Guest-Blogging Part IV
Greetings to all the regular readers of the Asylum. Marcie is still under the weather, and at the behest of Thomas (Yes, we’re now officially on a first-name basis here) I decided to post up some thoughts tonight. I know that a few people have voiced their concern about me being a part of the Asylum. Yes, I am new to blogging, and no, I do not have the long-winded posts like Thomas and Marcie do.
Tonight, I’d like to focus a bit on Harriet Miers. When she was first nominated by President Bush, I thought she was decent enough to pass muster with conservatives. She was an accomplished lawyer with a resume many lawyers only dream of. However, my initial thoughts couldn’t have been more wrong. The conservative base split itself, and an internal war erupted in the party. One side sat firmly on the side of the president. The other side questioned whether or not he truly understood the stakes of reclaiming the judiciary.
As I said, at first I was with the president, and I guess in a way I still am. I’m under the belief that the two prodigies here are; wait for the hearings, give her a chance, and let’s see what she says BEFORE any serious judgment is rendered. Now, over the weekend, Thomas finally convinced Marcie and I to start questioning this nomination. On the heels of the statements made by Dr. James Dobson, the wind shifted slightly, and we’re all leaning a bit more towards Miers.
Today, Thomas put up a post regarding a letter he had sent to Hugh Hewitt–a major advocate for bloggers, a Constitutional Law professor at Chapman University, and the one radio talk show host that is pushing the Miers nomination. The letter addressed a serious concern about an assertion that Hewitt posted on his site; that being that Harriet Miers might be the next Justice Potter Stewart. Thomas is justified in his questions regarding such an assertion as Justice Stewart was far from a conservative, originalist or constructionist jurist. He had his fair share of activism while on the court, including the same-side ruling on Roe v. Wade that the court had.
If it were true that Miers was to be the next Stewart, conservatism would be the last thing we could expect. Originalism and constructionism might be the furthest thing from her mind. Add to the fact that she has been a proponent of women’s rights (many of them made up of whole cloth by the court) which would make her little more than an "O’Connor-lite." This, of course, is the incorrect direction of the court, and it goes directly against his promise that he would only appoint justices like Scalia and Thomas.
To say there are unanswered questions is an understatement. There are plenty of those. And Thomas brings up the key question that I hope–we ALL should hope–is answered in the committee. What is her judicial philosophy? Where does she stand on the issue of originalism over activism? Does she believe that the Supreme Court has been vested with the power to interpret the law, or in the eyes of Justice Stewart, to right wrongs perpetuated by society by legislative inaction or laziness; all in the eyes of the court? This will be key to her confirmation, and there is no way the White House will be able to spin the outcome of these pending hearings. If she screws up, America will know, and if the White House thinks that there’s been backlash to date, they haven’t seen anything yet.
People across the country will begin calling their elected representatives, instructing them to vote against her, or worse, pull a filibuster of her. Thomas accurately pointed to the Gang of Fourteen deal that went down in May regarding judicial nominees–a deal that usurped the power of the president, and worse, it did damage to the Constitutional foundations of that particular power that the president possesses. That deal is perhaps the reason why the president chose Miers. He was unsure of how his party would react to a better qualified nominee, like a Michael Luttig, or a Karen Williams. He had no idea if the Democrats would pull out the filibuster on a nominee like Janice Rogers Brown, Emilio Garza, or Samuel Alito. Without some statement or show of support from the party in power in the Senate, he wasn’t willing to risk the venture.
And that is where many people fault the president. We have been waiting for the knock-down, drag-out brawl over the next nominee. We know that we would have pulled some Democrats over in the final vote. Some Republicans would have bolted. In the end I feel the vote would have gone down to the wire, with Vice-president Cheney on hand to break a potential tie. But we weren’t given the opportunity to put the theory to the test. We couldn’t witness the breaking of the illegal filibuster in the Senate. And why was that? Because the president opted to take the easy road rather than go to war; a war he would have won, in the end, and he would have had the FULL backing of his base and constituents.
I do hope Miers will turn out better than the picture being painted. Enough information is out there from both sides. Both sides make compelling arguments. (Well, not really the side in favor of her as her qualifications look better to an employer than to a nation who will watch her on the Supreme Court for decades to come.) What this nomination will ultimately come down to is the committee hearings. I’m with Thomas and Marcie; let’s give her a chance. If she blows it, then we need to blow her right out of the water, and tell the president to try again.
One thing is certain. With 2006 looming on the horizon, the mid-terms will heat up. Those with RINOs in their states up for reelection, do your best to unseat them for a more solid conservative. Those with Democrats up for reelection, support the best Republican. We’re the only ones who can assure the party of it’s hold over both houses. Only we can give the Senate the necessary votes to break the filibuster without having to rely on the RINOs. The deal struck stinks, but it’s our fault for putting these monkeys in office in the first place. It’s time to pay the piper, and get them out so the president has no worries about whom he appoints to the next seat on the high court.
Mistress Pundit
Greetings to all the regular readers of the Asylum. Marcie is still under the weather, and at the behest of Thomas (Yes, we’re now officially on a first-name basis here) I decided to post up some thoughts tonight. I know that a few people have voiced their concern about me being a part of the Asylum. Yes, I am new to blogging, and no, I do not have the long-winded posts like Thomas and Marcie do.
Tonight, I’d like to focus a bit on Harriet Miers. When she was first nominated by President Bush, I thought she was decent enough to pass muster with conservatives. She was an accomplished lawyer with a resume many lawyers only dream of. However, my initial thoughts couldn’t have been more wrong. The conservative base split itself, and an internal war erupted in the party. One side sat firmly on the side of the president. The other side questioned whether or not he truly understood the stakes of reclaiming the judiciary.
