Reserving Judgment on Miers

WSJ ^

[indianrightwinger]

Reserving Judgment on Miers Americans Show Less Enthusiasm for Second Supreme Court Nominee Than for Roberts By JOHN HARWOOD Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL October 13, 2005

WASHINGTON -- The American public, concluding that President Bush values friendship and party loyalty over qualifications in his appointments, is less supportive of Harriet Miers's Supreme Court nomination than the earlier choice of Chief Justice John Roberts.

A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows Americans are reserving judgment on Ms. Miers, the White House counsel, who last week became Mr. Bush's choice to succeed Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who is retiring. Some 27% support her confirmation and 21% oppose it, while 51% say they don't know enough to say.

Such reluctance extends to Mr. Bush's political base, as 46% of Republicans say they don't know enough to have an opinion. The results explain why administration officials yesterday continued their campaign to regain the initiative on the nomination from conservative critics who have complained that she lacks a clear judicial philosophy and credentials.

[indianrightwinger]

Only Thomas had a worse 26% qualified polling right after being nominated. Miers is the second from bottom @ 29%.

Is this the silver lining? May be she will indeed be closer to Thomas?

OK, I am trying to hang on to any thread at this point to make me feel good. :-)

[Rokke]

Anyone have a cool password to log on to WSJ with.

[byteback]

Count me in the 51% but a lot of Freepers claim to know her intimately and feel differently. For me I just don't know enough to form a strong opinion of what I think of her views.

[RasterMaster]

The biggest rub for me is that these so-called "Constitutional Scholars" can spend day after day saying 'I don't see her qualifications...the White House didn't give me any information' over and over, but have yet to spend one minute reviewing her qualifications.

What do they expect, to be on the President's speed dial everytime he makes a decision that he's entitled to do? The pundits and presstitutes sound angry that they were not consulted first....sheesh!

I guess they've been spending their time listening/reading to the Has-Been Media rather than doing their homework since FReepers and bloggers have to do it for them (Beldar blog is but one example).

What are the serious arguments of those against Harriet Miers? Certainly not "cronyism" to appoint one of the top 50 lawyers, no experience (I guess they haven't bothered to look), others are "more qualified" (problem remains with more confirmations if you have to re-fill a spot it took 2 years to pass confirmation), "stealth" nominee (just because the pundits don't know about her record, that doesn't make it invisible), avoiding a fight (why pick a fight when the other side already has a white flag ready to go). Do you want to have a litmus test for each nominee who's supposed to represent an independent judiciary? Many arguments are just because their pet activist didn't make the cut.

Most of the rest I have read about don't have anything to do with Miers, but rather the pundits view of how President Bush has wronged them in someway - and they are beginning to sound more and more like the folks from Camp Cindy than a conservative I would respect.

The pundits need daily reminding of the President's track record on appointments (the nominees that have already been confirmed are NEEDED in thier posts, so I would scratch those off the list right away too, even if they wanted the nomination).

I think Miers will prove herself to be a spectacular choice when all the dust settles. Would you want to play poker with this guy?

Before anyone jumps ship over to the DUmocrats, read this:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-gop/1499184/posts

Merry MOOSEMUSS everyone!

[skip_intro]

Would you want to play poker with this guy?

I don't know.

Would the Secret Service be there?

[Ol' Sparky]

The only reason Thomas's ratings were so low is because of all the phony charges of sexual harrassment, featuring pubic hair on Coke cans.

The objections to Miers are all very legitimate and concern is increasing.

This is the worst nomination to the Supreme Court of all-time and the damage to Bush and the GOP is going to get far worse if it isn't withdrawn.

[decal]

"Reserving Judgment on Miers"

NO, you must tell us NOW what you think of her so we can condemn you as a bomb-thrower or a stooge!

If you don't, you're obviously a Mugwump and not worth the bullet.

[indianrightwinger]

The lowest 26% number is right after he was nominated. Not after the stupid issues were drummed up.

[Ol' Sparky]

What do they expect, to be on the President's speed dial everytime he makes a decision that he's entitled to do?

Bush has an obligation to keep his promise to appoint a Scalia-like originalist to the court.

Only the brain-dead believe conservatives should let the President get away with appointing yet another stealth nominee when such a strategy has repeatedly failed for 25 years.

Until conservatives as a whole get a brain and demand known originalist be appointed, nothing is going to change on the court.

[america-rules]

"The only reason Thomas's ratings were so low is because of all the phony charges of sexual harassment, featuring pubic hair on Coke cans."

That came out late in the process after the committee already asked their questions and grilled the guy.

Anita Hill was a whitness that came at the end and it all started all over again!

[RasterMaster]

Some FReepers need to get a brain and look at her record rather than continue the banter of "stealth" nominee. Just because you don't know what her record is, that alone doesn't make it invisible.

[jwalsh07]

The only reason Thomas's ratings were so low is because of all the phony charges of sexual harrassment, featuring pubic hair on Coke cans.

Please stop rewriting history to make it accord with how you wanted it to be. Thomas was cast as an intellectual weakling and an AA appointment and that criticism came from left and right.

Oppose Miers on the merits.

[america-rules]

"Bush has an obligation to keep his promise to appoint a Scalia-like originalist to the court"

Scalia was also a stealth nominee who got approved 97-0 when the rats controlled the Senate !

[Ol' Sparky]

NO, you must tell us NOW what you think of her so we can condemn you as a bomb-thrower or a stooge!

Given that she has no record, never expressed a judicial philosophy (likely because she's never thought enough about the Constitution to have one) and all we have to go on is Bush's word for it, she should be opposed.

We've tried the stealth strategy for 25 years and only one of the four stealth candidates ended up being a conservative and originalist. There is absolutely NO excuse for tolerating another stealth candidate when Republicans hold 55 seats in the Senate.

Compare the stealth strategy to the Clinton strategy -- finding known quantities and nominating. Clinton and the Democrats weren't surprised once by the way Ginsberg and Breyer have voted because they knew what they were getting. Until conservatives are smart enought to demand known originalist, nothing is going change.

Too many in this battle are stuck on stupid and it is a real handicap in trying to change the direction of the country.

[Blackirish]

I feel he ha bluffed his consevative base and just got called.

[RasterMaster]

I wouldn't put your chips on the table just yet.

[msnimje]

This is the worst nomination to the Supreme Court of all-time

Not worst. Two Words -- ABE FORTAS

[decal]

Thanks for proving my point. There will be a little something in your chambers later.

[GarySpFc]

Some FReepers need to get a brain and look at her record rather than continue the banter of "stealth" nominee. Just because you don't know what her record is, that alone doesn't make it invisible.

Indeed. I have found considerable information, but not in one spot. The golden nuggets regarding Miers are there if you really want to find them.

[claudiustg]

Gee, I thought all Bush's appointments to the bench deserved an up or down vote. Isn't that what we were saying just a short while ago?