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

Skip to comments.

Bush Bets Court on Untested Aide
Human Events ^

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 Bush’s 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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: miers; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-191 next last
The verdict is unanimous
1 posted on 10/07/2005 12:02:22 PM PDT by Betaille
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Betaille

"Weyrich lectured Mehlman that he was finished with trusting Republican Presidents on Supreme Court nominations. He had already done five “trust-mes,” Weyrich said."


2 posted on 10/07/2005 12:05:56 PM PDT by Betaille ("And if the stars burn out there's only fire to blame" -Duran Duran)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Betaille

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.


3 posted on 10/07/2005 12:14:21 PM PDT by CitizenUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Betaille
Hopefully she will be thoroughly "tested" by the Senators in the Judiciary Committee.
4 posted on 10/07/2005 12:15:25 PM PDT by msnimje (If you suspect this post might need a sarcasm tag..... it does!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Betaille
The verdict is unanimous

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.

5 posted on 10/07/2005 12:17:14 PM PDT by dirtboy (Drool overflowed my buffer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA
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

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?

6 posted on 10/07/2005 12:18:32 PM PDT by msnimje (If you suspect this post might need a sarcasm tag..... it does!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA

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).


7 posted on 10/07/2005 12:20:00 PM PDT by ChronicMA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA

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


8 posted on 10/07/2005 12:25:48 PM PDT by aumrl (I TRUST BUSH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Sowell said:

"We don't know. But President Bush says he has known Harriet Miers long enough that he feels sure.

For the rest of us, she is a stealth nominee. Not since The Invisible Man has there been so much stealth.

That's not ideal by a long shot"


This is not a glowing endorsement, it is the third stage of grief (denial, resentment, bargaining, depression,acceptance)

9 posted on 10/07/2005 12:26:06 PM PDT by msnimje (If you suspect this post might need a sarcasm tag..... it does!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ChronicMA

"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.


10 posted on 10/07/2005 12:26:35 PM PDT by Betaille ("And if the stars burn out there's only fire to blame" -Duran Duran)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

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.


11 posted on 10/07/2005 12:26:43 PM PDT by CitizenUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA

"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.


12 posted on 10/07/2005 12:27:39 PM PDT by Betaille ("And if the stars burn out there's only fire to blame" -Duran Duran)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: msnimje

BECUZ; we need 60 votes and there are only 55 so-called Republicans.


13 posted on 10/07/2005 12:27:51 PM PDT by aumrl (I TRUST BUSH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: msnimje

BECUZ; we need 60 votes and there are only 55 so-called Republicans.


14 posted on 10/07/2005 12:27:58 PM PDT by aumrl (I TRUST BUSH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Betaille
"Bush Bets Court on Untested Aide"

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.

15 posted on 10/07/2005 12:28:05 PM PDT by ex-snook (Vote gridlock for the most conservative government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Betaille

Wasn't Gillespie the waterboy for the administration's open-borders immigration position? I'm starting to not like that guy.


16 posted on 10/07/2005 12:28:51 PM PDT by reelfoot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA

"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.


17 posted on 10/07/2005 12:30:02 PM PDT by Betaille ("And if the stars burn out there's only fire to blame" -Duran Duran)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ChronicMA

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."


18 posted on 10/07/2005 12:30:22 PM PDT by workerbee (A person's a person no matter how small.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ChronicMA

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.


19 posted on 10/07/2005 12:31:10 PM PDT by libstripper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Betaille

I've heard that argument. However, she's been in DC for some time now and knows the ropes.


20 posted on 10/07/2005 12:31:32 PM PDT by TheDon (The Democratic Party is the party of TREASON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: aumrl
NO one can say with certainty how anyone is going to change over the years

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.

21 posted on 10/07/2005 12:31:46 PM PDT by msnimje (If you suspect this post might need a sarcasm tag..... it does!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: reelfoot

"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?


22 posted on 10/07/2005 12:32:07 PM PDT by Betaille ("And if the stars burn out there's only fire to blame" -Duran Duran)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: msnimje
This is not a glowing endorsement, it is the third stage of grief (denial, resentment, bargaining, depression,acceptance)

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.

23 posted on 10/07/2005 12:32:47 PM PDT by dirtboy (Drool overflowed my buffer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Betaille
The DC media/party circuit culture all by itself is enough to turn some.

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.

24 posted on 10/07/2005 12:34:15 PM PDT by dirtboy (Drool overflowed my buffer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: workerbee

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.


25 posted on 10/07/2005 12:34:17 PM PDT by TheDon (The Democratic Party is the party of TREASON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ChronicMA
...a new Supreme Court justice will not have a new boss.

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.

26 posted on 10/07/2005 12:34:53 PM PDT by msnimje (If you suspect this post might need a sarcasm tag..... it does!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: aumrl
we need 60 votes and there are only 55 so-called Republicans.

