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 ...
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.
People with no power bases, like Sowell and Williams, must sing for their supper and suck up to the boss for whatever scraps he deigns to throw.
I doubt the White House secretary/counsel gets invited to the same parties as a member of SCOTUS...
That being said, I don't know how much socializing will effect this woman - being a spinster from TX and all, clearly the enormous pressure to marry and have a family didn't sway her - haven't met too many unmarrieds from the great state of TX! (I did have an unmarried Aunt Oma who lived in Dallas until her 90's - the ultimate threat of my parents when we were teenagers/twenty somethings bringing home the wrong guy, was that if we didn't watch out we would become like Aunt Oma...)
That being said I have no faith in this pick - if GWB had any political capital left, he's squandered it. Some of tried to rationalize this pick as "brilliant" - but I think CitizenUSA's story makes a good point: you don't make a lifetime independent appointment based on current LOYALTY. If she had worked for the same causes as him, or us, or the right at all, perhaps this wouldn't be such a stretch for us now.
"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."
I would like to point out that the reason she has recieved the label "Church Lady", is that the ONLY rationalization we have heard for her nomination is that she goes to an evangelical church. Hardly sufficient reasoning for a supreme court nomination.
I agree. It is pretty apparent that they were not expecting the response they are getting. That makes me more nervous than the nomination itself.
I don't see how Miers brings anything to the table in this regard at the Supreme Court. I think the hope is that she will be a reliable follower of Thomas and Scalia.
And you think Miers will sail through with 60 votes ? Why ? Her outstanding qualifications ?
The Democrats could not credibly argue that Roberts did not have the intellectual weight and qualifications for the job. Independent voters respected Roberts and agreed that he was the man for the job. That is why half the Democratic senators ignored the Moveon and ACLU types and voted for him. Nobody outside the Christian Right thinks that Miers has the qualifications for this job.
I will defer to Sowell's column, who said it better than I could:
President Bush has taken on too many tough fights -- Social Security being a classic example -- to be regarded as a man who is personally weak. What is weak is the Republican majority in the Senate.
When it comes to taking on a tough fight with the Senate Democrats over judicial nominations, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist doesn't really have a majority to lead. Before the President nominated anybody, before he even took the oath of office for his second term, Senator Arlen Specter was already warning him not to nominate anyone who would rile up the Senate. Later, Senator John Warner issued a similar warning. It sounded like a familiar Republican strategy of pre-emptive surrender.
Before we can judge how the President played his hand, we have to consider what kind of hand he had to play. It was a weak hand -- and the weakness was in the Republican Senators.
Does this mean that Harriet Miers will not be a good Supreme Court justice if she is confirmed? It is hard to imagine her being worse than Sandra Day O'Connor -- or even as bad.
The very fact that Harriet Miers is a member of an evangelical church suggests that she is not dying to be accepted by the beautiful people, and is unlikely to sell out the Constitution of the United States in order to be the toast of Georgetown cocktail parties or praised in the New York Times. Considering some of the turkeys that Republicans have put on the Supreme Court in the past, she could be a big improvement.
The bottom line with any Supreme Court justice is how they vote on the issues before the High Court. It would be nice to have someone with ringing rhetoric and dazzling intellectual firepower. But the bottom line is how they vote. If the President is right about Harriet Miers, she may be the best choice he could make under the circumstances.
Does Sowell like this reality? Apparently not. Do I like it? No. I would love to see Bush, in a post-nuclear-option Senate, ram JRB down the Dem's throat. But he cannot. That is the reality here. Sowell is smart enough to realize that.
So Bush's critics over this nomination can engage in the luxury of putting forth their dream candidates as an alternative. But the Senate Republicans took that luxury away from Bush.
Because she is acceptable to the Gang of 14.
And they control the show.
As long as they hold, it will only take 51 votes, because they will prevent the Dems from filibustering.
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.