Harriet Miers Is Not A "Bad" Choice...
Unlike my other half, I am one that is willing to give Harriet Miers a chance as the president’s new nominee. I am sure everyone is asking why. I am so glad you asked. Below is a statement issued by the American Center for Law and Justice.
(Washington, DC) – The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), specializing in constitutional law said today that Harriet Miers, the nominee named by President Bush for a seat on the Supreme Court of the United States, is an excellent choice who represents the conservative mainstream of judicial philosophy of interpreting the Constitution, not re-writing it.
"Once again, President Bush showed exceptional judgment in naming Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court to replace Justice O’Connor," said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ, who argues regularly before the high court and has a pro-life protest case at the high court this term. "At a time when the high court is facing some of the most critical issues of the day – including a number of cases dealing directly with abortion and life issues – the person who replaces Justice O’Connor is critical. Harriet Miers is an excellent choice with an extraordinary record of service in the legal community and is certain to approach her work on the high court with a firm commitment to follow the Constitution and the rule of law. I have been privileged to work with her in her capacity as White House counsel. She is bright, thoughtful, and a consummate professional and I enthusiastically endorse her nomination."
Sekulow added: "We look forward to a speedy confirmation process and will work aggressively to ensure that Harriet Miers gets full and fair consideration before the Senate. We call on members of the Senate to reject the partisan political rhetoric and focus on the judicial philosophy of this conservative mainstream nominee."
Sekulow said the ACLJ will begin mobilizing a national campaign to ensure that Miers is confirmed. Sekulow said he will generate support for the nominee through his daily radio broadcast that reaches 1.5 million listeners, through his weekly television show, by using direct mail, phone calls, and emails to a list approaching one million supporters.
"We know the intentions of the liberal left – to do anything possible to derail this nominee," said Sekulow. "We are prepared to meet those challenges head on and ensure that this battle ends with the confirmation of Harriet Miers as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court."
Led by Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, the American Center for Law and Justice is based in Washington, D.C.
This is a telling news release from the ACLJ. Now, contrast it with the release from People For the American Way; a group that is moonbat-controlled from top to bottom.
President Bush’s nomination of White House Counsel Harriet Miers requires close scrutiny by the Senate & straightforward answers by the nominee, said Ralph G. Neas, President of PFAW.
"President Bush has nominated his personal lawyer & long-time friend to a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court. His choice raises serious questions about whether he’s found a nominee who has the requisite qualifications & independence for the nation’s highest court. This nomination will require the closest scrutiny by the Senate," said Neas. "With no past judicial experience for the senators to consider, the burden will be on Miers to be forthright with the Senate & the American people. She must outline her judicial philosophy & provide direct answers to questions about how, & whether, she will uphold fundamental rights, liberties & legal protections on which Americans rely."
If confirmed, Miers would replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the key vote on many crucial 5-4 decisions on the Supreme Court. Justice O’Connor cast a number of decisive votes protecting the right of privacy, reproductive freedom for women, the constitutional principle of government neutrality toward religion, effective civil rights remedies, environmental protection, congressional authority to protect Americans’ rights & more.
"The stakes couldn’t be higher & the Senate should proceed with care. There must be no rush to judgment. Poll after poll shows that the American people don’t want to see dramatic change on the Supreme Court, & that they value the rights & freedoms that have been guaranteed to them by the Court. Will Harriet Miers uphold these rights, or will she vote to roll back seven decades of legal progress in civil rights & personal freedom?" Neas asked. "We need Supreme Court justices who are committed to equal justice under the law for all & who will uphold the role of the federal government in preserving those rights & acting to protect the common good. The next several months could determine the law of the land for the next several decades."
(Both citations above courtesy of Confirmation Whoppers.)
http://confirmationwhoppers.blogspot.com/2005/10/what-theyre-saying.html
If Ralph Neas has a problem with Harriet Miers, that is a good thing. I chalk up the support from Sen. Harry Reid as a ploy; he got beat fair and square over Chief Justice Roberts, and many in his party deserted him in that vote. Sen. Schumer sort of likes her. But here is one more piece of information that I will take to heart. It comes from Nathan Hecht, a Texas Supreme Court justice.
