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

Skip to comments.

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

Posted on 10/07/2005 6:05:08 AM PDT by slowhand520

Conservatives can trust in Miers

By Newt Gingrich

Originally published October 7, 2005

WASHINGTON // Conservatives should feel confident with the selection of Harriet Miers to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court for a simple reason: George W. Bush selected her. Much has been made in the press about conservative unhappiness with the White House on issues such as spending and immigration and most recently with the selection of Ms. Miers. However, while these tensions are not insignificant, the president has stayed remarkably true to conservative principles on every major decision he has made since winning the Republican primary.

He unabashedly ran as a conservative in the election and even selected Dick Cheney - a man of impeccable conservative credentials - as his vice president. Once elected, he assembled a Cabinet of conservatives, including Donald H. Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft and Condoleezza Rice. He proceeded to cut taxes as promised, and did it again in 2002.

After 9/11, President Bush resisted the prevailing wisdom in Washington that terrorism should be dealt with as a crime, instead treating the attacks as acts of war that required a military response. And after the 2004 election, Mr. Bush put himself front and center as an impassioned advocate of transforming Social Security into a system of personal accounts.

(Excerpt) Read more at baltimoresun.com ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: gingrich; harrietmiers; miers; newt; newtgingrich; scotus; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-109 next last
To: slowhand520
Yep, Truth still is Truth and Freedom still is Freedom, and integrity is still a valued commodity. I give Newt his due and value his opinion.

Having said that, I'm still looking for more confirmation on Harriett. Schaftley's comments are more reasoned than most of the screamers and a little disturbing when she says no woman close to Bush is anti-RvW so we cannot assume Miers is..... anybody know (have any specifics) about that?...I think it may be a valid observation but I don't know...(makes me wonder about Roberts also BTW)

I also think Miers needs to find a way to thread the needle in the hearings and give us some assurance..the typical "the case may come before the court" will not wash. We know the case is already headed to the court.. That's is what the concern with her appointment is largely about. I need to hear more on this and other core issues that is verifyable.

51 posted on 10/07/2005 10:10:08 AM PDT by Les_Miserables
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: republicofdavis
Source? You may have posted it before but I haven't seen it.

Grabbing randomly, the President is among my sources on this. (Honestly it is just a bit of Miers lore I've picked up.):
She is plenty bright. As I mentioned earlier, she was a pioneer in Texas. She just didn’t kind of opine about things; she actually led.
First woman of the Texas Bar Association; first woman of the Dallas Bar Association; a woman partner of her law firm; she led a major law firm. She was consistently rated as one of the top 50 women lawyers in the United States — not just one year, but consistently rated that way, as one of the top 100 lawyers.

[I wouldn't have taken a bet on Miguel Estrada passing the Senate,]But I think it would have been good for our side to have the discussion.

I'm not so sure. I would have enjoyed the spectacle, and I would have felt an invigorating contempt for Liberals, but in the long run I think it would have been more likely to hurt our cause. Rule of thumb: Victories are generally better than defeats. It doesn't always hold true, but that is the way to go if you have a choice.

With the other nominations he fought for, Brown, Owen, Pryor, etc., it was clear why. It didn't involve trust, it was obvious on it's face. On this pick, for the SUPREME Court, he is asking for the ultimate leap of faith. For many of us, it's extremely difficult (for many, impossible) because there's nothing (or too little) to point to to gauge what her performance as a Justice will be.

There is something. Bush's (and Mier's) track record on judicial appointments. If that wasn't obvious to you from the start, I suppose it won't be just because I mentione it. But there it is.

52 posted on 10/07/2005 10:11:23 AM PDT by Crush T Velour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: slowhand520

The Fact Newt has NOTHING to base his support on. Not only that, I doubt Newt is that much of a social conservative.

The guy did a good job taking over the house but he's basically a bag of hot air that should blow away.


53 posted on 10/07/2005 10:26:44 AM PDT by rcocean (Copyright is theft and loved by Hollywood socialists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: slowhand520
At the nomination news conference, Ms. Miers' first remarks were reassuring in this regard: "It is the responsibility of every generation to be true to the founders' vision of the proper role of the courts and our society." She promised to "strictly apply the laws and the Constitution."
Contrary to the spin from the MSM, this is not rocket science. We don't need Albert-Einstein-brilliance here. We need fairness. And loyalty. To the constitution. Bush says Miers will give us that. I trust Bush. I think we will all be very happy in the years to come. Happy that Bush had the wisdom to make this pick, and the power to get Miers confirmed.

