Skip to comments.Bush Bets Court on Untested Aide
Posted on 10/07/2005 12:02:21 PM PDT by Betaille
They are angry, dismayed and disheartened, but, more importantly, concerned for the fate of the Supreme Court.
The conservative reaction against President Bushs nomination of untested White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the U.S. Supreme Court was so universal and intense that it erupted at each of the two separate meetings of activist leaders held Wednesday by Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist and Free Congress Foundation Chairman Paul Weyrich.
At the Norquist meeting, conservatives targeted their ire at former Republican National Chairman Ed Gillespie, who is working with the White House on Supreme Court nominations. At the Weyrich meeting, Republican National Chairman Ken Mehlman and Tim Goeglein, White House liaison to the conservative community, found themselves in the crosshairs.
(Excerpt) Read more at humaneventsonline.com ...
"Weyrich lectured Mehlman that he was finished with trusting Republican Presidents on Supreme Court nominations. He had already done five trust-mes, Weyrich said."
Let me tell you a story from my own personal experience. My boss once needed to pick someone to represent our organization at headquarters. He selected a marginally competent and extremely loyal guy who had worked with us for years. When I asked the boss why, he said, "this guy may not be the best, but he'll do exactly what we want." Well, you already know the rest of the story. This guy got promoted into the headquarters job and was extremely loyal...to his new boss. We held no sway, and our old crony worked tirelessly against us.
Facts are, you really don't know how someone is going to act until they are placed in a position of authority, but you can increase your odds by picking a person who has fought for your goals on their own. Harriet Miers, no matter what the president says, is not the best pick for the job. She isn't even close. If she WAS, we wouldn't be having these heated discussion on FR.
No, it's not. There have been plenty of conservative pundits coming out for Miers. Sowell wrote a very good piece on the subject, and his analysis tends to be very rational and sober, unlike folks like Norquist and Weyrich, who have their own power bases and interests.
What is really bothering me more and more is the Administration pushing her history with the ABA as her most impressive accomplishments.
The ABA is a very liberal organization and in many ways holds opposite views of the Federalist Society.
How is this supposed to comfort Conservative?
Unlike the loyal guy in your story, a new Supreme Court justice will not have a new boss. She won't be "working" for anyone. Who could she be loyal to except her friends, who will mostly be former Bush administration people (once the Bush term is over).
I seem to recall discussions on Roberts on FR. NO one can say with certainty how anyone is going to change over the years.PERIOD
This is not a glowing endorsement, it is the third stage of grief (denial, resentment, bargaining, depression,acceptance)
"Unlike the loyal guy in your story, a new Supreme Court justice will not have a new boss. She won't be "working" for anyone."
She will be surrounded by liberals who have far more experience and intellectual weight than she does. The DC media/party circuit culture all by itself is enough to turn some.
dirtboy wrote: "unlike folks like Norquist and Weyrich, who have their own power bases and interests."
So let me get this straight...anyone who opposes her is irrational and serving special interests, while those in favor of her are rational and sober?
Personally, I studied the arguments on both sides. They both make good points. However, the very fact that there ARE two sides within the conservative base makes this nomination stink. We are at war with each other instead of the libs.
In my opinion, Bush should have picked a nomination to unite his base. Even if we would have lost in the Senate, sometimes it's important to fight the fight. Who knows? We might have even won the fight, but you'll never know since he picked a lackluster crony instead.
"This guy got promoted into the headquarters job and was extremely loyal...to his new boss."
That's an excellent analogy. What is Miers going to do when she's surrounded by liberals who have far more experience and qualifications than her, as well as the DC media culture.
BECUZ; we need 60 votes and there are only 55 so-called Republicans.
BECUZ; we need 60 votes and there are only 55 so-called Republicans.
A bit off. It is rather the conservative voters who are blindly betting on an untested aide for the next couple of decades. It's like betting on a horse who has never won a race and is touted by the jockey.
Wasn't Gillespie the waterboy for the administration's open-borders immigration position? I'm starting to not like that guy.
"those in favor of her are rational and sober?"
Not to mention the fact that Sowell didn't really come out in favor, he just tried to rationalize Bush's pick while noting his personal dissapointment. The verdict from the conservative intellectual and legal communities has been absolutely overwhelming on this. Bush is going off this cliff regardless it seems... I just hope conservative Senators don't go with him and get us destroyed in 2006.
Don't underestimate peer pressure. SC justices aren't immune from it. Washington is a viciously liberal place, and just like any other club, she's going to be under alot of pressure to "fit in."
Thomas Becket was loyal to Henry II until he became Archbishop of Canterbury. Then he became loyal to the Church, to Henry's great woe.
I've heard that argument. However, she's been in DC for some time now and knows the ropes.
That is true but he was indeed tested.
He clerked for a Supreme Court Justice who later said Roberts was the best attorney of his generation (Rehnquist); he lead the Appellate division of a 1000 partner, world wide law firm and specialized in Supreme Court law; he tried 39 cases before the age of 48 and won 25 of them; he was the Assistant White House Counsel for 3 years in his twenties.