Hecht says about Miers' judicial philosophy: "She's an originalist -- that's the way she takes the Bible," and that's her approach to the Constitution as well -- "Originalist -- it means what it says." He notes that her legal practice involved writing contracts rather than tort law, so she was always looking at the plain meaning of the words: "Originalist." He also says she's not a social butterfly who will be swayed by Washington dinner table conversation: "She goes to the dinners she's supposed to go to. She's not on the social circuit."
http://www.worldmagblog.com/blog/archives/018817.html
And then there is this from Wide Awake Cafe. It seems Katie "the Cupcake" Couric jumped on the same bandwagon Thomas did with the infamous "C"-word accusation. (And shame on Thomas for lowering himself to liberal standards. LOL.)
Katie took her shot under the guise of a question to Tim Russert: "the Bush administration has been hit recently with allegations of cronyism do you think this is going to feed into that?"
http://wideawakecafe.blogspot.com/2005/10/harriet-miers-if-katie-couric-doesnt.html
To further contrast my other half, and the other conservatives that feel we were sold down the river, I would like to offer up the sound, reasoned judgment of others. (I have stated that I am young, and lack the wisdom of others that are my senior, so for now, I bow to the expertise of others. The following citations are present at ConfirmThem.com)
http://www.confirmthem.com/?p=1417#more-1417
“In nominating Harriet Miers, the President has once again kept his commitment to select Supreme Court Justices who are very well qualified and share his philosophy of interpreting the law, not legislating from the bench… She has also on a number of occasions demonstrated her commitment to conservative legal principles and the principles of judicial restraint ”--Leonard Leo, Bench Memos
“The Miers nomination is turning into a Rorschach test dividing conservatives into the camp that understands governing for the long term and those that are so emotionally fragile or contingent in their allegiance that anything they (1)don’t understand or (2) disappoints in any way becomes an occasion for panic and declarations of irreparable injury.”--Hugh Hewitt, HughHewitt.com
“To you, me, the Senate, and the public, Harriet Miers may seem as much of a blank slate as David Souter was when Bush-41 nominated him. “Another ’stealth’ candidate,” many will say, “another blank slate about whom we know too little to make confident predictions!” That’s already the official party line of the Dems, and it’s something being muttered less loudly among puzzled Republicans as well.
But that is emphatically not the case from the perspective of George W. Bush. And the Constitution does, after all, give him the nomination power — not “the White House,” not “the Republican Party,” nor “conservatives generally,” nor even “us’n who put him back into office.” And he knows, and he’s always known, that the blame for an appointee who turned out to become “another Souter” would likewise be placed on him. It’s a responsibility and an opportunity whose benefits and risks he sought, but that he obviously takes very seriously indeed, because from Dubya’s perspective, Harriet Miers was the one prospective female nominee about whom he personally felt that he could be most certain in predicting what sort of Justice she will become.”--William Dyer, AKA Beldar, Beldar.Blogs.com
“I yield to no one in my respect for the “farm team” — McConnell, Alito, Luttig, etc. — but I am also surprised that some are so quick to assume that this President, who fought hard to get home-run judges Pryor, Owen, Colloton, Brown, McConnell, Sutton, Roberts, etc., confirmed to the courts, would suddenly drop the constitutionalism-ball just to be nice to an old friend or to satisfy those demanding another female justice.”--Richard Garnett, BenchMemos
As time will tell in the coming weeks, I believe we will be pleasantly surprised.
I do recognize Thomas’ misgivings. I can understand a few other’s questions regarding this nominee, but I do not chalk it up to misgivings about the nominee. I think this is stemming from many people making predictions, staking their reputations on the prediction, and being proven wrong. We can not always be right in our predictions; it is a fact of life. I will give the president his due, and wait to make a serious decision until the facts are in. Should it be shown that she is not the nominee we need on the bench, then I will join with others in supporting a move to vote her down in committee. Until then, I will reserve my judgment of this woman, and do what I can to support her.
