Let The Truth Be Laid Bare...
http://www.truthlaidbear.com/miers.php
N.Z. Bear, the guy who runs Truth Laid Bear, is now tracking the blogs that are doing posts regarding Harriet Miers. He's tracking those for, opposed, or neutral in this little fiasco perpetrated by poor decision making in the White House. All three of us--Marcie, myself, and Sabrina--have had long discussions over this. The initially took to liking her, while I stood in opposition. One week later, I had them both on my side. And our regular readers have seen what we have to say about this.
We oppose this nominee. And we do so for a number of reasons.
--Her professional credentials, while impressive, will not necessarily make her a good judge.
--She is a person very close to the president; a fact that makes this nomination smack of nepotism rather than pure qualification and talent.
--In her questionnaire for the Judiciary Committee, she injected her own personal interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause--an interpretation that made no sense as it's not a part of the clause to begin with--and she failed to list the Texas Bar as one of the governmental agencies she worked for. (This was cited by the White House as a qualification.)
--Her interviews with members of the Judiciary Committee have been met with less-than-stellar opinions from the Senators. (They're obviously not as impressed with Miers as Pres. Bush is, and this could prove fatal if the committee comes at her sideways rather than head-on; making her trip herself up.)
--She is supposedly taking a four-week "crash" course on the Constitution so she's ready for the hearings. (Contrast that with the knowledge I have, or that either of the ladies have, which is pretty much our adult lives spent studying it and the documents surrounding it.)
--Questions have been raised about her dealings with the Texas Lottery Commission, which raises eyebrows from me as to why this wasn't caught in her first couple of go-'rounds with the FBI checks, and vetting process.
--Many activists, including Dr. Dobson, have alluded to personal beliefs that may play a role in her decisions on the high court. This is activism, plain and simple.
--Last but not least, NO ONE--except obviously, the president--knows where her judicial philosophy falls. We don't know if she stands for the rule of law, or rule by fiat.
Yes, we do oppose Harriet Miers, but we still support the president. And no, to those Hugh Hewitt listeners out there, that is not tantamount to a liberal saying "I support the troops, BUT I don't support the mission." I am supporting the man I helped elect. But I have chosen to oppose ONE person within his administration. (Technically, this makes number two in the overall administration as I wish Minetta had been fired.) Hugh's pretty smart, and he may even be right if the Miers nomination is withdrawn. This is why I'd prefer a sound defeat in the Senate. But I do support the president no matter what Mr. Hewitt states. And no, we're not idiots, either. Anyone who reads this site knows we're not.
We, at the Asylum, always have supported the president. He is the commander-in-chief of this nation, duly elected by the people of America. He's done an outstanding job, against improbable odds, during his terms of office. The prosecution and execution of the Global War On Terror, reducing taxes, attempting to fix Social Security, and making sweeping changes to a region that has been hostile and war-torn for as long as it can be remembered. The nomination of John Roberts was a crowning achievement for any president, as he slipped pretty quietly through committee, and received an overwhelming vote of approval in the Senate.
But we also have criticisms for him as well. He signed McCain/Feingold even after declaring it to be unconstitutional. He allowed Ted Kennedy to work the new education bill--a bill the president's critics are hanging him over, yet refuse to go after Kennedy, as well, for authoring the damned thing. He has been no better on border security than the previous two administrations, and his new immigration reform measures will only catch OTMs, or Other Than Mexicans, which still leaves us wide open to the silent invasion occurring from the South. As Captain Ed pointed out today, he nominated Bernie Kerick to be the new Director of Homeland Security, and because of the bad vetting process done by the White House, he had to be withdrawn.
This is the problem I see with Miers. It was a bad vet, and she needs to be withdrawn, or soundly defeated in the Senate. Either way one looks at it, she's not "ready for primetime" just yet. The president shouldn't be afraid to put up a nominee with a much more open track record that--all in all--couldn't be opposed by either side other than on politically ideological grounds. The president tricked the Democrats into making that sort of attack on Roberts, and the attack failed. Why? Because John Roberts showed consistently that politics aside, he still abided by the rule of law, and the precedents set.
Harriet Miers doesn't seem to paint that sort of picture. Harriet Miers, to me, paints a picture of someone who has her own beliefs, and may use them to rule on certain issues. She wouldn't rely on the law, but rather if she felt it to be "fair." Of course, I can't know that for sure, but I just have the funny little feeling, and I'd rather not take the chance. And despite this misstep, as with a few others he's made, I'll still support the president. Our opposition to her is not elitist, as we, too, would like to see a jurist that is educated somewhere other than the Ivy League schools. And we're not sexist either. (For those that do think that, please remember that there are two women that post here that are with me in this regard.) We're concerned about how she will rule on the court. We want some sort of reassurance that she won't be another O'Connor, or another Souter. Thus far the White House hasn't given us any reason to trust them on this nominee, and it's always bad when you have to go back and reinvent them.