(Which he has. Both the wisdom and the power.)

54 posted on 10/07/2005 10:33:09 AM PDT by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crush T Velour

"She was consistently rated as one of the top 50 women lawyers in the United States — not just one year, but consistently rated that way, as one of the top 100 lawyers."

I'm sorry, but I will need a little more sourcing than that (not saying that you can provide it) to believe this statement, particularly since it is internally inconsistent (is she one of the top 50 women or top 100 lawyers, either, both?).

As for the rest, there's really no point in arguing because neither of us can be certain about the outcome. I have a frame of reference of what I believe a Supreme Court Justice should be. She doesn't fit it. Either one day I'll have to adjust my frame or I'll be more convinced than ever about it. Time will tell.


55 posted on 10/07/2005 10:44:48 AM PDT by republicofdavis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Crush T Velour
Victories are generally better than defeats. It doesn't always hold true, but that is the way to go if you have a choice.
Good point. Bush is playing to win. Not to grandstand.
56 posted on 10/07/2005 10:45:57 AM PDT by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: bert
The problem bert, is not what they say, but what they do. Bush said Campaign Finance Reform was unconstitutional, but he signed it, and it became law. The Court upheld it, but Bush was right. It is unconstitutional, and if he had vetoed it, it would not matter that we have a Supreme Court that doesn't give a whit about the Constitution.

Bush claims he is conservative. But he was more interested in getting re-elected than in doing what was right, so he passed Medicare Prescription Drugs, the largest expansion of socialism since LBJ.

Newt claims to be conservative, but he wants to be President, so he plays smacky mouth with Hillary on healthcare. Conservatives know, or should know, that government cannot fix anything. The reason health care is futzzed up is because government got involved. Anything that government does, including anything that "conservatives" would do apart from getting government completely out of the equation, will only make things worse.

Bottom line bert, it's not what any politician says that matters. It's what they do that matters. Maybe Bush and Newt share a common characteristic, maybe they are more interested in getting themselves elected to power than they are in doing the right thing. In terms of definition, does being conservative have anything at all to do with doing the "right" thing? At the risk of being wrong, I thought conservatives accused Democrats of being willing to do anything to get elected, including using the public treasury to buy their own re-elections.

57 posted on 10/07/2005 10:52:20 AM PDT by Reaganghost (Democrats are living proof that you can fool some of the people all of the time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: rcocean
"Not only that, I doubt Newt is that much of a social conservative."

Wow. That is a pretty bold statement. Have you read the Contract With America"? There a plethora of social conservative proposals in it. Gingrich has always been a proponent of strengthening the family, welfare reform and accountability. Aren't these social issues? I think it is fair to say Newt knows what he is talking about.

I agree that there is not much to base support both pro and con. But I think we will know more as the hearings begin. To say Newt Gingrich is a bag of hot air on social issues is where I disagree with you
58 posted on 10/07/2005 10:52:44 AM PDT by slowhand520
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Reaganghost

.....It's what they do that matters.....

Which is why both W and Newt will be remembered as greats.

Losing over principle won't let you get anything done.

W is President, he is not SCOTUS.


59 posted on 10/07/2005 10:58:37 AM PDT by bert (K.E. ; N.P . I smell a dead rat in Baton Rouge!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Reaganghost

.....It's what they do that matters.....

Which is why both W and Newt will be remembered as greats.

Losing over principle won't let you get anything done.

W is President, he is not SCOTUS.


60 posted on 10/07/2005 10:59:17 AM PDT by bert (K.E. ; N.P . I smell a dead rat in Baton Rouge!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Reaganghost

hmmm...it seems to me that Reaganghost doesn't so much have a problem with Miers or the way Bush selects judicial appointments as he does with a bunch of other things.


61 posted on 10/07/2005 11:00:54 AM PDT by Crush T Velour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Crush T Velour

Of course Miers should get a fair hearing and an up or down vote, but history has far from settled whether Bush is batting well on Judges.

If Miers gets up there and votes like another Justice O'Connor or Powell, would you say in 2010 that he batted 1000?

