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 ...
Smart people don't pick the wrong fight at the wrong time. Only fools do, and this president is not a fool.
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.
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.
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.
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."
"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.
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.
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.
Your thinking is like mine.
We SHOULD be concerned that there are WELL-QUALIFIED judicial nomines who are not getting hearings. this stinks.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
And unlike Bork, indications are she supports the 2nd Amendment, though I would like to hear that confirmed in the hearings.
Miers is certainly no Scalia, but she's a Thomas in many ways.
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.