay for her health care and nursing home fees when many simply strip the assets of their parents and foist their parents off on the state. I empathize with that once again.
So what is your point exactly because I seem to be missing it?
Agreed. This is the most I've posted on Miers threads because I always think I'm on DU concerning FR's post about about her.
Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters
"Attacks by the right on Miers for being an evangelical are bewildering."
There aren't any attacks on her from the right for being evangelical.
The 'attacks' came because they tried to pawn that off as some sort qualification to sit on the supreme court - especially after the white house said religion shouldn't be brought up for roberts.
How low will these people sink???
She has provided background material. What is your impression and analysis of it?
Miers's Responses to Senate Judiciary Committee Questions
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200510/101905b.html <- Specter/Leahy Response
Ms. Miers has been asked to backfill the missing material by this Wednesday, the 26th.
"He has the right to choose Miers"
He had the right to choose a name at random from the phone book if he wanted to.
We have the right to tell him it's a bad idea if that's what we believe.
It's not a trial, it's a hearing. And it's not even much of one at that.
Whether the Bible says so in so many words or not, the evil of gambling is self-evident..."
Then who the hell are you to attack her Christianity?
I'll keep my powder dry till I get to hear her during the questioning. Let the lady speak. Then up or down.
I don't believe for a second you actually believe it, but rather I think that you're trying to employ the slur to your political gain.
It's dishonest, and speaks poorly of you. It's also so laughably transparent that it - and you - cannot be taken seriously.
"so 'conservative' has now been redefined to mean support for affirmative action and the creation of a women's studies lecture serie"
That's 'compassionate' conservatism!
Pray for W and cute little kittens!!!
Rachel is the Co-Editor of IntellectualConservative.com and an attorney and policy advisor in Phoenix, Arizona. She received degrees in Political Science and History from the University of Washington, where she was Co-President of the Political Science Honor Society. She obtained her J.D. from the University of Arizona and was President of the Federalist Society. She started IntellectualConservative.com in 2002 and runs it with her brother Andrew. She has given speeches and made appearances on both TV and radio.
The Bible says nothing about gambling, and gambling is a neutral activity, unless one is frittering away the rent and food money.
Perhaps you could show us why gambling is evil, if it is so "self-evident."
Sure he has the right to choose her, and we have the right to make plain and clear just how bad (abominable) the choice is. He had the right to choose Gerhard Schroeder, too! Would you line up behind him if he did so? If not, what's the difference?
By the way, the charge of elitism has been disproven in dozens of different ways, and you do yourself and your position a disservice by repeating it. Fact is, Miers is one of "them". Her background is perfectly normal for Washington, DC - a career lawyer, politician, and political advisor - just like most of the folks who will be voting on her nomination.
The "them" that Miers is not one of is the "them" that includes me and most of the other folks on this site. That "them", of course, consists of principled conservatives.
I did no such thing. I am simply pointing out the dissonance between her claimed morality and her career running an amoral organization.
Hate to tell you but there is no such requirement in the Constitution. Look it up.
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.