Skip to comments.Franck & Miers (Mark Levin's take on Harriet Miers)
Posted on 10/03/2005 7:04:43 AM PDT by buckeyeblogger
Franck & Miers [Mark R. Levin 10/03 09:50 AM] I understand Matt's point, as he's written so eloquently about it many times. But, in truth, we already know what's going on here, and that the president, despite a magnificent farm team from which to choose a solid nominee, chose otherwise. Miers was chosen for two reasons and two reasons alone: 1. she's a she; 2. she's a long-time Bush friend. Otherwise, there's nothing to distinguish her from thousands of other lawyers. And holding a high post in the Bar, which the White House seems to be touting, is like holding a high position in any professional organization. But it reveals nothing about the nominee's judicial philosophy. There are many top officials in the Bar who I wouldn't trust to handle a fender-bender. Also, early in his term, the president singled out the Bar for its partisan agenda and excluded it from a formal role in judicial selection. The president said he would pick a candidate like Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas, and he did not. We all know of outstanding individuals who fit that bill, and they were once again passed over. Even David Souter had a more compelling resume that Miers.
(Excerpt) Read more at bench.nationalreview.com ...
Conservatives react: "Aack!What's this stuff in my mouth?!?"
I don't like gambling when it's unnecessary. Bush blew his nominations big time and pissed away much of his base and with it his agenda for the next 2 years. He's done.
"She was co-chair of the Texas State Lottery Commissison!"
She was also on the board of directors of Exodus Ministries. I think that is the most eloquent evidence of her conservatism. Trust me, the gay lobby is going to launch a firestorm against her. I can just imagine Andrew Sullivan's reaction.
Tammy Bruce just said George Bush has turned into Jimmy Carter.
I don;t think its the same exodus ministries. I provided the link above.
I know some don't realize it, but Abortion is not the only subject that comes up to the Supreme Court.
Your right it was 88
I thought it was up to the majority of the court which cases are accepted, not up to the C.J.
NOT THAT ONE. The Exodus Ministries dealing with Ex-Convicts. They help them get on their feet after being freed.
Exodus International????? What is that for those of us who do not know? Why are the liberals going to go ballistic? Give me cause for hope!
Please do some research before spouting that kind of nonsense.
Well hubba hubba, don't get your feathers ruffled.
She contributed to Gore's campaign in spite of being Bush's attorney and friend. With friends like that.....
Probably, the 2006 election will be settled in the next two weeks as completely tone deaf posters piss off every woman in America with their sexist comments.
Perhaps she is Souter in womans clothing, but I mean that in a GOOD way for us, think about it.
1) religious litmus test -- anyone who might hold sincere religious beliefs of the Christian variety need not apply;
2) She's never served on a court (uh, like 35 other supreme court justices who'd never before served on the bench)
I could be wrong, and certainly need more info, but it seems Bush is carefully selecting people who are held in high esteem by the Bar in general, who know how to "get along" in a highly liberal profession, and who have kept their noses mighty clean.
What good does it do if you've got a great conservative as a nominee, but they've got something on their record that can be spun on the vast MSM megaphone -- even though there's an unfair double standard (e.g., you can run a house of prostitution from your Capitol Hill townhouse, and stay in Congress, drown women in your car, etc and get away with it).
This nominee was the first female Texas Bar president -- not that this is the greatest thing in the world, but you don't get there by being weird, unable to get along with folks, etc.
Finally, I can name a ton of White House Counsel, male, liberal, with very, very similar credentials, who the Left would swoon over, and there would be no whisper that they weren't qualified.....so I just don't buy that about this nominee's resume.
How can she avoid confirmation if the libs like her? The team-playing Republicans will vote yes and the Dems will push her through because they know this is as good as it's gonna get for them. In fact, they couldn't have found a better candidate amongst themselves!
Unless she confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord, unless she has accepted Jesus' sacrifice on the cross as propitiation for sin, then she's not a Christian.
All the rest is irrelevant.
It is interesting to contemplate that if the pompous @$$ Kerry were president we'd surely have a solid flaming liberal Supreme Court right now (6-3) even despite a GOP Senate. But, with Bush as president we have a big, huge enigma, even though we have a GOP Senate..
She'll be confirmed easily.
The link doesn't work.
Yes, but was she there as long as Mike Brown was with the Arabian Horse Association? Bush sure knows how to pick the best and the brightest, eh?
All I can think about is the tens of thousands of volunteers who worked their asses off for months to elect Bush. For this???
Yes, and he's going to take a large chunk of the House and Senate Republicans with him.
Of course she will be confirmed. Get a grip.
Really? He sure fooled me. I thought he was a race pimp.
I was utterly shocked in December 2004 when GWB started with his immigration shamnesty. At that point I had never ever had such a bad case of buyers' remorse.
When you're done pass the barf bag over here...
Al Sharpton surprised me by refusing to speak at a Black Musilm event, saying he could not because he is a Christian.
Your time for gambling was over in 2004 when you voted for President Bush. That's when you assessed the situation and decided that Dubya was the man you wanted in the Whitehouse because you believed what he had to say about the war, the future of the courts, and the country in general. Dubya is not gambling because he has known this woman for 10 years. He is the president and he gets to choose his nominees.
For all you know, in 5 years you may just be crowing that a president needs to be nominating people along the lines of Scalia, Thomas, and Meirs.
Huh? That is not leadership. Pick a conservative jurist and fight for them, dammit. That's why the thousands of volunteers gave up their lives in 2004 to re-elect this man. Not for wimpy "sacrificies", not for milquetoast moderates his father would appoint.
Well, if Sharpton said that to the Black Muslims, then he goes up a few notches in my book. That does take some guts. At least he's a Christian race pimp.
