An Open Letter
Mr. President:
I am a nineteen year-old young lady. I ardently campaigned for you in Arizona. I have supported you against those that impugn your efforts in the war on terror. I engage those that are consistently critical of you. I have defended you, your administration, our troops, and the decisions made by all concerned when others can offer up only criticism. My criticism of your tenure in office has been little, and anything but scathing.
When you nominated Chief Justice Roberts to the Supreme Court, I defended him with every skill at my disposal. As a blogger, we backed him up, argued in favor of his ascension, and even looked into the documents released by the administration to vet him; we were ensuring he was the person you presented to the nation. He was, and we are happy that he made it to the Chief’s seat on the Supreme Court. Of course, with Chief Justice Roberts, there was no question of his abilities and qualifications to hold the seat.
However, with Harriet Miers, we have questions. And they are questions that neither you, nor your loyal supporters, wish to address.
I am writing this open letter because your administration has accused her detractors as being "sexist" or "elitist." Mr. President, we at the Asylum are anything but either of those accusations. I, myself, was a defender of Ms. Miers from the start. However, my other half made some compelling arguments, and I am now questioning whether she is the type of person we would want on the Supreme Court.
This is not an elitist attitude. You promised the nation you would nominate only those that were "in the mold of" Justices Scalia and Thomas. "In the mold of" says to the bloggers here at the Asylum that your nominees will have similar qualifications, and a similar judicial philosophy of those two superior jurists. There is nothing, as yet, to show that Ms. Miers would be a jurist in that mold. We care nothing about where she was educated. That is not an issue. She is a lawyer—a well-qualified, determined, and loyal lawyer—that I am positive has served you well. But once on the court, she will not serve you. She will serve the nation, and at the highest level to protect our rights and liberties.
As yet, she has given no hint, either way, which way she will lean in terms of her judicial philosophy. Will she create law from whole cloth, or abide by the law—as it was written 229 years ago. We, at the Asylum, will support this woman should she provide an insight to her philosophy, and should it lie in the camp of originalism or constructionism.
And I am sure you believe she will be fine. You ask the nation to trust you. However, I cite those that came before now that were those to be trusted because the presidents asked us to believe in them.
Pres. Eisenhower nominated Earl Warren and William Brennan. Both turned out to be liberal, activist icons.
Pres. Nixon asked conservatives to trust him on Harry Blackmun and Warren Burger. Both were behind the disastrous decision in Roe v. Wade and later, Doe v. Bolton; both cases focused on abortion and both laid a dangerous precedent that has yet to be overturned.
Pres. Ford nominated Justice Stevens, and like Pres. Nixon, assured his constituents that he would stick to the correct interpretation of the Constitution. History tells a much different tale.
Pres. Reagan—my personal favorite amongst past presidents, nominated Justice O’Connor and Justice Kennedy. Again, we were assured that both were solid conservatives. That assertion could not have been further from the truth.
Pres. Bush (41) assured the nation that when he nominated Justice Souter, he would "interpret the law, not make it." As we know, Justice Souter has since slid hard to the left.
Eight justices in a approximately fifty years, and each one a disappointment. Your wife claims there was a level of sexism involved. I take great offense to that as we at the Asylum had our short list, and five women made that list. In our opinion, those women were infinitely more qualified than Ms. Miers. As a matter of fact, many a legal scholar and court watcher had these women on their list, so for anyone connected to you to even utter the accusation is not only foolish, but must possess a level of ignorance; and it should be admitted. Mr. President, do not insult the intelligence of those that have supported you for so long by allowing yourself, or those around you, to engage in liberal-speak because people are not happy with the overall response to your decision about Ms. Miers.
We have a right to be angry. We have a right to question the wisdom behind the intelligence. And quite honestly, sir, we have earned that right by supporting you on every decision you have made. We would expect the same respect back.
We are sure that Ms. Miers will open up a little during her hearings, and let America know what she thinks, what she feels, and where she stands. If she can do that, and make the nation comfortable, then she will be supported. But until that occurs, bear with your supporters. Do not impugn us. Do not insult us. Please respect that we are frustrated. We are not getting answers, and until we do, we will continue to vet this nominee "on the run" until the answers we seek come out. To irritate your party by insulting them is not the wisest of moves.
The Bunny ;)
Mr. President:
I am a nineteen year-old young lady. I ardently campaigned for you in Arizona. I have supported you against those that impugn your efforts in the war on terror. I engage those that are consistently critical of you. I have defended you, your administration, our troops, and the decisions made by all concerned when others can offer up only criticism. My criticism of your tenure in office has been little, and anything but scathing.
