Posted on 10/03/2005 6:31:17 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
In a just-completed interview on Fox News, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol made no effort to sugar coat his criticism of President Bush's selection of Harriet Miers as his Supreme Court nominee.
Among Kristol's comments:
There is no way to say she is the best-qualified.
It really looks like W, faced with pressure and criticism, "flinched."
This is an insult to the well-qualified conserative women W has appointed to the federal bench.
W could have appointed Miers to a federal judgeship before but didn't do so. Could reflect his views on her qualifications up till now.
He's spoken with a number of leading conservatives already this morning and they are disappointed.
Kristol stated more than once that he was surprised by the pick and was obviously disappointed, to the point of seeming almost angry.
Harry Reid said he liked Roberts too...until he got nominated.
I am angry.
Was there ever any doubt after use of the term "compassionate conservatism?" Even many of his most ardent, die-hard defenders on FR, now, knew what he was in 1999-2000. His most important qualification was, "[substitute a Democrat candidate] is much worse."
"According to Drudge, she also gave money to Gore. This does not portend well."
She gave money to Gore b/c he was pro-life.
And to Bentson b/c of TX politics - I grew up in Dallas, Dems are a different animal back here.
And Fred actually HAS sources in the White House; Kristol doesn't.
after having a quick, just woke up in the morning knee jerk raction to the nominee, I now will give Bush a pass. It's someone he's known a long time unlike when his idiot father listened to Stupidnunu and picked Souter.
I have a feeling this will turn out to be a good solid pick.
And yean, it's not the big conservative gun that we thought we'd get, but we might get a good conservative whip insead. Hopefully she'll rip into Ginsburg and expose her as a nut while on the bench!
Well stated point. "W" can't think as far ahead as the lenght of his nose. Of course what can be expected from a friend of Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton.
Another disappointment from "W" the phantom conservative.
Anyone who didn't know that in 1988 was either not very sharp or didn't keep up with politics.
Kristol doesn't speak for me, neither does Tony Snow or half the naysayers on this site today.
I trust W and know he did a good choice.
Does 'judicial conservative' = a 'social conservative' ?
I'm hoping as the day goes on, we can find some kind of reason to be happy about this.
Harriet Miers.... the positive case for her is that GWBush knows her well since she has been his personal lawyer when he was Texas governor. He knows she is conservative. He knows her mind. I see the Karl Rove behind this sly calculus
Little paper trail (obviously)
She's a woman (obviously) making it harder for Chucky and the gang to trash her
The unpleasant fact is GWBush's poll numbers are down, thus giving him less leverage over the Donks. Harriet Miers is as good as we can get at this time and place.
That is similar to the load of fertilizer we bought with BCRA. Remember the certain veto? The certain SCOTUS rejection? Ah, but fantasies, phantoms of our hopeful imaginations.
Interesting take. I also find it very interesting that Bush has nominated two Supreme Court justices whose primary (and most recent) legal track record is in the private sector with big law firms. This in and of itself is a bit refreshing, in my opinion -- since it is probably the closest thing to a "non-lawyer" justice that we could expect to get on the court.
Then Miers would be the one to pick AFTER the best choice is actually rejected by the Senate. It's a head-in-the-sand mentality to not even attempt to get the best nominee possible.
Unless I see something concrete showing I should not, I will trust the President on this, too. As for her appearance, frankly, I am just as happy with someone who is not too attractive on the bench. I certainly don't see any reason why appearance should matter.
Miers has been close to Bush for quite some time. Unless you believe President Bush is not conservative enough, I see no reason not to trust him.
At this point, I'm just disgusted that the Pres is "skeered" of the Dems. Who CARES if they don't like Scalia/Thomas types! Who friggin cares!?!? We have the majority!
Let's hope so.
"Some old stuff on Miers:
AP, 2/2/1992, on whether as President she would ask a potential nominee how he or she would rule on abortion:
“Nominees are clearly prohibited from making such a commitment and presidents are prohibited from asking for it,” said Harriet Miers, a Dallas lawyer and president-elect of the State Bar of Texas.
In 1993, after the ABA had voted to adopt a pro-choice stance, the State Bar of Texas, under Miers’ leadership, fought to have the issue put to a vote of the full ABA membership. She said:
“If we were going to take a position on this divisive issue, the members should have been able to vote.”
In favor of democracy on the issue of abortion? Let’s hope she carries that through."
http://www.timothypcarney.com/?p=156
Tell it to everyone I heard back then saying he was at least a moderate, if not conservative, Democrat. I mean, at least in his public statements. Certainly he may have pulled the wool over lots of people's eyes. But the "88 Gore" was nothing like the "00 Gore" in the minds of many voters.
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.