The term "fully qualified" nominee is in the eye of the beholder, and we shouldn't let our loyalty to the President blind us to the fact that Miers' experience and background in Constitutional law is thinner than that of most of the previous nominees for the post. Some strangely think that lack of background is a plus, but close court watchers know that many of the Supreme Court most wobbliest principles have come about from court members (like O'Connor) who used the 'real world' viewpoint to make rulings, and who lacked a rigorous view of constitutional interpretation. Miers may be a fine woman and lawyer, but it is doubtful she will be another Scalia.


62 posted on 10/07/2005 11:01:23 AM PDT by WOSG (http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Crush T Velour

Uh, that's top 100 WOMEN lawyers, not top 100 lawyers.


63 posted on 10/07/2005 11:03:34 AM PDT by WOSG (http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Les_Miserables

"Schaftley's comments are more reasoned than most of the screamers and a little disturbing when she says no woman close to Bush is anti-RvW so we cannot assume Miers is..... anybody know (have any specifics) about that?."

I'm guessing that she means by that, both Barbara and Laura Bush are not anti-RvW.

".I think it may be a valid observation but I don't know"

I dont know either.

"...(makes me wonder about Roberts also BTW)"

Uh, you shouldnt. *Roberts* wife has a prominent position in a pro-life organization. :-)


64 posted on 10/07/2005 11:07:11 AM PDT by WOSG (http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: aBootes
In any case, I have no intention of supporting an unqualified nominee.

Constitutionally, a Justice needn't even be a lawyer.

65 posted on 10/07/2005 11:09:50 AM PDT by MortMan (Eschew Obfuscation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Paloma_55

"I am sure that the likes of Patrick Leahy will agree with your approach."

ON the contrary, we found out that Leahy and Harry Reid are the ones who put Bush up to the idea of appointing Miers.

They didnt want a rigid right-wing Judge cloistered in the judicial monastary, and Bush agreed.


66 posted on 10/07/2005 11:09:51 AM PDT by WOSG (http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: slowhand520
Newtie actually thinks he has a chance in 08 so he is playing patty cake with Bush

Forget it Newtie, conservatives not buying Bush now, wont buy you later for being an errand boy.

67 posted on 10/07/2005 11:10:13 AM PDT by cynicom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paloma_55

"The only grounds for NOT confirming the appointment would be if she had hired an illegal alien to clean her house or some other such scandalous thing..."

LOL. I am hoping this is sarcasm rather than simple idiocy.

The Constitution is silent on the reasons for approving or disapproving nominations. But if competence is *not* a valid barrier for such an important position, then the whole country could go to the dogs. You think it is A-OKAY to put mediocrities into high offices??? Surely not.

"If you argue that she is not qualified... what are the requisite qualifications and why are they not stated in the constitution???"

They are stated in the Constitution: The nominee must be qualified enough for the job to satisfy the Senate and achieve confirmation. The Senators can make their own subjective judgements on whether the nominee is 'qualified'.
Those of us who dont have a Senate vote are free to opine as to whether she is in fact worthy of passing the Senate's confirmation barrier. Having grounded experience in the Constitutional and legal issues that come before the US supreme court is a good thing; (the kind of experience that a solicitor general, a federal judge, or a lawyer who represents clients in appelate cases has). Miers has less of that than other possible proven conservatives that Bush could have picked, hence the gnashing of teeth at a missed opportunity.

We'll see how she does in the job interview. :-)


68 posted on 10/07/2005 11:18:27 AM PDT by WOSG (http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: MortMan
Constitutionally, a Justice needn't even be a lawyer.

You sir, are entirely correct. I have argued elsewhere that there are employment choices outside the legal profession which are, over a distinguished period of service, quite capable of producing excellent justices.

May I enquire about the origin of your handle?

69 posted on 10/07/2005 11:19:07 AM PDT by aBootes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: jackbenimble
Compared to many of the other possible choices she (Miers) is a legal light weight. She is nowhere near the top of her profession.

My sentiment exactly ... I want the best possible candidate nominated by Bush (as in Roberts) and Harriet Miers ain't the one. Not many presidents get the opportunity to nominate two justices to the SCOTUS ... Bush does ... and he's squandering his second opportunity by nominating a flyweight to a heavy weight position. Miers for some federal judgeship, OK ... to the SC absolutely not.

70 posted on 10/07/2005 11:21:25 AM PDT by BluH2o
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: aBootes

It's a familiar corruption of my last name, styled after the Simpson's "Do the Bartman" song.


