Posted on 10/08/2005 1:34:59 PM PDT by beyond the sea
Vigilance ......
You couldn't be more wrong ... Krauthammer has been a steady down the middle conservative for years. His articles during the Clintonista years savaged that corrupt bunch of 'Rats ... he's been Bush's ally all the way back to when Bush began to emerge as the Republican front runner in 2000. Bush is wrong to foist this nonentity Harriet Miers on his base, especially after promising to nominate candidates along the line of Scalia or Rhenquist ... Miers does not measure up to that high standard. Many others do, both women, men and minority jurists who have proved their mettle.
You sir, are a Democrat lurker...put a sock in it.
The oddest thing is that at the end of the Kraut rant he says this: "Miers will "surely shine in her Judiciary Committee hearings." I am not sure of that, but Kruat is sure, but despite being sure she will shine, he will oppose her. I have not make up my mind, and will await the hearins to do so. Kraut in short has gone about two too sures too far.
Sometimes it just seems like we are all on the wrong side of the looking glass, in the asylum looking out, rather than outside of the asylum looking in.
Full text of the article which will be here on FR for research purposes a long time after NewsMax takes it down
President Bush should withdraw his nomination of Harrier Miers to fill the Supreme Court seat of retiring justice Sandra Day O'Connor, says Washington Post columnist and Fox News commentator Charles Krauthammer.In a blistering Post column Friday Krauthammer, normally a strong Bush supporter, wrote that if Miers weren't a Bush crony, "her nomination to the Supreme Court would be a joke, as it would have occurred to no one else to nominate her."
Noting that there are 1,084,504 lawyers in the United States, Krauthammer asked: "What distinguishes Harriet Miers from any of them, other than her connection with the president? To have selected her, when conservative jurisprudence has J. Harvey Wilkinson, Michael Luttig, Michael McConnell and at least a dozen others on a bench deeper than that of the New York Yankees, is scandalous."
The columnist called the fact that Miers has been chosen by a conservative president "particularly dismaying. For half a century, liberals have corrupted the courts by turning them into an instrument of radical social change on questions – school prayer, abortion, busing, the death penalty – that properly belong to the elected branches of government. Conservatives have opposed this arrogation of the legislative role and called for restoration of the purely interpretive role of the court. To nominate someone whose adult life reveals no record of even participation in debates about constitutional interpretation is an insult to the institution and to that vision of the institution."
Krauthammer predicted that Miers will "surely shine in her Judiciary Committee hearings," but explained that she will do so "only because expectations have been set so low. If she can give a fairly good facsimile of John Roberts's testimony, she'll be considered a surprisingly good witness. But what does she bring to the bench?"
Only, he insists, the fact that, as her supporters say, the nation is at war "and therefore the great issue of our time is the powers of the president, under Article II, to wage war. For four years Miers has been immersed in war-and-peace decisions and therefore will have a deep familiarity with the tough constitutional issues regarding detention, prisoner treatment and war powers."
Be that as it may, and even though we don't know exactly what her role in these decisions was, it could become a liability because in years to come, years Krauthammer called "crucial years in the war on terrorism," Miers will be forced "to recuse herself from judging the constitutionality of these decisions because she will have been a party to having made them in the first place."
As a result, "the Supreme Court will be left with an absent chair on precisely the laws-of-war issues to which she is supposed to bring so much.
"By choosing a nominee suggested by Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid and well known only to himself, the president has ducked a fight on the most important domestic question dividing liberals from conservatives: the principles by which one should read and interpret the Constitution. For a presidency marked by a courageous willingness to think and do big things, this nomination is a sorry retreat into smallness."
I know! Let's humiliate Bush and destroy his prestige during wartime! It'll be fun, and we'll look smart!
One can only wonder what his ulterior motive might be.
Bush didn't listen to him and he's pi$$ed, plain and simple.
Maybe our next one.
RedRover said: If it's elitist to want the best people for the most important jobs, then I'm for it in this case.
The court is full of those who "measure up" now. Do you like their rulings?
Why are you trying to add to what the Constitution says about the qualifications for the Supreme Court? You know that you don't have to even be a lawyer. Were the Founding Fathers idiots? No. And I'm certain Miers can read. The Constitution is in plain english. WE understand it. The whole problem is "scholars" reading more into it than is there. So you WANT someone that was taught to do that?!
Meiers was a weak choice and we're not a bunch of Bush Kool-Aid drinkers.
Conservatives elected George W. Bush and he threw us under the bus with this pick.
Absolutely! You hit the nail square on the head.
HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!
tzedek, post#41: well said!
Ah, but you will be shouted down for not supporting this. I was told by one Freeper that I was "ruining her life" simply because I was pointing out her past activities WRT implementing affirmative action for the Dallas Fire Dept and creating a feminist lecture series at SMU. Can you believe it??
I am astounded, there are people here who I considered the biggest Bush supporters....yet they are saying this pick is bunk. And then they are told to "go back to DU".
It's disgusting.
LOL. Good answer.
Tzedek needs to go back to DU NOW!!!! /Sarc
More and more I am seeing the Senate being fingered for "forcing a mediocre pick."
Given the broad range of possible human activity, it is unfair to pose alternative scenarios as mutually exclusive, or all inclusive. But if the Senate is the problem here, why isn't the GOP shouting that out every day? If the Senate is hemming in the Presiden't nominations, why isn't HE shouting that out every day?
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.