Publius II
ADDENDUM: It is almost 2 a.m. here in Chicago, and Truth Laid Bear shows the following results from day one. (And no, they haven't registered the Asylum as yet.)
Against Miers=129 total, 75.4%
Supporting Miers=23 total, 13.5%
Neutral On Miers=1 total, 11.1%
To President Bush, we request:
Please withdraw this nominee. A good majority of bloggers--those that watch the political tides--are telling you that there are problems with her. And we're not the only ones, and you can see that in those within the Senate that have expressed a level of hesitation when it comes to her. They know there are problems with her, and you should be taking this to heart. We know you like her, and that you trust her, but America doesn't. I'm sorry, Mr. President, but America counts more than you personal dealings. We don't know her, and we doubt there will be much revealed in the hearings that will change our minds. The worst thing you can do right now is to let her go through the hearings. I sincerely doubt that there is little she can offer in terms of her judicial philosophy or her understanding of the Constitution. In her questionnaire returned to Sens. Leahy and Specter, there were more than a couple mistakes made by her. We can't all be perfect, but when it comes to the Constitution and interpreting it properly, she needs to be as close as possible.
Please, Mr. President, withdraw Harriet Miers and nominate someone else. Someone better qualified. Someone who does not represent nepotism, and may be a conservative activist. As Thomas has appropriately pointed on on numerous occasions, activism in any form is unacceptable for the courts. It is not their job to make law, even if it would include the overturning of precedents set on the court to right past misinterpretations. It's wrong. Please, Mr. President, listen to America. If we don't like her or trust her now, what will change over the course of the next couple of weeks?
Mistress Pundit
http://www.truthlaidbear.com/miers.php
N.Z. Bear, the guy who runs Truth Laid Bear, is now tracking the blogs that are doing posts regarding Harriet Miers. He's tracking those for, opposed, or neutral in this little fiasco perpetrated by poor decision making in the White House. All three of us--Marcie, myself, and Sabrina--have had long discussions over this. The initially took to liking her, while I stood in opposition. One week later, I had them both on my side. And our regular readers have seen what we have to say about this.
We oppose this nominee. And we do so for a number of reasons.
--Her professional credentials, while impressive, will not necessarily make her a good judge.
--She is a person very close to the president; a fact that makes this nomination smack of nepotism rather than pure qualification and talent.
--In her questionnaire for the Judiciary Committee, she injected her own personal interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause--an interpretation that made no sense as it's not a part of the clause to begin with--and she failed to list the Texas Bar as one of the governmental agencies she worked for. (This was cited by the White House as a qualification.)
--Her interviews with members of the Judiciary Committee have been met with less-than-stellar opinions from the Senators. (They're obviously not as impressed with Miers as Pres. Bush is, and this could prove fatal if the committee comes at her sideways rather than head-on; making her trip herself up.)
--She is supposedly taking a four-week "crash" course on the Constitution so she's ready for the hearings. (Contrast that with the knowledge I have, or that either of the ladies have, which is pretty much our adult lives spent studying it and the documents surrounding it.)
--Questions have been raised about her dealings with the Texas Lottery Commission, which raises eyebrows from me as to why this wasn't caught in her first couple of go-'rounds with the FBI checks, and vetting process.
--Many activists, including Dr. Dobson, have alluded to personal beliefs that may play a role in her decisions on the high court. This is activism, plain and simple.
--Last but not least, NO ONE--except obviously, the president--knows where her judicial philosophy falls. We don't know if she stands for the rule of law, or rule by fiat.
Yes, we do oppose Harriet Miers, but we still support the president. And no, to those Hugh Hewitt listeners out there, that is not tantamount to a liberal saying "I support the troops, BUT I don't support the mission." I am supporting the man I helped elect. But I have chosen to oppose ONE person within his administration. (Technically, this makes number two in the overall administration as I wish Minetta had been fired.) Hugh's pretty smart, and he may even be right if the Miers nomination is withdrawn. This is why I'd prefer a sound defeat in the Senate. But I do support the president no matter what Mr. Hewitt states. And no, we're not idiots, either. Anyone who reads this site knows we're not.
We, at the Asylum, always have supported the president. He is the commander-in-chief of this nation, duly elected by the people of America. He's done an outstanding job, against improbable odds, during his terms of office. The prosecution and execution of the Global War On Terror, reducing taxes, attempting to fix Social Security, and making sweeping changes to a region that has been hostile and war-torn for as long as it can be remembered. The nomination of John Roberts was a crowning achievement for any president, as he slipped pretty quietly through committee, and received an overwhelming vote of approval in the Senate.