71 posted on 10/07/2005 11:22:53 AM PDT by MortMan (Eschew Obfuscation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
Of course Miers should get a fair hearing and an up or down vote, but history has far from settled whether Bush is batting well on Judges.

Hmm...do you have a list of his judicial nominees that you *DON'T* like? I'm sure he's nominated whoever is your particular favorite. His non-SC nominations have been rather famously the one thing Conservatives are all in agreement about being quite good.

If Miers gets up there and votes like another Justice O'Connor or Powell, would you say in 2010 that he batted 1000?

No, but the same would be true if Owens were to suddenly turned on us like Warren did. If Barry Bonds strikes out every time this year, his career batting average won't be so good, what does that prove? What possible childhood neuroses would cause you to doubt Bush's judgement based on something that hasn't happened?

Uh, that's top 100 WOMEN lawyers, not top 100 lawyers.

It still falls under the ranking of "eminently qualified" in the objective sense.

But what about comparing her to other potential choices considering SUBJECTIVE considerations? Bush (and Miers) had all the skinny on the potential candidates we liked. He also had people counting heads to see whether they would pass. After all that, he REJECTED them in favor of (to him) a known quantity.

What gets me going about this nomination is the injustice and unreasonableness of her detractors. Based solely on the fact that THEY wouldn't have nominated her (while knowing relatively little compared to what the President knew) they are shouting "Betrayed!" and "This makes no sense!".

Wait until you hear from her before rending your clothes. So far, she looks like the nightmare Liberals foresaw when Bush was elected in 2000.

72 posted on 10/07/2005 11:27:23 AM PDT by Crush T Velour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
And for the last 5 years, there was unaminity on this forum that who ever the president picks should be given a full hearing and a vote.

I think that fact points to one reason for the disappointment. The unanimity came with an unstated assumption, that GWB would nominate a candidate in the mold of Scalia or Thomas. People mistook that statement, and right or wrong, don't see Miers as satisfying the promise of "in the mold of Scalia or Thomas."

Following that vein, not only is their disappointment with the nomination, there is also a diminishing of trust in the President - for a nomination where of of his stronger selling points is "trust me."

As I said, "right or wrong," but there is little doubt some party-faithful feel something that resembles betrayal.

I'm inclined to believe that Miers would render opinins that are acceptable to my sense of how SCOTUS should rule. But I am very unhappy with the pick.

73 posted on 10/07/2005 11:37:59 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: slowhand520
On affirmative action, gay marriage, abortion, illegal immigration, foreign aid, budget deficits, trade deficits, Gingrich has always been on the wrong side or shown little interest.

I also dislike the fact that he's always so PROUD of getting along with Clinton. In any case, the guy is bore, constantly shooting his mouth off or babbling about his "Big Ideas" None of which I find interesting.

If you like Kemp, you probably like Gingrich - I like neither.

74 posted on 10/07/2005 11:53:33 AM PDT by rcocean (Copyright is theft and loved by Hollywood socialists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: slowhand520

"the president has stayed remarkably true to conservative principles on every major decision he has made since winning the Republican primary."

Newt's hallucinating.


75 posted on 10/07/2005 11:57:14 AM PDT by reelfoot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
I'm inclined to believe that Miers would render opinins that are acceptable to my sense of how SCOTUS should rule. But I am very unhappy with the pick.

Then I'm confused.

76 posted on 10/07/2005 12:01:48 PM PDT by Ditto ( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
Cboldt: I'm inclined to believe that Miers would render opinins that are acceptable to my sense of how SCOTUS should rule. But I am very unhappy with the pick.

Then I'm confused.

I prefer an open discussion of Constitutional principle; correct the overreaching by SCOTUS and other courts into hot-button social issues, the balance of powers between the Senate and the President, etc. But instead of a discussion on principle, we are having a discussion on "qualifications," "cronyism," and "stealth."

I don't like that conservaitism is reduced to stealth. It feels like being ashamed of conservatism, or being afraid that conservatism will lose in the marketplace of ideas. It comes off as "chicken" and "conflict avoidance," not just on the President's part, but also on the part of the GOP-lead Senate.

77 posted on 10/07/2005 12:16:23 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
It comes off as "chicken" and "conflict avoidance," not just on the President's part, but also on the part of the GOP-lead Senate.

