WithdrawMiers.org - The Concerns

WithdrawMiers.org ^

[Conservative Coulter Fan]

The Concerns

The importance of this nomination to the Supreme Court transcends President Bush and his Administration.

The selection process of a Supreme Court Justice should not be about religion, gender, law schools, or law firms.

This process should be about choosing the most qualified candidate with a judicial philosophy that demonstrates a clear commitment to the Constitution. It should include a substantive and dignified debate about the role of a judge and respect for the Constitution and the rule of law. The nomination and confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts is an excellent model to follow.

Since Ms. Miers was first nominated by President Bush, U.S. Senators, a growing number of advocacy groups, prominent leaders, commentators, and the public have expressed deep concern over Ms. Miers’ judicial philosophy, the course of the debate over her nomination, and her qualifications and suitability for the Supreme Court.

Below are six factors that serve as the basis for our request for Ms. Miers’ withdrawal.

• Undefined Judicial Philosophy - Ms. Miers has not opined substantively on any Constitutional issues and her few published writings offer no real insight or assurance of a judicial philosophy that reflects a commitment to the Constitution. Meetings with U.S. Senators have provided even less insight and have increased concern about Ms. Miers’ nomination and the fact that she is an unknown quantity.

• Standard of Excellence – The selection of Ms. Miers and the defense of her nomination do not reach the standard of excellence we expect for a nominee established by Chief Justice John Roberts. Compounding her undefined judicial philosophy, a series of missteps by her defenders have created problems it sought to avoid. For example, the questionnaire submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee which is perhaps the easiest aspect of her nomination process has been described as “inadequate,” “insufficient,” “terrible,” “shocking,” and “insulting.” It is the first time in our nation’s history that a nominee to the Supreme Court has had to resubmit a questionnaire.

• Tainted Process – The process since the announcement of Ms. Miers has been tainted and now appears beyond repair.
  
  Instead of a robust discussion about judicial philosophy and adherence to the Constitution, Ms. Miers has been defended on the basis of her gender, religious background, church membership, pro-bono legal service, ‘real world’ heartland perspective, and purported attention to detail. Further complicating the process has been the suggestion of private assurances about her vote on specific issues and cases.
  
  Proponents of her nomination have responded to critics with unwarranted charges of “cynicism,” “elitism,” and “sexism,” made worse by the claim that those concerned about her nomination are merely “whiners.”
  
  This spectacle has Senators on the Left concerned about perceived “cronyism” and private assurances, while Senators on the Right have been given little evidence of her grasp of constitutional law and a judicial philosophy that reflects a commitment to the Constitution.
  
  The stage has now been set for divisive and toxic confirmation hearings void of any substantive discussion about her suitability for the court. Such an unfortunate circumstance will only serve to politicize this process even further.
  
  Looking back on the dignified process which followed the nomination of Chief Justice Roberts, the bar has been lowered and now Ms. Miers’ defenders are struggling to keep her nomination afloat.

• Americans Divided and Demoralized – A growing chorus of Americans from every political persuasion and background has now called directly for the withdrawal of this nomination, or have expressed deep concerns

. Indeed, it is not a stretch to assume that virtually every person involved in this process now has some reservation about the suitability of Ms. Miers. Recent polls suggest that less than 50% of Americans support her nomination.

• Mixed Record – Ms. Miers has a mixed record of statements and advocacy that many are concerned reflects a broader inconsistent philosophy. Consider the following three instances. Ms. Miers would address gatherings of the Federalist Society yet criticized the Federalist Society as “politically charged,” expressed surprise there were so many lawyers in the current Bush Administration who were members, and refused affiliation with the Federalist Society. Ms. Miers fought to remove the pro-abortion plank in the American Bar Association platform, yet fought this Bush Administration in ending the ABA’s role in vetting judges which is known to be biased against judges whose judicial philosophies reflect a clear commitment to the Constitution. She donated money to a Texas pro-life group, yet helped establish an endowed lecture series at Southern Methodist University that brought pro-abortion icons Gloria Steinem and Susan Faludi to campus.