He was tested and approved of by friend and foe alike well before he was nominated to the District Court, and certainly before he was appointed to the Supreme Court.
"Wasn't Gillespie the waterboy for the administration's open-borders immigration position? I'm starting to not like that guy."
As soon as I heard him accuse conservatives of being "Sexist and Elitist" and then confirm that without apology on Laura Ingraham, I had had enough of him. Oh and guess what the "New Republic" (liberal) magazine is now accusing conservatives of. Sexism and Elitism! So who's dividing the party now?
Sowell's piece is a realistic assessment of the political realities that currently exist.
That's the key word here - REALISTIC. He understands what Bush is facing, wheras the flame throwers want to go to war with a pack of RINOs on their flank that bolted in the last war over the nuclear option.
And, in that environment, a stealth candidate becomes a way to get a conservative on the court. I don't like that reality, but it is reality. And politics is the science of the possible, at the end of the day.
The woman works from 5am to 10 pm and goes to church on Sunday. I really don't think she's interested in the DC social circuit.
Gawd, your efforts to discredit Miers become more over-the-top with each post.
I think that was the point in nominating someone who isn't already part of the "club". Peer pressure cuts both ways. It always helps to have people who can exert peer pressure in the "right" way.
What do you think they do in Conference when deciding cases? They strut their intellectual feathers trying to convince the other justices that they are wrong. The intellectually weak and overly compassionate ones (read Sandra Day O'Connor) are easily won over.
And seven of them joined seven Dems once they realized the center could control the process.
I could be wrong but I thought Weyrich said he was never voting Republican again sometime ago.Does this mean he has changed?
msnimje wrote: "What is really bothering me more and more is the Administration pushing her history with the ABA as her most impressive accomplishments."
I agree. It tells me Bush really doesn't understand conservatism. His selling points aren't winning us over, and they are actually making many of us more worried.
Hey, I think it's great she's a professing Christian. No doubt she's a competent trial lawyer, too. Now tell me how this proves she'll be a strict Constitutionalist.
This is the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES- is "realistic" really what we should be shooting for here?
The very fact that BUSH did NOT expect this backlash shows he is out of touch with the conservative base and is more concerned with Reid and Schumer
"The woman works from 5am to 10 pm and goes to church on Sunday."
That's why she should be a Supreme Court Justice? This is beyond belief
ChronicMA wrote: "Who could she be loyal to except her friends"
That's another reason why the nomination stinks. Even if she remains loyal, do we really want a Bush crony sitting on the Supreme Court? President Bush certainly hasn't done much to prove he's a strict Constitutionalist, has he?
There are only two qualifications to be a strict Constituionalist:
1 - a commitment to rule on only what is clearly written in the Constitution, and
2 - the strength of character to not get tempted to breathe more meaning into the Constutition when your person views may compell you to do such.
Lots of people profess to be Constitutionalists. Miers has said she will be one. But will she have the character to hold to those views at all costs?
Under that test, Scalia failed #2 in Gonzales. Clarence Thomas is the only one who consistently resists temptation that I can see. So screw everything else. I don't care if Miers had half the qualifications she currently holds. I want to see if she shows the strength of character, and humility, to hold her commitment.
aumrl wrote: "I seem to recall discussions on Roberts on FR."
Yes, you're right. Unfortunately, Roberts is an unknown. We now have two stealth nominations, not just one. Doesn't that bother anyone?
Remember that the Democrats are under alot of pressure to reject her also. Some Dems are comforted by the fact that conservatives are outraged, but if the Dems let her sail through they are at risk in 2006 also.
It is like a nightmare. I just got off the phone with my brother who is the smartest person I know, a calm and rational person and a Conservative Republican. He said, "George W. Bush is the most liberal Republican President we have ever had."
I suspect he was speaking fiscally since he (my brother) is the CFO of a fortune 500 company but he is also an astute observer of politics.
Gonzales V. Oregon which was heard 2 days ago?
Another "woe is us" tale.
Gonzales v Raich.
"You really and truly are an idiot."
LOL. The liberal line against Goldwater, Reagan, etc...
He already got sandbagged by the damn RINOs once. And now they control the process, along with seven Dems, from the center.
And in your case, it's the truth.
workerbee wrote: "Don't underestimate peer pressure. SC justices aren't immune from it."
Well said! I have no doubt the SCOTUS libs are rational people who believe they are doing the right thing. They will no doubt forcefully argue their points. Will Bush's nominee have the intellectual fortitude and faith in the true meaning of the Constitution necessary to stand up to the assault? We can only guess, because nothing in her past shows her to be a devout conservative. In fact, she's changed her stripes over the years--most recently in her 50s!
I'm not sure this 60 year old Church Lady is so concerned about fitting in. I get the sense she'll work hard and not give much of a hoot what people think of her.