I guess you could look at it that way. I could make an equally strong case that considering other irons in the fire at this moment, especially the War, a big nasty fight inside the beltway would be bad timing when a so-called "stealth nominee" will accomplish the same end that one of those lightening rod nominees would.

78 posted on 10/07/2005 12:26:47 PM PDT by Ditto ( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
Cboldt: I'm inclined to believe that Miers would render opinins that are acceptable to my sense of how SCOTUS should rule. But I am very unhappy with the pick.

Then I'm confused.

I'm also unhappy that the pick is a divisive diversion within the ranks of the GOP. I don't know if the division is deep or durable, but I don't like it, and it's GWB's fault for making this pick.

And while I believe Ms. Miers would rule according to my sense of constitutional principle, her bona fides and world view do not clearly show that to me. Not like the world view openly expressed by Janice ROgers Brown, for example, in her A Whiter Shade of Pale speech.

I've thought about the nomination enough to have fairly well cemented my objections - and I have always been open-minded as to predictions of Ms. Miers performance as a Justice.

Meanwhile, I'd like to see the GOP-lead Senate take up the debate and confirmation of Myers (9th Circuit), Boyle, Haynes, Kavanaugh and Saad. Myers has been out of commitee for 6 months. Why the delay?

79 posted on 10/07/2005 12:27:39 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
I could make an equally strong case that considering other irons in the fire at this moment, especially the War, a big nasty fight inside the beltway would be bad timing when a so-called "stealth nominee" will accomplish the same end that one of those lightening rod nominees would.

I'm sure the President and other have fully rationalized and justified this pick in their own minds.

But it cannot be disputed that "stealth" comes with a cost. It is not a free pass, and it does not energize all of the conservatives.

This nomination has cause me to have doubts about President Bush that I never expected to have. I dislike it for that reason too. I really really want to trust him. He is making that hard.

80 posted on 10/07/2005 12:31:18 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
Let's say we had the big fight right now, say over Brown. The lefty groups have no doubt tons of material in the can, ready to go to trash the hell out of her. Multi-million dollar TV buys across the country. Op-Eds ready to hand to the MSM. Post Katrina, the Senate Rats smell blood in the water with Bush's poll numbers down, and the RINO gang of seven would have caved in a second. McCain would do his usual shots a Bush and be the media darling again. It would be the big fight you say we need, but there is no doubt in my mind that it is a fight we would lose, and lose badly, and the president of Senate filibuster over nominees would be firmly established.

Smart people don't pick the wrong fight at the wrong time. Only fools do, and this president is not a fool.

81 posted on 10/07/2005 12:43:10 PM PDT by Ditto ( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
It would be the big fight you say we need, but there is no doubt in my mind that it is a fight we would lose ...

And that is where our opinions diverge. At any rate, I responded to your puzzlement over how one might simulateously have nothing bad to say about Ms. Miers, yet be upset at the pick.

Smart people don't pick the wrong fight at the wrong time. Only fools do, and this president is not a fool.

I agree. He is no fool. He is a politician. His pick has political ramifications. We don't know how it plays out, but I think the pick is at least temporarily belittling to the conservative cause. Yet something good will come of it, of that I am confident.

82 posted on 10/07/2005 12:51:38 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
and the president of Senate filibuster over nominees would be firmly established.

This pick ratifies the precedent and practice of cloture abuse. It concedes that a minority of Senators are able to prevent the Senate from providing advice and consent.

The precedent is more firmly settled now than ever. And that bugs me more than putting a stinker on SCOTUS would.

83 posted on 10/07/2005 12:56:37 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Paloma_55
I think you have the process inverted a bit.

The president nominates, then the Senate exercises its prerogative of "advice and consent."

Whether or not the Senate ultimately comes to the conclusion that that nominee is worthy of being confirmed, or does not meet their standards and is rejected, is a matter for that legislative body to decide.

84 posted on 10/07/2005 1:01:28 PM PDT by Do not dub me shapka broham ("I'm okay with being unimpressive. It helps me sleep better.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
The precedent is more firmly settled now than ever.

That, I don't agree with. It's now stands as a battle yet to be had.

BTW. I have a feeling (no proff to back it up -- just a hunch) that this nominee will do very well in the hearings and surprise many conservatives as to her "qualifications."

85 posted on 10/07/2005 1:03:41 PM PDT by Ditto ( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Crush T Velour

"I'm sure he's nominated whoever is your particular favorite."