And seven of them joined seven Dems once they realized the center could control the process.

27 posted on 10/07/2005 12:35:06 PM PDT by dirtboy (Drool overflowed my buffer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

I could be wrong but I thought Weyrich said he was never voting Republican again sometime ago.Does this mean he has changed?


28 posted on 10/07/2005 12:35:14 PM PDT by aumrl (I TRUST BUSH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: msnimje

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.


29 posted on 10/07/2005 12:36:17 PM PDT by CitizenUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
That's the key word here - REALISTIC

This is the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES- is "realistic" really what we should be shooting for here?

30 posted on 10/07/2005 12:36:53 PM PDT by msnimje (If you suspect this post might need a sarcasm tag..... it does!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Betaille

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


31 posted on 10/07/2005 12:37:59 PM PDT by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

"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


32 posted on 10/07/2005 12:39:15 PM PDT by Betaille ("And if the stars burn out there's only fire to blame" -Duran Duran)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ChronicMA

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?


33 posted on 10/07/2005 12:39:42 PM PDT by CitizenUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Betaille
They are angry, dismayed and disheartened, but, more importantly, concerned for the fate of the Supreme Court.

Wrong.

34 posted on 10/07/2005 12:40:06 PM PDT by Right_in_Virginia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Betaille
You aint seen nothing yet...

There is a possibility that this woman is going to sail through these hearings relatively untouched by Democrats...and with most of the questions about her qualifications and philosophy left unanswered. I have a theory why...its not important now. I hope Im wrong.

That outcome IMO is going to leave a vague, very uneasy feeling among alot of people...even some who are trying to stay firm with the President on trust or faith.

Its going to put us in a lethargic state for the 2006 elections.

Maybe things will change...maybe she will be challenged on law and shine in these hearings, OR be rejected if she is clearly unqualified....it really is a roll of the dice for the conservative movement....perhaps the republican party also.
35 posted on 10/07/2005 12:40:43 PM PDT by Dat Mon (still lookin for a good one....tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA
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.

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.

36 posted on 10/07/2005 12:41:39 PM PDT by dirtboy (Drool overflowed my buffer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
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.

Well then maybe Bush should just tell the RINOs and the democrats that the SCOTUS next to the WOT was the keynote of his 2004 campaign that he intends to keep his word and that he WILL GO TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE via the bully pulpit

That is what a real statesman and leader would do
37 posted on 10/07/2005 12:41:52 PM PDT by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: aumrl

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?


38 posted on 10/07/2005 12:42:16 PM PDT by CitizenUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Dat Mon

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.


39 posted on 10/07/2005 12:42:32 PM PDT by Betaille ("And if the stars burn out there's only fire to blame" -Duran Duran)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA
Bush really doesn't understand conservatism...

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.

40 posted on 10/07/2005 12:43:12 PM PDT by msnimje (If you suspect this post might need a sarcasm tag..... it does!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Under that test, Scalia failed #2 in Gonzales...

Gonzales V. Oregon which was heard 2 days ago?

41 posted on 10/07/2005 12:45:04 PM PDT by msnimje (If you suspect this post might need a sarcasm tag..... it does!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

Comment #42 Removed by Moderator

To: Betaille

Another "woe is us" tale.


43 posted on 10/07/2005 12:45:14 PM PDT by verity (Don't let your children grow up to be mainstream media maggots.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: msnimje
Gonzales V. Oregon

Gonzales v Raich.

44 posted on 10/07/2005 12:45:33 PM PDT by dirtboy (Drool overflowed my buffer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

"You really and truly are an idiot."

LOL. The liberal line against Goldwater, Reagan, etc...


45 posted on 10/07/2005 12:46:19 PM PDT by Betaille ("And if the stars burn out there's only fire to blame" -Duran Duran)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: uncbob
That is what a real statesman and leader would do

He already got sandbagged by the damn RINOs once. And now they control the process, along with seven Dems, from the center.

46 posted on 10/07/2005 12:46:28 PM PDT by dirtboy (Drool overflowed my buffer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Betaille
LOL. The liberal line against Goldwater, Reagan, etc...

And in your case, it's the truth.

47 posted on 10/07/2005 12:46:58 PM PDT by dirtboy (Drool overflowed my buffer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Betaille
There is the base...and there is the leadership of the party. That applies not only to us ...but to them as well.

Sometimes the leadership may pursue strategies that the base is not privy to.

We have our Rove...so do they.

Who knows...Im considering tuning out for awhile and go do something else.
48 posted on 10/07/2005 12:47:24 PM PDT by Dat Mon (still lookin for a good one....tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: workerbee

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!


49 posted on 10/07/2005 12:48:58 PM PDT by CitizenUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: workerbee
Washington is a viciously liberal place, and just like any other club, she's going to be under alot of pressure to "fit in."

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.

50 posted on 10/07/2005 12:49:33 PM PDT by Uncledave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-191 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