• Better Alternatives - If Ms. Miers withdraws her nomination, or should President Bush withdraw it, there are a number of women and men whose judicial philosophies reflect a clear commitment to the Constitution.
  
  Other qualified nominees include: Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, Michael Luttig, Samuel Alito, Karen Williams, Alice Batchelder, Edith Jones, Emilio Garza and Maura Corrigan.

We believe that the best interests of the country and the court would be served if Ms. Miers withdraws her nomination to the Supreme Court.

Should Ms. Miers decide not to withdraw her nomination, we respectfully ask President Bush to withdraw her nomination and immediately begin the vetting process of candidates who are stronger alternatives that are truly in the mold of Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas.

[Conservative Coulter Fan]

Please sign our petition:
 

A Petition of Support for the Withdrawal of the Nomination of Harriet Miers from Consideration as a Nominee for Associate Justice on the United States Supreme Court
2005-10-24

We are citizens who respectfully urge that Harriet Miers withdraw her nomination to the Supreme Court.

Should Ms. Miers decide not to withdraw her nomination, we respectfully ask President George W. Bush to withdraw her nomination and immediately begin the vetting process of candidates who are stronger alternatives.

We have fought 20 years in tough political campaigns and engaged in many philosophical debates about the Constitution to re-establish the proper role of a judge. We should expect excellence in a Supreme Court nominee and a dignified confirmation process.

Our country and the Supreme Court would be best served by a nominee whose judicial philosophy reflects a clear commitment to the Constitution and whose qualifications and track record would indicate an ability to think deeply, engage in robust debate and write clearly about legal questions before the Court. A nominee of this stature would foster a rigorous and necessary debate about judicial philosophy and adherence to the Constitution.

We respect President George W. Bush. We respect Harriet Miers who is a hard working and capable person of faith with many gifts and authentic achievements however we believe Ms. Miers is not the individual that would best serve our country, court and law.

We believe the withdrawal of Ms. Miers’ nomination presents President Bush an excellent opportunity to select an individual of impeccable credentials whose judicial philosophy reflects a clear commitment to the Constitution and the rule of law that will serve our country, court and law with distinction.

[Conservative Coulter Fan]

PING!

[BibChr]

The broken-record harping on this issue is the dumbest the conservative movement has looked in quite some time.

And what a money-saver for the DNC and MoveOn.org.

Dan
Biblical Christianity BLOG

[Conservative Coulter Fan]

Speeches by Miers Scrutinized for Insights (Said Abortion was a Matter of "Self-Determination")

Miers's Muddle

[pissant]

Your 2 best hopes are:

1) Miers feels the pressure and decides to withdraw
2) She performs poorly in the senate hearings and is voted down.

Because I think you know that Bush withdrawing her is not gonna happen.

[Conservative Coulter Fan]

Well, I'm a conservative thay doesn't think opposing a horrible nominee to the Supreme Court makes the conservative movement "dumb," but in fact it makes me proud!

[NJ_gent]

"The broken-record harping on this issue is the dumbest the conservative movement has looked in quite some time."

Opposing a bad candidate for a lifetime appointment to one of the most powerful government positions in the world is not dumb. Playing "yes-man" to those appointing said candidate, on the other hand, would seem far more fitting for that qualification. Conservative opposition to this nominee doesn't make conservatives look bad; it makes the President look bad, and rightfully so. When you make a mistake, you look bad; that's life. The sooner the President withdraws this nominee and appoints a real candidate, the sooner we can get down to the business of ensuring we don't have another Souter on the bench for the next thirty years destroying this country.