When you nominated Chief Justice Roberts to the Supreme Court, I defended him with every skill at my disposal. As a blogger, we backed him up, argued in favor of his ascension, and even looked into the documents released by the administration to vet him; we were ensuring he was the person you presented to the nation. He was, and we are happy that he made it to the Chief’s seat on the Supreme Court. Of course, with Chief Justice Roberts, there was no question of his abilities and qualifications to hold the seat.
However, with Harriet Miers, we have questions. And they are questions that neither you, nor your loyal supporters, wish to address.
I am writing this open letter because your administration has accused her detractors as being "sexist" or "elitist." Mr. President, we at the Asylum are anything but either of those accusations. I, myself, was a defender of Ms. Miers from the start. However, my other half made some compelling arguments, and I am now questioning whether she is the type of person we would want on the Supreme Court.
This is not an elitist attitude. You promised the nation you would nominate only those that were "in the mold of" Justices Scalia and Thomas. "In the mold of" says to the bloggers here at the Asylum that your nominees will have similar qualifications, and a similar judicial philosophy of those two superior jurists. There is nothing, as yet, to show that Ms. Miers would be a jurist in that mold. We care nothing about where she was educated. That is not an issue. She is a lawyer—a well-qualified, determined, and loyal lawyer—that I am positive has served you well. But once on the court, she will not serve you. She will serve the nation, and at the highest level to protect our rights and liberties.
As yet, she has given no hint, either way, which way she will lean in terms of her judicial philosophy. Will she create law from whole cloth, or abide by the law—as it was written 229 years ago. We, at the Asylum, will support this woman should she provide an insight to her philosophy, and should it lie in the camp of originalism or constructionism.
And I am sure you believe she will be fine. You ask the nation to trust you. However, I cite those that came before now that were those to be trusted because the presidents asked us to believe in them.
Pres. Eisenhower nominated Earl Warren and William Brennan. Both turned out to be liberal, activist icons.
Pres. Nixon asked conservatives to trust him on Harry Blackmun and Warren Burger. Both were behind the disastrous decision in Roe v. Wade and later, Doe v. Bolton; both cases focused on abortion and both laid a dangerous precedent that has yet to be overturned.
Pres. Ford nominated Justice Stevens, and like Pres. Nixon, assured his constituents that he would stick to the correct interpretation of the Constitution. History tells a much different tale.
Pres. Reagan—my personal favorite amongst past presidents, nominated Justice O’Connor and Justice Kennedy. Again, we were assured that both were solid conservatives. That assertion could not have been further from the truth.
Pres. Bush (41) assured the nation that when he nominated Justice Souter, he would "interpret the law, not make it." As we know, Justice Souter has since slid hard to the left.
Eight justices in a approximately fifty years, and each one a disappointment. Your wife claims there was a level of sexism involved. I take great offense to that as we at the Asylum had our short list, and five women made that list. In our opinion, those women were infinitely more qualified than Ms. Miers. As a matter of fact, many a legal scholar and court watcher had these women on their list, so for anyone connected to you to even utter the accusation is not only foolish, but must possess a level of ignorance; and it should be admitted. Mr. President, do not insult the intelligence of those that have supported you for so long by allowing yourself, or those around you, to engage in liberal-speak because people are not happy with the overall response to your decision about Ms. Miers.
We have a right to be angry. We have a right to question the wisdom behind the intelligence. And quite honestly, sir, we have earned that right by supporting you on every decision you have made. We would expect the same respect back.
We are sure that Ms. Miers will open up a little during her hearings, and let America know what she thinks, what she feels, and where she stands. If she can do that, and make the nation comfortable, then she will be supported. But until that occurs, bear with your supporters. Do not impugn us. Do not insult us. Please respect that we are frustrated. We are not getting answers, and until we do, we will continue to vet this nominee "on the run" until the answers we seek come out. To irritate your party by insulting them is not the wisest of moves.
The Bunny ;)
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 6:14 PM
1 Comments:
Excellent letter and blog. When I predicted the president would nominate her, I gave it a lot of thought and approached it from decades of political experience. I oppose diversity as a means to achieving "equality," especially on the Supreme Court. Just because the chair is held by a female, is not grounds to fill it with another female unless that female is the very best among all the possible candidates.Obviously, his nominee is not. Rawriter
Post a Comment
<< Home