That is not to say she will not have writings to review but this really does put a snag in things should folks have wanted feisty hearings.
OK, OK, one can hope, we are dealing with some really unfair minded democrats.
Bush consulting with 80 senators says something for this nomonee.
| Harriet E. Miers | |
| Firm: | The White House Office, Executive Office of the President |
| Address: | The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington, DC 20500-0003 |
| Phone: | (202) 456-1414 (202) 456-7900 (202) 456-2930 |
| Fax: | (202) 456-1647 (202) 456-6218 (202) 456-5090 |
| E-mail: | |
| Web site: | |
| Blogs: | |
|
|
||||||||
When viewing a listing, consider the state advertising restrictions to which lawyers and law firms must adhere, as well as our West Legal Directory disclaimers. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Very disappointed by the nomination. The "stealth" pick may be needed if the Senate was Democrat run, but there are 55 Republicans. Show some leadership, d-mnit. Use that majority.
Janice Rogers Brown or Edith Jones would have been better women picks.
Then let the dims filibuster her.
Just a tiny bit out of the WSJ article about her this morning:
"Ms. Miers reveals little of her own emotions or ideological persuasions, but has been an enthusiastic supporter of the Bush administration on a broad list of initiatives including tax cuts, Social Security reforms, restrictions on federal spending on embryonic stem cell research, national security, education reforms and fighting terrorism."
Of course, following the boss's leadership is one thing. I wonder how she'll do, though, when she's the boss.
I just need to know one thing to distrust her: Harry Reid likes her.
Well, if nothing else qualifies her, the fact that she ran a state lottery commission should server her very well on the SC.
In 1988, she donated money to Al Gore & Lloyd Bentsen's political campaigns. Doesn't sound very conservative to me.
http://www.newsmeat.com/washington_political_donations/Harriet_Miers.php
Anyone know if this woman is a strict constructionist? Does she believe in original intent? Does she believe in the 9th and 10th amendments, states rights, and the limited role of the central government in our federal system? Will she limit use of the commerce and general welfare clauses? Will she refrain from looking to foreign precedent?
If Republican senators do not get appropriate reassurances to these questions (and they should be voted out of office if they don't ask them), they should vote against Mrs. Miers.
I don't trust supreme court nominees just because they are nominated by a Republican.
My [first] knee jerk reaction is that he nominated a Michael Brown to the Supreme Court.
Someone who gets the job because of who they know.
Let the filibusters begin.....please!
Hopefully we will here something today from a trusted conservative who actually knows something about how Miers might be on the bench.
As an aside, I wonder how many of you "this is it, I'm outta here" folks have stopped to consider how much you really owe this lady for her considerable input on a whole slew of appellate judges many of you have been praising.
Seems a whole bunch of you are upset 'cause "who I wanted" wasn't selected. News flash....who you wanted doesn't matter unless one day, you become POTUS.
As I said, it comes down to trust. You either trust GWB or you don't...period.
It seems to me that this nominee will be easily confirmed. The Republican Senators will vote for whomever Bush nominates, and it will be very difficult for the Democrats to pin anything on this nominee that they can hang a refusal on.
My guess is a vote of something like 75-25 for confirmation.
The bottom line here is that we don't really know anything much about the nominee. While that will help assure her confirmation, it leaves a bit of a quandary for us all. We won't know how she is going to rule until she has ruled on several important cases.
Areas of concern to me include:
1. No judicial experience. This means that we don't have decisions in past rulings to read.
2. She is a corporate attorney. This means to me that we have no read on her positions on social issues, including abortion, women's issues, gay marriage, and others. She will, obviously, refuse to answer any questions about these things.
3. She is single, and has never been married. This is rather unusual, and will raise some questions, certainly.
4. President Bush is unclear on many issues. The nominee is well known to him, but Bush has suprised us many times, on issues such as CFR, immigration policy, spending, and other issues.
It's going to be interesting to see how she comes down on important issues, once she is confirmed, and she will be confirmed.
We have the majority. Why try to avoid the showdown that was desperately needed to put the Dems in their place?
She donated to Gore's campaign. Enough said.
This is disappointing, but I'm wondering...think he's trotting Miers out, hoping she might not get confirmed, and then putting out his real nominee??
Nah....me either, but that would have made an interesting strategery.