Posted on 10/03/2005 1:38:07 PM PDT by Rutles4Ever
I don't know Miers at all, but I am sure much more light will be shed on this.
I pray for Miers to do God's will.
but that is the only real argument I see going against her.
That's more of what the Dems are up against I think.
Besides at that time, Algore had positioned himself as a right-wing Democrat ala Zell Miller, not the raving lunatic we know him as now.
"I am not assuming anything... just referencing Paul's passage."
That's true, but I think my point stands then. The "she's an evangelical" argument doesn't do the trick in this case.
There's plenty of folks at my evangelical church that are way too far to the left to sit on the Court. Fewer than in the general population, but still plenty.
Bush has nominated Harriet Miers to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the SCOTUS. As a strict conservative, I'm happy, and here are 5 reasons why:
1. She has real-world experience as a corporate lawyer and as the head of a large law firm. Many justices don't have that kind of experience, and so have a harder time understanding the impact of their decisions on the economy and on the business environment. The business community will strongly support her nomination, and for good reasons.
2. According to a judge who has worked with her and knows her well, she will likely be a strict constitutionalist. She has worked in contract law for a long time, and people who work in contract law are focused on the meaning of the law as it's written in the original document.
3. She is an evangelical Christian who has been very active in her church.
4. She tried to get the ABA to reconsider their pro-abortion stance.
5. She has worked with Bush in the executive branch trenches formulating the legal framework needed to combat terrirism. She will likely know more, and be a positive bigger influence on the court on this critical issue than any other SC justice.
The time to complain is now. But if Bush picked her, she is OK by me. But don't be too suprised if a tabloid diggs up her lesbo lover from SMU.
I think the other argument is that she's genuinely unqualified, especially when compared to the alternative nominees. I think this pick, regardless of how she eventually votes on issues, diminishes the stature of the SCOTUS.
Miers worked closely with Bush. This is not the Souter case (honestly, I am amazed how many conservatives have been turned into scared little Frenchman by David Souter) where Bush had an interview or two and took the word of Sununu, Sr. And Souter had a conservative record as a state judge. He ruled the right way on a Kelo-like case. He simply turned. That's all.
that is the one I would read more into, but all I am seeing on FR today is that she gave to Gore in 1988....
If that is all someone can come up with, that's pretty weak.
Of course, considering how nuts Planned Parenthood went over her nomination, I kinda like that.
Well put. Picking Miers was all about affirmative action and cronyism. In this regard, Jonah Goldberg has provided what I consider a a thoughtful commentary on the pick:
GOLDBERG: "We can go to school on her record more. But, at first blush, what bothers me more is the political calculation here. Bush could very much use a brisk confirmation battle right now. His base is forgetting why he should be supported. Confirmation battles over big ideas are clarifying in ways that are good for the public and good for a president whose principles are getting blurry. The Miers pick comes along at precisely the wrong moment. Bush is saying "trust me" at exactly the time when conservatives want to be reassured they can trust him. The last thing he needs right now is to dip into his house credit one more time.
Bush has a history of running against the wind of his strongest critics, which is one of the things I love about the guy. For example, people said Bush was too unilateral and hostile to the international community, so he appointed John Bolton. But, either by accident or design, this time around he seems bent on countering a different kind of criticism. He's been getting beaten -- somewhat unfairly -- for his alleged cronyism of late. This appointment seems like the Bolton approach; "Oh yeah, you think I'm into cronyism? Well here's my former personal lawyer from Texas!"
Well put. Picking Miers was all about affirmative action and cronyism. In this regard, Jonah Goldberg has provided what I consider a a thoughtful commentary on the pick:
GOLDBERG: "We can go to school on her record more. But, at first blush, what bothers me more is the political calculation here. Bush could very much use a brisk confirmation battle right now. His base is forgetting why he should be supported. Confirmation battles over big ideas are clarifying in ways that are good for the public and good for a president whose principles are getting blurry. The Miers pick comes along at precisely the wrong moment. Bush is saying "trust me" at exactly the time when conservatives want to be reassured they can trust him. The last thing he needs right now is to dip into his house credit one more time.
Bush has a history of running against the wind of his strongest critics, which is one of the things I love about the guy. For example, people said Bush was too unilateral and hostile to the international community, so he appointed John Bolton. But, either by accident or design, this time around he seems bent on countering a different kind of criticism. He's been getting beaten -- somewhat unfairly -- for his alleged cronyism of late. This appointment seems like the Bolton approach; "Oh yeah, you think I'm into cronyism? Well here's my former personal lawyer from Texas!"
And, with Ms. Miers, we can point to exactly what to indicate that she is an originalist in her interpretation of the Constitution. There are myriad other judges with consistent records as originalists (which is the type of judge that the President promised to appoint). CJ Roberts, based on his judicial record and his testimony in front of the Senate is a minimalist rather than an originalist. With the nomination of Miers, we are again presented with a stealth candidate, with no known judicial philosophy being nominated to a lifetime appointment to the body that interprets the Constitution. We must rely, yet again, on testimony of personal friends about what the person is like. Like with CJ Roberts, we cannot really base our judgement on his work as a lawyer since she was arguing the position of her client which may or may not be reflective of her potential judicial philosohpy. We are expected to wait for a few years (as per VP Cheney today) to see whether or not she measures up to what was promised. While you may be satisified with that level of proof, it falls far short of what most conservatives expected.
"What are you talking about? Are you sure you're on the right forum?"
I just thought it was weird that people were talking about her marital status (or lack thereof.)
She is also a democrat. RINO
So was Reagan. But he did all right once he saw the light.
"I just thought it was weird that people were talking about her marital status (or lack thereof.)"
Well... the ONLY piece of evidence I've been given that she is in fact a conservative is that she is an evangelical Christian. I pointed out in response that her lifestyle does not seem to conform to such religious zeal. That doesn't disqualify her from the court, but it does mean that the "Trust her, she's an evangelical" defense doesn't hold.
Mike,
Sorry, Buddy, but the stature of the SCOTUS was WAY Diminished when the Republicans caved to let Ruth Vader Ginsburg take the bench...THere's way to many hand wringers out here today. My prediction is she'll be an excellent judge and will not legislate from the bench like atleast half of the team current on the SCOTUS has been doing...
DOES ANYBODY KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT HARRIET MIERS' BELIEFS?
Another article of endorsement by ACLJ... Jay Sekulow group
http://www.aclj.org/news/Read.aspx?ID=1911
I simply cannot believe that the man who picked John Roberts as Chief Justice and got him confirmed 78-22 could do no better than Harriet Miers this time around. There is no other way to look at it IMO.
I can hold back no longer. First, Ms. Miers entered the legal profession in the early 70's, about when I was trying to get into public accounting. Believe me, it was not easy. I had to work twice as hard as my male counterparts for half the pay. If she was as driven as I was, It left no time for socializing. I gave up a lot for professional success, as I'm sure she did.
Second, it's none of your damn business why she is not married. Focus on something of substance.
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.