Put Miers into the pool with Brown, Luttig, McConnell, Alito, Bathelder and Jones and you find in relation to these WELL QUALIFIED candidates she is not even on their level.
When nominated to be an Associate Justice, William Rhenquist was also accused of not being "distinguished enough".
To which Richard Nixon replied, "Put a f-cking robe on him. Then he'll be distinguished".
What did they know and when did they know it?
No, you were supporting the claim that she is a Christian with a number of irrelevant arguments and facts. That's what I was responding to, not any knowledge, or lack of knowledge I might have about her.
Even in this latest post, you are responding with more irrelevant statements.
Because Bush knows what everyone around here seems to ignore: An openly-conservative judge with a paper trail cannot be confirmed by this Senate, regardless of qualifications. The organized Left, aided and abetted by PAW, PP, NARAL, and dozens of 527 organizations will kill any such nominee using the Media as a megaphone for their hysteria. We (Conservatives) don't have the votes in a Senate with 45 Dems plus 7 or so RINO's afraid to take on the abortion lobby. And don't kid yourselves, folks: that's what this battle is all about.
I just read on NRO that Jay Sekulow approves of her. Says he's worked with her and knows her. I can't get to NRO right now to give you the link, it keeps giving me no data.
Apart from the F-bomb, that's funny. I absolutely, positively hate the F-bomb.
[Kathryn Jean Lopez 10/03 09:57 AM]
Jay Sekulow joins Leonard Leo:
(Washington, DC) The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), specializing in constitutional law said today that Harriet Miers, the nominee named by President Bush for a seat on the Supreme Court of the United States, is an excellent choice who represents the conservative mainstream of judicial philosophy of interpreting the Constitution, not re-writing it.
Once again, President Bush showed exceptional judgment in naming Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court to replace Justice OConnor, said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ, who argues regularly before the high court and has a pro-life protest case at the high court this term. At a time when the high court is facing some of the most critical issues of the day including a number of cases dealing directly with abortion and life issues the person who replaces Justice OConnor is critical. Harriet Miers is an excellent choice with an extraordinary record of service in the legal community and is certain to approach her work on the high court with a firm commitment to follow the Constitution and the rule of law. I have been privileged to work with her in her capacity as White House counsel. She is bright, thoughtful, and a consummate professional and I enthusiastically endorse her nomination.
Sekulow added: We look forward to a speedy confirmation process and will work aggressively to ensure that Harriet Miers gets full and fair consideration before the Senate. We call on members of the Senate to reject the partisan political rhetoric and focus on the judicial philosophy of this conservative mainstream nominee.
Sekulow said the ACLJ will begin mobilizing a national campaign to ensure that Miers is confirmed. Sekulow said he will generate support for the nominee through his daily radio broadcast that reaches 1.5 million listeners, through his weekly television show, by using direct mail, phone calls, and emails to a list approaching one million supporters.
We know the intentions of the liberal left to do anything possible to derail this nominee, said Sekulow. We are prepared to meet those challenges head on and ensure that this battle ends with the confirmation of Harriet Miers as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.
If we were going to take a position on this divisive issue, the members should have been able to vote.
Some of these threads are turning into the kind of "10,000 folks in New Orleans have been murdered and cannibalized inside the Superdome" nonsense that drove me nuts during the coverage of Katrina.
I am not sure what to make of your post. I would have preferred Janice Rogers Brown over any other available potential nominee on the basis of ideology and biography. I trust that you are not suggesting that I am going to anger women by asking the details of a Christian Ministry for ex-prisoners or Harriet Miers's support of it. I do not reject the possibility that I may be tone deaf at times. Please expand on what you meant. If I have given offense, I did not intend to.
Too complicated... I like it though.
It really is too bad because Mark Levin has been one of his most steadfast supporters. Hannity and Rush almost never waiver from their support of the President. It will be interesting to get their take later on.
Bush said he would pick the best qualified person, regardless of race or gender. If he had picked one of the Ediths or Janice Rogers Brown, then I could believe it. But in the case of of Miers, he lied. Plain and simple. She may turn out to be a fine jurist and please conservatives and textualists everywhere. But "the most qualified person" she is not.
Lay off the kool aid.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
"to be nominating people along the lines of Scalia, Thomas, and Meirs."
You might want to get the spelling right. It's Miers. It remains to be seen whether she will be confirmed. I doubt it.
Democrats are vicious, but they're not stupid. I believe there is more of a chance that the Republicans block her nomination than the dems, who realize that Bush's choice could have been, for them, a helluva lot worse. If there is any Bush "strategery" involved, perhaps he will let the dems unload on her, and then have her withdraw for some "unnamed" medical problem. Or, more Machiavellian, to have her "blow" the confirmation hearings by letting it slip out that she is really a hard-core right-winger.
This is the "swing" seat. Is Harriet Miers the number one choice that Bush (who allegedly won the election) can proffer? She is, at this point, a marginally acceptable choice--one we would have been thrilled with if Presient Clinton or Carter nominated her. But, this was supposed to be Bush's opportunity to change the face of the Court (and the direction of this country) for generations to come.
I'm not interested in someone who is marginally accepatable but more easily confirmable. I want the most conservative (and reasonably young) choice available. And, if it takes the nuclear option to get a confirmation, so be it. If Bush finds that he doesn't have enough Republican support in the Senate for a Janice Rogers Brown or a Priscilla Owen, there would be time enough to choose a slightly less conservative (but more confirmable) candidate. What Bush has done, to my way of thinking, is to ask a girl to the prom whom he knows will accept, instead of asking the prettiest girl in school, and, failing that, the second prettiest, etc.