If Bush had nominated my favorite we would be talking about Michael Luttig's confirmation process right about now, not Harriet Miers!

Sorry, but the circuit courts are just minor leagues. Supreme Court is major leagues. If he gets it 100% right on the minor leagues but blows it at the Supreme Court level, we suffer consequences for 30 years.

"Uh, that's top 100 WOMEN lawyers, not top 100 lawyers."
"It still falls under the ranking of "eminently qualified" in the objective sense."

That's the same list Hillary is on.

Me, I'd want Bush to pick from the Federalist Society's list of top 50 legal minds who would best be able and willing to preserve the Constitution as Supreme Court Justices. Would you put Miers on that list? Why?

"What possible childhood neuroses would cause you to doubt Bush's judgement based on something that hasn't happened?"

ROFL ... It's what Bush has done *ALREADY* that makes me doubt him. (1) Sign the unconstitutional CFR, (2) Float the unsuitable pro-affirmative action Al Gonzalez for Supreme Court, (3) consult with Leahy and Reid and give them a pick they are happy with.

If you think Bush has been rock-solid on Conservative issues, you havent been paying attention.


86 posted on 10/07/2005 1:06:00 PM PDT by WOSG (http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Ditto

If we have any more "wins" like this there won't be much of a Republican Party-but more importantly, conservative movement-left to take the field.


87 posted on 10/07/2005 1:06:56 PM PDT by Do not dub me shapka broham ("I'm okay with being unimpressive. It helps me sleep better.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
The precedent is more firmly settled now than ever.

That, I don't agree with. It's now stands as a battle yet to be had.

Seems like a difference without a distinction. If the battle is never had (e.g., because the President never sends a nominee that triggers it; or the Senate leadership refuses to take up a nomination that might trigger it), then the practice of threatened cloture abuse is working. It is doing what it is intended to do, cause the selection of stealth candidates that are not openly conservative.

I do agree that it is a battle yet to be had, BTW.

88 posted on 10/07/2005 1:10:30 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

Your thinking is like mine.

We SHOULD be concerned that there are WELL-QUALIFIED judicial nomines who are not getting hearings. this stinks.


89 posted on 10/07/2005 1:11:43 PM PDT by WOSG (http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham
Whether or not the Senate ultimately comes to the conclusion that that nominee is worthy of being confirmed, or does not meet their standards and is rejected, is a matter for that legislative body to decide.

So you agree with the Democrats that they should be able to prevent the confirmation of any Republican nominee if they can find the means to prevent it?

Would you also agree that if John (The Traitor) McCain does not want a conservative justice appointed, he and his merry band of liberal Republicans should join the Democrats to block them?
90 posted on 10/07/2005 1:12:43 PM PDT by Paloma_55 (Which part of "Common Sense" do you not understand???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Paloma_55
No.

The judicial filibuster is an historical anachronism, which should have been done away with last year.

That doesn't mean that any judicial nominee should be given unmitigated deference by the U.S. Senate.

91 posted on 10/07/2005 1:17:07 PM PDT by Do not dub me shapka broham ("I'm okay with being unimpressive. It helps me sleep better.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Crush T Velour; republicofdavis

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.


92 posted on 10/07/2005 1:17:50 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite ( Mike Pence for President!!! http://acuf.org/issues/issue34/050415pol.asp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Crush T Velour; bert
"hmmm...it seems to me that Reaganghost doesn't so much have a problem with Miers or the way Bush selects judicial appointments as he does with a bunch of other things.

First, Bush will be history in roughly 1200 days. Within limits, Bush can only approve or disapprove laws passed by Congress. Miers could be around 4-5 times that long deciding whether every law passed for the past 200 hundred years or the next 20-25 that she is around are law. The power of a President while in office is truly awesome, but most Americans have never considered just how powerful a Supreme Court Justice actually is, especially on a closely divided Court. In twenty years they can rewrite a lot of the laws passed since the inception of our Republic.

Yes I have a problem with Bush. Do I have a problem with her? I know that I would not have had a problem with Janice Rogers Brown. And that's the problem.