But we also have criticisms for him as well. He signed McCain/Feingold even after declaring it to be unconstitutional. He allowed Ted Kennedy to work the new education bill--a bill the president's critics are hanging him over, yet refuse to go after Kennedy, as well, for authoring the damned thing. He has been no better on border security than the previous two administrations, and his new immigration reform measures will only catch OTMs, or Other Than Mexicans, which still leaves us wide open to the silent invasion occurring from the South. As Captain Ed pointed out today, he nominated Bernie Kerick to be the new Director of Homeland Security, and because of the bad vetting process done by the White House, he had to be withdrawn.
This is the problem I see with Miers. It was a bad vet, and she needs to be withdrawn, or soundly defeated in the Senate. Either way one looks at it, she's not "ready for primetime" just yet. The president shouldn't be afraid to put up a nominee with a much more open track record that--all in all--couldn't be opposed by either side other than on politically ideological grounds. The president tricked the Democrats into making that sort of attack on Roberts, and the attack failed. Why? Because John Roberts showed consistently that politics aside, he still abided by the rule of law, and the precedents set.
Harriet Miers doesn't seem to paint that sort of picture. Harriet Miers, to me, paints a picture of someone who has her own beliefs, and may use them to rule on certain issues. She wouldn't rely on the law, but rather if she felt it to be "fair." Of course, I can't know that for sure, but I just have the funny little feeling, and I'd rather not take the chance. And despite this misstep, as with a few others he's made, I'll still support the president. Our opposition to her is not elitist, as we, too, would like to see a jurist that is educated somewhere other than the Ivy League schools. And we're not sexist either. (For those that do think that, please remember that there are two women that post here that are with me in this regard.) We're concerned about how she will rule on the court. We want some sort of reassurance that she won't be another O'Connor, or another Souter. Thus far the White House hasn't given us any reason to trust them on this nominee, and it's always bad when you have to go back and reinvent them.
Publius II
ADDENDUM: It is almost 2 a.m. here in Chicago, and Truth Laid Bear shows the following results from day one. (And no, they haven't registered the Asylum as yet.)
Against Miers=129 total, 75.4%
Supporting Miers=23 total, 13.5%
Neutral On Miers=1 total, 11.1%
To President Bush, we request:
Please withdraw this nominee. A good majority of bloggers--those that watch the political tides--are telling you that there are problems with her. And we're not the only ones, and you can see that in those within the Senate that have expressed a level of hesitation when it comes to her. They know there are problems with her, and you should be taking this to heart. We know you like her, and that you trust her, but America doesn't. I'm sorry, Mr. President, but America counts more than you personal dealings. We don't know her, and we doubt there will be much revealed in the hearings that will change our minds. The worst thing you can do right now is to let her go through the hearings. I sincerely doubt that there is little she can offer in terms of her judicial philosophy or her understanding of the Constitution. In her questionnaire returned to Sens. Leahy and Specter, there were more than a couple mistakes made by her. We can't all be perfect, but when it comes to the Constitution and interpreting it properly, she needs to be as close as possible.
Please, Mr. President, withdraw Harriet Miers and nominate someone else. Someone better qualified. Someone who does not represent nepotism, and may be a conservative activist. As Thomas has appropriately pointed on on numerous occasions, activism in any form is unacceptable for the courts. It is not their job to make law, even if it would include the overturning of precedents set on the court to right past misinterpretations. It's wrong. Please, Mr. President, listen to America. If we don't like her or trust her now, what will change over the course of the next couple of weeks?
Mistress Pundit
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 9:15 AM
2 Comments:
Well said. As you know I predicted that the President would nominate her and my reason's for that prediction is the main reason I oppose her. Rawriter
Raw,
Thomas did tell me that you have heard rumblings of a possible withdrawal of Miers, and I have heard likewise. If there is to be a withdrawal, I'd suspect it would come by the beginning of next week at the latest, and possibly Wednesday or Thursday at the earliest.
Those that I have spoken with have stated that there's more apprehension in the Senate than the press is reporting. There is a possibility of close to forty senators that aren't happy with Miers, how she's been received, and her apparent lack of (you guessed it) experience and qualifications.
They say there's usually more than meets the eye; my eye sees a woman that has great legal credentials, but lacks in a true understanding of the Constitution. If she can't grasp the idea of the Constitution--what it provides for and what it forbids, or what it isn't clear on--then she honestly has no place on the bench.
What is positively sad is that despite the ideology of those on the Supreme Court right now, each and every one of them were infinitely more qualified than Miers. She has no experience as a jurist, and she botched a couple of questions on the questionnaire she turned into the committee.
Should she NOT withdraw her nomination, the committee had better be prepared to really hit her with some fastball questions. Roberts got some tricky questions, but his knowledge--his very grasp of the law--nullified any sort of attack the Democrats could mount. I would expect the GOP to be tougher on her as it is their base going nuts over her.
Mistress Pundit
Post a Comment
<< Home