The Bunny ;)
Unlike my other half, I am one that is willing to give Harriet Miers a chance as the president’s new nominee. I am sure everyone is asking why. I am so glad you asked. Below is a statement issued by the American Center for Law and Justice.
(Washington, DC) – The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), specializing in constitutional law said today that Harriet Miers, the nominee named by President Bush for a seat on the Supreme Court of the United States, is an excellent choice who represents the conservative mainstream of judicial philosophy of interpreting the Constitution, not re-writing it.
"Once again, President Bush showed exceptional judgment in naming Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court to replace Justice O’Connor," said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ, who argues regularly before the high court and has a pro-life protest case at the high court this term. "At a time when the high court is facing some of the most critical issues of the day – including a number of cases dealing directly with abortion and life issues – the person who replaces Justice O’Connor is critical. Harriet Miers is an excellent choice with an extraordinary record of service in the legal community and is certain to approach her work on the high court with a firm commitment to follow the Constitution and the rule of law. I have been privileged to work with her in her capacity as White House counsel. She is bright, thoughtful, and a consummate professional and I enthusiastically endorse her nomination."
Sekulow added: "We look forward to a speedy confirmation process and will work aggressively to ensure that Harriet Miers gets full and fair consideration before the Senate. We call on members of the Senate to reject the partisan political rhetoric and focus on the judicial philosophy of this conservative mainstream nominee."
Sekulow said the ACLJ will begin mobilizing a national campaign to ensure that Miers is confirmed. Sekulow said he will generate support for the nominee through his daily radio broadcast that reaches 1.5 million listeners, through his weekly television show, by using direct mail, phone calls, and emails to a list approaching one million supporters.
"We know the intentions of the liberal left – to do anything possible to derail this nominee," said Sekulow. "We are prepared to meet those challenges head on and ensure that this battle ends with the confirmation of Harriet Miers as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court."
Led by Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, the American Center for Law and Justice is based in Washington, D.C.
This is a telling news release from the ACLJ. Now, contrast it with the release from People For the American Way; a group that is moonbat-controlled from top to bottom.
President Bush’s nomination of White House Counsel Harriet Miers requires close scrutiny by the Senate & straightforward answers by the nominee, said Ralph G. Neas, President of PFAW.
"President Bush has nominated his personal lawyer & long-time friend to a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court. His choice raises serious questions about whether he’s found a nominee who has the requisite qualifications & independence for the nation’s highest court. This nomination will require the closest scrutiny by the Senate," said Neas. "With no past judicial experience for the senators to consider, the burden will be on Miers to be forthright with the Senate & the American people. She must outline her judicial philosophy & provide direct answers to questions about how, & whether, she will uphold fundamental rights, liberties & legal protections on which Americans rely."
If confirmed, Miers would replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the key vote on many crucial 5-4 decisions on the Supreme Court. Justice O’Connor cast a number of decisive votes protecting the right of privacy, reproductive freedom for women, the constitutional principle of government neutrality toward religion, effective civil rights remedies, environmental protection, congressional authority to protect Americans’ rights & more.
"The stakes couldn’t be higher & the Senate should proceed with care. There must be no rush to judgment. Poll after poll shows that the American people don’t want to see dramatic change on the Supreme Court, & that they value the rights & freedoms that have been guaranteed to them by the Court. Will Harriet Miers uphold these rights, or will she vote to roll back seven decades of legal progress in civil rights & personal freedom?" Neas asked. "We need Supreme Court justices who are committed to equal justice under the law for all & who will uphold the role of the federal government in preserving those rights & acting to protect the common good. The next several months could determine the law of the land for the next several decades."
(Both citations above courtesy of Confirmation Whoppers.)
http://confirmationwhoppers.blogspot.com/2005/10/what-theyre-saying.html
If Ralph Neas has a problem with Harriet Miers, that is a good thing. I chalk up the support from Sen. Harry Reid as a ploy; he got beat fair and square over Chief Justice Roberts, and many in his party deserted him in that vote. Sen. Schumer sort of likes her. But here is one more piece of information that I will take to heart. It comes from Nathan Hecht, a Texas Supreme Court justice.