As I said, at first I was with the president, and I guess in a way I still am. I’m under the belief that the two prodigies here are; wait for the hearings, give her a chance, and let’s see what she says BEFORE any serious judgment is rendered. Now, over the weekend, Thomas finally convinced Marcie and I to start questioning this nomination. On the heels of the statements made by Dr. James Dobson, the wind shifted slightly, and we’re all leaning a bit more towards Miers.
Today, Thomas put up a post regarding a letter he had sent to Hugh Hewitt–a major advocate for bloggers, a Constitutional Law professor at Chapman University, and the one radio talk show host that is pushing the Miers nomination. The letter addressed a serious concern about an assertion that Hewitt posted on his site; that being that Harriet Miers might be the next Justice Potter Stewart. Thomas is justified in his questions regarding such an assertion as Justice Stewart was far from a conservative, originalist or constructionist jurist. He had his fair share of activism while on the court, including the same-side ruling on Roe v. Wade that the court had.
If it were true that Miers was to be the next Stewart, conservatism would be the last thing we could expect. Originalism and constructionism might be the furthest thing from her mind. Add to the fact that she has been a proponent of women’s rights (many of them made up of whole cloth by the court) which would make her little more than an "O’Connor-lite." This, of course, is the incorrect direction of the court, and it goes directly against his promise that he would only appoint justices like Scalia and Thomas.
To say there are unanswered questions is an understatement. There are plenty of those. And Thomas brings up the key question that I hope–we ALL should hope–is answered in the committee. What is her judicial philosophy? Where does she stand on the issue of originalism over activism? Does she believe that the Supreme Court has been vested with the power to interpret the law, or in the eyes of Justice Stewart, to right wrongs perpetuated by society by legislative inaction or laziness; all in the eyes of the court? This will be key to her confirmation, and there is no way the White House will be able to spin the outcome of these pending hearings. If she screws up, America will know, and if the White House thinks that there’s been backlash to date, they haven’t seen anything yet.
People across the country will begin calling their elected representatives, instructing them to vote against her, or worse, pull a filibuster of her. Thomas accurately pointed to the Gang of Fourteen deal that went down in May regarding judicial nominees–a deal that usurped the power of the president, and worse, it did damage to the Constitutional foundations of that particular power that the president possesses. That deal is perhaps the reason why the president chose Miers. He was unsure of how his party would react to a better qualified nominee, like a Michael Luttig, or a Karen Williams. He had no idea if the Democrats would pull out the filibuster on a nominee like Janice Rogers Brown, Emilio Garza, or Samuel Alito. Without some statement or show of support from the party in power in the Senate, he wasn’t willing to risk the venture.
And that is where many people fault the president. We have been waiting for the knock-down, drag-out brawl over the next nominee. We know that we would have pulled some Democrats over in the final vote. Some Republicans would have bolted. In the end I feel the vote would have gone down to the wire, with Vice-president Cheney on hand to break a potential tie. But we weren’t given the opportunity to put the theory to the test. We couldn’t witness the breaking of the illegal filibuster in the Senate. And why was that? Because the president opted to take the easy road rather than go to war; a war he would have won, in the end, and he would have had the FULL backing of his base and constituents.
I do hope Miers will turn out better than the picture being painted. Enough information is out there from both sides. Both sides make compelling arguments. (Well, not really the side in favor of her as her qualifications look better to an employer than to a nation who will watch her on the Supreme Court for decades to come.) What this nomination will ultimately come down to is the committee hearings. I’m with Thomas and Marcie; let’s give her a chance. If she blows it, then we need to blow her right out of the water, and tell the president to try again.
One thing is certain. With 2006 looming on the horizon, the mid-terms will heat up. Those with RINOs in their states up for reelection, do your best to unseat them for a more solid conservative. Those with Democrats up for reelection, support the best Republican. We’re the only ones who can assure the party of it’s hold over both houses. Only we can give the Senate the necessary votes to break the filibuster without having to rely on the RINOs. The deal struck stinks, but it’s our fault for putting these monkeys in office in the first place. It’s time to pay the piper, and get them out so the president has no worries about whom he appoints to the next seat on the high court.
Mistress Pundit
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 10:51 PM
2 Comments:
I've been around politics and the law for many decades and I've forgotten more than I ever knew and what I do know seems confusing at times. I firmly believe that our nation has a soul that is embedded in the Declaration of Independence, our Constitution and the first ten Amendments thereto known as the Bill of Rights. The world never saw anything like our awesome Constitution. It provides how it may be changed and even abolished. There are those who would would ignore the Constitution and destroy it. They have the support of far too many of our Courts including the Supreme Court. We've seen it and therein is the crux of the problem with the Mier's. Does she understand to marvel at the advancements made in technology and medicine while seeing our weeping for the soul of our nation? As a Supreme Court justice will she dry our tears and preserve and protect it as intended by our founding fathers? Rawriter
Raw,
She won't do anything different from O'Connor. Thomas and I have talked about this at length, and we agree that many of her views will likely color her decisions.
She claims to be anti-abortion, yet is all for women's rights. Those on the court that believe abortion is a woman's right will be able to change her mind.
She has stated that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right. That's the most intelligent thing she may have said. She at least understands that. But there are 26 other Amendments to the Constitution, seven Articles to the Constitution which lay out the powers of the government, and the separation of powers. Does she understand those as well? We doubt it. I expect Miers to be a swing vote like O'Connor. She will flip a coin in the morning to determine which side of the spectrum she will side with.
Mistress Pundit
Post a Comment
<< Home