[Conservative Coulter Fan]

"This George Bush, like his father, is showing himself to be indifferent, if not actively hostile, to conservative values. He appears embittered by conservative opposition to his nomination, which raises the possibility that if Ms. Miers is not confirmed, the next nominee will be even less acceptable to those asking for a restrained court. That, ironically, is the best argument for her confirmation. But it is not good enough." --Robert Bork, Slouching Towards Miers

[Cicero]

She's far too much of a climber to withdraw. If there's one consistent thing in everything she has done and everything she has written, it is that she is a brown-nosing climber who says whatever her particular audience at the moment wants to hear.

Sorry, I started out this fight on a more polite level. But there's no other way to put it honestly.

There's nothing wrong with a corporate lawyer with those personality traits. But it's not the kind of personality profile we need on the Supreme Court, and it's not the kind of personality profile that would lead her to withdraw for the good of the country.

[mrsmith]

"Undefined Judicial Philosophy ": the ONLY reasonable objection made. More information will be forthcoming.

I wish I didn't have to see all this whining and sniffling from the conservative legal establishment.

[BibChr]

I'll ask you each this one time: what in President Bush's entire administration (or life) makes you think that ganging up and piling on a friend of his will shame or frighten him into removing his support from her, or producing anything that would do any good for anything we care about?

Dan

[Conservative Coulter Fan]

The ad being run by conservatives against Miers - BetterJustice.com

[mountainfolk]

THE CONCERNS that I have are that any particular group can bully a President into forgoing his obligation to appoint a Justice to the SC and turn the decision over to them. The further CONCERN that I have is that I have no reason to trust the judgment for said decision to those I know little about and who have an agenda which I may or may not agree with. My main CONCERN, is that I voted for President Bush because I believe that he has the best interests of America at heart and will do what he thinks is best for this country. I have absolutely no faith in the judgments of those who would try to take over his Presidential power for their own self interests, however noble it has been dressed up.

[NJ_gent]

"I'll ask you each this one time: what in President Bush's entire administration (or life) makes you think that ganging up and piling on a friend of his will shame or frighten him into removing his support from her, or producing anything that would do any good for anything we care about?"

Border security.

But your question is moot. The President does not have unilateral authority in appointing Supreme Court Justices. So long as our pressure works in the Senate, that's all that matters. The President cannot get a candidate through the Senate without support from mainstream conservatives. He's certainly not getting support from liberals for anyone he appoints.

[pissant]

In a footnote on page 166 (from Slouching Towards Gomorrah), Judge Bork writes that ``the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that there is no individual right to own a firearm. The Second Amendment was designed to allow states to defend themselves against a possibly tyrannical national government. Now that the federal government has stealth bombers and nuclear weapons, it is hard to imagine what people would need to keep in the garage to serve that purpose.'' http://www.users.fast.net/~behanna/bork.html

Hope Harriet doesn't have a Borkish view of the 2nd Amendment.

[Conservative Coulter Fan]

Why don't you just say you wish conservatives would put a sock in it, because after all republican presidents have made fine choices to the Supreme Court like O'Connor, Kennedy, Stevens, Souter, etc. - we're just exaggerating about the liberal activism on the Supreme Court legislating rights (abortion, homosexual conduct, etc.), being hostile to religion, etc. - and you really just don't care.

[Rodney King]

More information will be forthcoming.

When?

[Rodney King]

THE CONCERNS that I have are that any particular group can bully a President into forgoing his obligation to appoint a Justice to the SC and turn the decision over to them. The further CONCERN that I have is that I have no reason to trust the judgment for said decision to those I know little about and who have an agenda which I may or may not agree with. My main CONCERN, is that I voted for President Bush because I believe that he has the best interests of America at heart and will do what he thinks is best for this country. I have absolutely no faith in the judgments of those who would try to take over his Presidential power for their own self interests, however noble it has been dressed up.

Why don't you trust analyze the situation and try thinking for yourself?

[Rodney King]

Woops, I meant just, not trust.

[pissant]

I'll wait til she tells me her guiding principles before I determine if she will be bad for the country.

Ginsberg, Kennedy, O'Connor, Souter, Stevens, & Breyer are very bad for the country. And all so darn "well qualified".