Hecht says about Miers' judicial philosophy: "She's an originalist -- that's the way she takes the Bible," and that's her approach to the Constitution as well -- "Originalist -- it means what it says." He notes that her legal practice involved writing contracts rather than tort law, so she was always looking at the plain meaning of the words: "Originalist." He also says she's not a social butterfly who will be swayed by Washington dinner table conversation: "She goes to the dinners she's supposed to go to. She's not on the social circuit."
http://www.worldmagblog.com/blog/archives/018817.html
And then there is this from Wide Awake Cafe. It seems Katie "the Cupcake" Couric jumped on the same bandwagon Thomas did with the infamous "C"-word accusation. (And shame on Thomas for lowering himself to liberal standards. LOL.)
Katie took her shot under the guise of a question to Tim Russert: "the Bush administration has been hit recently with allegations of cronyism do you think this is going to feed into that?"
http://wideawakecafe.blogspot.com/2005/10/harriet-miers-if-katie-couric-doesnt.html
To further contrast my other half, and the other conservatives that feel we were sold down the river, I would like to offer up the sound, reasoned judgment of others. (I have stated that I am young, and lack the wisdom of others that are my senior, so for now, I bow to the expertise of others. The following citations are present at ConfirmThem.com)
http://www.confirmthem.com/?p=1417#more-1417
“In nominating Harriet Miers, the President has once again kept his commitment to select Supreme Court Justices who are very well qualified and share his philosophy of interpreting the law, not legislating from the bench… She has also on a number of occasions demonstrated her commitment to conservative legal principles and the principles of judicial restraint ”--Leonard Leo, Bench Memos
“The Miers nomination is turning into a Rorschach test dividing conservatives into the camp that understands governing for the long term and those that are so emotionally fragile or contingent in their allegiance that anything they (1)don’t understand or (2) disappoints in any way becomes an occasion for panic and declarations of irreparable injury.”--Hugh Hewitt, HughHewitt.com
“To you, me, the Senate, and the public, Harriet Miers may seem as much of a blank slate as David Souter was when Bush-41 nominated him. “Another ’stealth’ candidate,” many will say, “another blank slate about whom we know too little to make confident predictions!” That’s already the official party line of the Dems, and it’s something being muttered less loudly among puzzled Republicans as well.
But that is emphatically not the case from the perspective of George W. Bush. And the Constitution does, after all, give him the nomination power — not “the White House,” not “the Republican Party,” nor “conservatives generally,” nor even “us’n who put him back into office.” And he knows, and he’s always known, that the blame for an appointee who turned out to become “another Souter” would likewise be placed on him. It’s a responsibility and an opportunity whose benefits and risks he sought, but that he obviously takes very seriously indeed, because from Dubya’s perspective, Harriet Miers was the one prospective female nominee about whom he personally felt that he could be most certain in predicting what sort of Justice she will become.”--William Dyer, AKA Beldar, Beldar.Blogs.com
“I yield to no one in my respect for the “farm team” — McConnell, Alito, Luttig, etc. — but I am also surprised that some are so quick to assume that this President, who fought hard to get home-run judges Pryor, Owen, Colloton, Brown, McConnell, Sutton, Roberts, etc., confirmed to the courts, would suddenly drop the constitutionalism-ball just to be nice to an old friend or to satisfy those demanding another female justice.”--Richard Garnett, BenchMemos
As time will tell in the coming weeks, I believe we will be pleasantly surprised.
I do recognize Thomas’ misgivings. I can understand a few other’s questions regarding this nominee, but I do not chalk it up to misgivings about the nominee. I think this is stemming from many people making predictions, staking their reputations on the prediction, and being proven wrong. We can not always be right in our predictions; it is a fact of life. I will give the president his due, and wait to make a serious decision until the facts are in. Should it be shown that she is not the nominee we need on the bench, then I will join with others in supporting a move to vote her down in committee. Until then, I will reserve my judgment of this woman, and do what I can to support her.
The Bunny ;)
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 11:56 AM
1 Comments:
I need to know that she was a Reagan Democrat turned Republican for certain before I can make a decision about her solidly.
Post a Comment
<< Home