Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Franck & Miers (Mark Levin's take on Harriet Miers)
National Review ^ | October 3, 2005 | Mark Levin

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 ...


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: georgewcarter; harrietmiers; scotus; stabbedintheback
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-263 next last
"President Bush Nominates Harriet Mier..."

Conservatives react: "Aack!What's this stuff in my mouth?!?"

101 posted on 10/03/2005 7:34:08 AM PDT by Caipirabob (Democrats.. Socialists..Commies..Traitors...Who can tell the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: McGavin999

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.


102 posted on 10/03/2005 7:34:48 AM PDT by Cautor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: gopwinsin04

"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.


103 posted on 10/03/2005 7:35:03 AM PDT by No Truce With Kings (The opinions expressed are mine! Mine! MINE! All Mine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: buckeyeblogger

Tammy Bruce just said George Bush has turned into Jimmy Carter.


104 posted on 10/03/2005 7:35:07 AM PDT by msnimje (Hurricane KATRINA - An Example of Nature's Enforcement of Eminent Domain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: No Truce With Kings

I don;t think its the same exodus ministries. I provided the link above.


105 posted on 10/03/2005 7:36:01 AM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

I know some don't realize it, but Abortion is not the only subject that comes up to the Supreme Court.


106 posted on 10/03/2005 7:36:37 AM PDT by Sabramerican (Islam is to Peace as Rape is to Love)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: RightthinkinAmerican

Your right it was 88

http://www.newsmeat.com/washington_political_donations/Harriet_Miers.php


107 posted on 10/03/2005 7:37:05 AM PDT by TheForceOfOne (It was a village of idiots that raised Hillary to Senator status.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: savedbygrace
By that reasoning, if I sit in my garage, I'm a car.

ROFLMAO!

108 posted on 10/03/2005 7:37:08 AM PDT by JesseJane (Stop the new tone already............)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: IamConservative

I thought it was up to the majority of the court which cases are accepted, not up to the C.J.


109 posted on 10/03/2005 7:37:37 AM PDT by penowa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: No Truce With Kings
Exodus Ministries

NOT THAT ONE. The Exodus Ministries dealing with Ex-Convicts. They help them get on their feet after being freed.

110 posted on 10/03/2005 7:37:46 AM PDT by msnimje (Hurricane KATRINA - An Example of Nature's Enforcement of Eminent Domain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: dinodino

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!


111 posted on 10/03/2005 7:38:41 AM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Please do some research before spouting that kind of nonsense.


Well hubba hubba, don't get your feathers ruffled.


112 posted on 10/03/2005 7:39:31 AM PDT by TheForceOfOne (It was a village of idiots that raised Hillary to Senator status.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: bkepley

She contributed to Gore's campaign in spite of being Bush's attorney and friend. With friends like that.....


113 posted on 10/03/2005 7:40:16 AM PDT by MHT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk

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.


114 posted on 10/03/2005 7:40:35 AM PDT by ClaireSolt (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: buckeyeblogger

Perhaps she is Souter in womans clothing, but I mean that in a GOOD way for us, think about it.


115 posted on 10/03/2005 7:40:45 AM PDT by Paradox (Just because we are not perfect, does not mean we are not good.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: meema
Listening to C-span radio this morning, the callers all had pretty lame talking points on this.

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.

116 posted on 10/03/2005 7:41:29 AM PDT by elk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
She's a sacrifice. She will not be confirmed and both Bush and Miers know it. Bush's second nomination will be more conservative and Bush will fight for a confirmation.

Bwa ha ha! Yup, Bush wants to lose a Supreme Court nomination fight. Once the Dems finish off his first pick, they'll be too tired to go after his second one. Good thing those Dems aren't like sharks, who can smell blood in the water. And as for Miers, I'm sure her loyalty to Bush extends to agreeing to allow her name to be dragged through the mud for a few months, with an ambassadorship to some tropical island as the payoff once she gets shot down for the Supreme Court.
117 posted on 10/03/2005 7:41:32 AM PDT by drjimmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

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!


118 posted on 10/03/2005 7:42:02 AM PDT by MHT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa

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.


119 posted on 10/03/2005 7:42:15 AM PDT by savedbygrace ("No Monday morning quarterback has ever led a team to victory" GW Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: rightinthemiddle
We will never learn.

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..

120 posted on 10/03/2005 7:42:24 AM PDT by AntiGuv (ô)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

She'll be confirmed easily.


121 posted on 10/03/2005 7:42:28 AM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: buckeyeblogger

The link doesn't work.


122 posted on 10/03/2005 7:44:40 AM PDT by LibWrangler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gopwinsin04
She was co-chair of the Texas State Lottery Commissison! (sracasm button off)

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???

123 posted on 10/03/2005 7:45:05 AM PDT by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cautor

Yes, and he's going to take a large chunk of the House and Senate Republicans with him.


124 posted on 10/03/2005 7:45:14 AM PDT by penowa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Of course she will be confirmed. Get a grip.


125 posted on 10/03/2005 7:46:20 AM PDT by Grand Old Partisan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
3. She is a Christian. So is the Reverend Al Sharpton.......

Really? He sure fooled me. I thought he was a race pimp.

