Conservatives can trust in Miers (Newt Gingrich Op/Ed)

Baltimore Sun ^

[counterpunch]

As Bush's personal friend and personal lawyer, not to mention holding the same position in the Bush White House that John Dean held in the Nixon White House, Miers is just the person Kennedy, Durbin, Biden, Leahy, and Schumer would just love to interrogate for hours on end.

By the time its all over, the public won't be able to tell if they just watched a confirmation hearing or an impeachment trial. What did Bush know and when did he know it? We're about to find out.

[Crush T Velour]

I can just about guarantee she is not going to put herself in a position of seeming to promise a ruling in a particular way.

[Cboldt]

You know nothing about the confirmation process if you think every President doesn't consult with the opposition to identify candidates they would tolerate. And the opposition takes advantage of that consultation to pick REALISTIC options, rather than DOAs. That's how Orin Hatch ended up pre-approving Ginsberg.

Ginsberg -> Not DOA because the GOP has no objection
Brown -> DOA because a minority! of the DEMs object and the GOP has no fight

Without a fight, the DEMs win. Based on the principle of what? "Realism?" That's no principle.

I prefer the GOP to fight for constitutional and conservative principle, because if it doesn't, those principles will be compromised and subverted by liberal/socialist ideology.

[Stellar Dendrite]

Really? Is Thomas for affirmative action and pro feminism?

Did you see this?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1498195/posts?q=1&&page=201
"Miers' time on Dallas City Council provides some insight"
Miers was one of 10 Dallas council members to unanimously approve a 1989 agenda item that revised minimum height, weight and vision requirements for Dallas firefighters to facilitate "promotion of certain ranks in the Fire Department," particularly women.

The agenda item's title: "Implementation of Fire Department Affirmative Action Plan."







It is very interesting. Which goes hand in hand with this:



http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1498109/posts

In the late 1990s, as a member of the advisory board for Southern Methodist University's law school, Ms. Miers pushed for the creation of an endowed lecture series in women's studies named for Louise B. Raggio, one of the first women to rise to prominence in the Texas legal community ...Ms. Miers, whom President Bush announced on Monday as his choice to fill the Supreme Court seat being vacated by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, not only advocated for the lecture series, but also gave money and solicited donations to help get it off the ground ... A feminist icon, Gloria Steinem, delivered the series's first lecture, in 1998.

[republicofdavis]

I agree with you regarding the political issue and responded similarly but forgot to put you on the to line.

However, I have to wonder about this:

"From all I'm hearing she is an Originalist...like Bork."

I don't know what you're hearing, but it can't be very much. I suspect that whatever you're hearing is more like wishful thinking.

[Stellar Dendrite]

" From all I'm hearing she is an Originalist...like Bork."

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[counterpunch]

I just mean Miers is like Thomas in the regards that she is highly influenced by religion, at the time of her appointment she really isn't qualified, she's a "diversity" nomination, and she is going to be held up as a target for ridiculing conservative jurisprudence.

I happen to like Thomas and think he's turned out to be a good Justice regardless of all these things. But to claim any of the above was untrue would be intellectually dishonest.

[The Sons of Liberty]

The President and his minions can all trot out and repeat that Harriett Miers is a good pick and to "Trust Them", but I don't recall being as disappointed about a political selection since Bush Sr. chose Dan Quayle as his running mate.

History has proven me right about Quayle, and I pray that I'm wrong about Miers, but my "gut feelings" are usually correct.

[Les_Miserables]

I think this one is easier than RvW. The question can be posed: In your intrepretation of the text of the Constitution, does the phrase "the people's right" in the second amendment refer to an organized militia or to the collective right of individual citizens? That requires no opinion on a case that may come before the court and it should be required of any nominee to express their understanding of the specific meaning of the words in the constitution. That is after all what they are claiming as a primary skill. Follow up question: To what degree do you feel justified in departing from the original intent of the words in the Constitution when rendering an opinion rather than deferring that option to the elected branches of the Federal government, the various States, or to the people through the Amendment process?