As for Newt, he made a huge contribution to conservative thought and to our Republic. Newt clearly had some character flaws. In addition, if you have read Newt's books, you would realize that Newt has some judgment flaws as well. After President Reagan was out of office, Newt stated that FDR was the greatest President of the 20th century. If Reagan had never been elected, nothing could have been further from the truth. There are at least two other Presidents that would be in contention for the worst Presidents of the 20th century, but in my own mind, FDR is probably the worst. For a conservative to put FDR ahead of RWR suggests a serious problem of judgment. When you put the character flaw and the judgment flaw together and then add a guy who wants to take over health care using the power of government, you should begin to question whether he is conservative at all or just another two bit politician who wants to exercise power. I for one suspect that Newt rose to his level of incompetence when he became Speaker of the House. That fact that he had a brilliant idea means we would should be alert to listen to what he has to say, but the flaws should be telling us loud and clear to seriously question whether this guy should be trusted with power. My answer is that if there aren't better guys out there, we simply aren't looking far enough.

93 posted on 10/07/2005 1:19:24 PM PDT by Reaganghost (Democrats are living proof that you can fool some of the people all of the time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
Oh, I also don't like that the pick can be spun as cronyism. President Bush and Ms. Miers have a long enough personal working relationship that it is not incredible to charge cronysim. That is another argumen that does nothing to advance the conservative cause, and defending a charge of cronyism has no upside. Bush loses ground even if he beats the charge. That's not a reflection on Ms. Miers, it is a reflection on President Bush.

I give President Bush the benefit of the doubt, that this pick has absolutely -zero- basis in cronyism. My beef is that the pick admits the charge.

94 posted on 10/07/2005 1:20:59 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
If Bush had nominated my favorite we would be talking about Michael Luttig's confirmation process right about now, not Harriet Miers!

Bush brought Luttig in for an interview and he was on the short list for nomination both of the last two times. Bush passed on him? Why? I don't know. But I bet he knows more about it than you or me.

That's the same list Hillary is on.

The issue is only whether she is a cipher or qualified. She's well-qualified. Hillary was floated by Democrats as a possible future nominee to the SC if Kerry won.

Me, I'd want Bush to pick from the Federalist Society's list of top 50 legal minds who would best be able and willing to preserve the Constitution as Supreme Court Justices. Would you put Miers on that list? Why?

Funny you should mention the Federalist Society.

Leonard Leo, executive vice president of the FS, has strongly endorsed Miers. Do you know something about Miers that he doesn't?

ROFL ... It's what Bush has done *ALREADY* that makes me doubt him. (1) Sign the unconstitutional CFR, (2) Float the unsuitable pro-affirmative action Al Gonzalez for Supreme Court, (3) consult with Leahy and Reid and give them a pick they are happy with.

He didn't float Gonzales. Pundits did. Dubya just didn't repudiate Gonzales as an option and why would you expect him to?

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.

95 posted on 10/07/2005 1:25:08 PM PDT by Crush T Velour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Stellar Dendrite

Frankly, how she performed as a politician doesn't really move me that much. I don't expect my judges to impart their political views. I expect them to approve or disapprove executive and legislative acts based on whether the acts are or are not authorized by the Constitution. Their personal views of those acts should not be relevant.

That's what I don't know about her -- Does she agree with me on the above?


96 posted on 10/07/2005 1:28:09 PM PDT by republicofdavis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
*Roberts* wife has a prominent position in a pro-life organization. :-)

I know but Bush nominated him not his wife...It's too late anyway and we will know soon enough.

It's an interesting conundrum: Bush says "I am a pro-life president", "Miers shares my philosophy", "she will not change once confirmed"....but pro-life may not mean anti-RvW although I personally find that hard to reconcile.

The key may well be not a pro-life approach but the legitimacy of any constutional basis for RvW in the first place. I would prefer to see it overturned on that basis and killed forever.

97 posted on 10/07/2005 1:29:15 PM PDT by Les_Miserables
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Stellar Dendrite; republicofdavis

Those are political actions. They say nothing about judicial philosophy, or how she would rule on the LAW. From all I'm hearing she is an Originalist...like Bork.


98 posted on 10/07/2005 1:29:17 PM PDT by Crush T Velour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Crush T Velour

And unlike Bork, indications are she supports the 2nd Amendment, though I would like to hear that confirmed in the hearings.


99 posted on 10/07/2005 1:31:00 PM PDT by Les_Miserables
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion

Miers is certainly no Scalia, but she's a Thomas in many ways.


100 posted on 10/07/2005 1:32:17 PM PDT by counterpunch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-109 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