126 posted on 10/03/2005 7:46:59 AM PDT by Right Wing Assault ("..this administration is planning a 'Right Wing Assault' on values and ideals.." - John Kerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: penowa

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.


127 posted on 10/03/2005 7:47:34 AM PDT by chris1 ("Make the other guy die for his country" - George S. Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: madconservative

When you're done pass the barf bag over here...


128 posted on 10/03/2005 7:47:47 AM PDT by funkywbr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Assault; AntiGuv

Al Sharpton surprised me by refusing to speak at a Black Musilm event, saying he could not because he is a Christian.


129 posted on 10/03/2005 7:48:54 AM PDT by Grand Old Partisan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Cautor
I don't like gambling when it's unnecessary

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.

130 posted on 10/03/2005 7:50:10 AM PDT by McGavin999 (We're a First World Country with a Third World Press (Except for Hume & Garrett ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
She's a sacrifice. She will not be confirmed and both Bush and Miers know it. Bush's second nomination will be more conservative and Bush will fight for a confirmation.

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.

131 posted on 10/03/2005 7:50:51 AM PDT by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: savedbygrace
I don't understand your argument.

We are discussing what attributes Bush may find as important. If he mentioned something about her when he introduced her to the world, I would assume it was likely an attribute he favored.

If you are arguing that she does not contain that attribute because you have not heard her confession of faith then that still doesn't mean that it wasn't one of Bush's minimum requirements.

If you are arguing that only you can discern who has made a confession of faith, then I believe you are wrong.

If you are arguing that a confession of faith cannot be said without meaning then you are also wrong.

Only Jesus really knows anyones hearts, You and I and Bush can only pray for guidance and look at the fruits of our lives. She apparently seems to bear fruit at least to Bush.
132 posted on 10/03/2005 7:51:16 AM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Grand Old Partisan

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.


133 posted on 10/03/2005 7:51:52 AM PDT by Right Wing Assault ("..this administration is planning a 'Right Wing Assault' on values and ideals.." - John Kerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: msnimje; petitfour
What are the qualifications for a justice on the Supreme Court?

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".

134 posted on 10/03/2005 7:52:49 AM PDT by bigeasy_70118
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: holdonnow; buckeyeblogger
When Bader-Meinhoff and Stephens announced the other day that they supported the next candidate's right not to answer any questions she/he didn't want to, most of us were shocked and even confused.

What did they know and when did they know it?

135 posted on 10/03/2005 7:54:47 AM PDT by Sal (Podesta boasted of time bombs left by the Clintons. Three of them were delivered by planes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa

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.


136 posted on 10/03/2005 7:59:03 AM PDT by savedbygrace ("No Monday morning quarterback has ever led a team to victory" GW Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: RexBeach
Why not do it correctly the first time?

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.

137 posted on 10/03/2005 8:01:04 AM PDT by andy58-in-nh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Mo1

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.


138 posted on 10/03/2005 8:01:04 AM PDT by hipaatwo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: bigeasy_70118

Apart from the F-bomb, that's funny. I absolutely, positively hate the F-bomb.


139 posted on 10/03/2005 8:01:34 AM PDT by petitfour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Mo1

got it:

Rallying
[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 O’Connor,” 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 O’Connor 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.”

http://bench.nationalreview.com/


140 posted on 10/03/2005 8:02:12 AM PDT by hipaatwo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: TheForceOfOne
LOL. Sorry about that.

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.

141 posted on 10/03/2005 8:02:51 AM PDT by Alberta's Child (I ain't got a dime, but what I got is mine. I ain't rich, but Lord I'm free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: ClaireSolt

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.


142 posted on 10/03/2005 8:03:54 AM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Too complicated... I like it though.


143 posted on 10/03/2005 8:06:14 AM PDT by johnny7 (ďNah, I ainít Jewish, I just donít dig on swine, thatís all.Ē)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
Bush has bushwacked his supporters.

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.

144 posted on 10/03/2005 8:07:08 AM PDT by freeperfromnj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: buckeyeblogger

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.


145 posted on 10/03/2005 8:08:03 AM PDT by counterpunch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buckeyeblogger
It's been oft quoted that "....but you can't please all of the people all of the time." It seems like young Bush is bordering on not being able to please hardly anyone at any time. I am not ready to jump off the cliff on this one but the Miers nomination suggests the possibility of adding another item to his crap list. Time will tell.
146 posted on 10/03/2005 8:08:06 AM PDT by pt17
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Lay off the kool aid.


147 posted on 10/03/2005 8:08:50 AM PDT by Huck ("If people are disappointed, they have every reason to be." Mark Levin on GW's latest lame move.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: buckeyeblogger
Mark Levin is not overly thrilled with this choice but he's not completely turned off either. This was a political appointment and yes there were candidates with better resumes than Miers.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
148 posted on 10/03/2005 8:09:11 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: McGavin999

"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.


149 posted on 10/03/2005 8:09:15 AM PDT by Cautor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
She's a sacrifice. She will not be confirmed and both Bush and Miers know it. Bush's second nomination will be more conservative and Bush will fight for a confirmation.

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.

150 posted on 10/03/2005 8:09:41 AM PDT by TruthShallSetYouFree (Abortion is to family planning what bankruptcy is to financial planning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-263 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson