SURPRISE, SURPRISE...
EVERY one of our readers know that we’re not likely to shift on a position we’ve established. Most know that to change our minds is a chore, at best; at worst, it’s a war. However, revelations in recent days from others we know, those we listen to, and writers that we read has caused us to rethink a position we struck last week.
If we seem to be a shade cryptic, it is for good reasons. This was not an easy decision to reach, and to have it change again is a bit disconcerting. For those that have not been following the posts in recent weeks you know we are referring to the president’s nomination of Harriet Miers for the vacancy being created by outgoing Supreme Court Justice, Sandra Day O’Connor. Initially, I was in favor of her. So was our newest blogging member, Sabrina. Thomas, however, was staunchly opposed to her.
And I remained that way for well over a week. I hammered my points against her home with Marcie, and she changed her mind. Sabrina, though still supportive of Miers, is now questioning a few things. But today, we listened to the recording of the announcement by Dr. James Dobson about Harriet Miers. Hugh Hewitt had on Nathan Hecht—a close personal friend of Miers. In the end, along with corroborating information being revealed, we have had to adjust our stance on Miers.
We still have many questions that need to be answered. Much of this is in regards to her judicial philosophy. For those that keep claiming that people like are demanding answers to specific cases are literally fools. It could not be further from the truth. Though neither of us are lawyers, we have enough informal education to know that such questions, though not forbidden, will more than likely go unanswered. No, what worries us the most is where she stands on one single issue in this debate.
What is your opinion regarding the proper role of the judiciary of the United States? Do you believe it to be a "super-legislature" that with decisions are to right wrongs? Should the court act in such a fashion? This is what we’re referring to when we say we want to know what her judicial philosophy is. It doesn’t matter to us that she really has never worked her way through the study of the Constitution. It doesn’t matter that she’s never been a judge. And we could really give a rip about where she went to school. Her philosophy is key to this debate.
But enough people are coming to her defense, and I am not simply referring to the White House, bloggers, and pundits that have been on her side the whole time. For the first time today, as we heard, Nathan Hecht granted an interview. Dr. Dobson referred to conversations he has had with Karl Rove, and the full story of how this nominee came to be.
Dobson revealed that there were key female nominees that requested their name be withdrawn from the list; the only one made public was Priscilla Owens the weekend immediately prior to the nomination of Miers. It was not that she was at the top of his short-list, but rather she was moved up. The only thing I can fault the president for on this point is that he chose a woman because he wanted a woman. Justice O’Connor’s seat doesn’t read, "women only." Men could have been considered, and it’s unclear yet whether the men were doing the same thing. It stands to reason that they might have.
The reason for this was, as Judge Owens cited, the process is far to hard and grueling. These people do not wish to undergo the sharks in the Senate, and they do not want to subject their families to the same treatment. Does anyone remember how twenty-four hours AFTER Roberts was nominated, the WaPo savaged his wife, attacked his son, and attacked the family for their "Leave it to Beaver" look? I do. We posted about it. It was low, even for the media.
So, I can’t fault those people for withdrawing. I don’t blame them for doing so. Only a masochist would desire to go through that process (BTW, Mr. President, I’m still waiting for my call.) They thought more about their lives than about the honor and prestige that would surely be delivered to them for serving on the court. I can’t blame them.
And neither can I. So, we are hereby announcing, and making it official: The Asylum now supports the nomination and elevation of Harriet Miers to the United States Supreme Court. She will make a fine addition to it, and WE seriously doubt that she will be a Souter. She seems more like an anti-Souter. We believe she will act accordingly, professionally, and accurately.
The Bunny & Publius II
EVERY one of our readers know that we’re not likely to shift on a position we’ve established. Most know that to change our minds is a chore, at best; at worst, it’s a war. However, revelations in recent days from others we know, those we listen to, and writers that we read has caused us to rethink a position we struck last week.
If we seem to be a shade cryptic, it is for good reasons. This was not an easy decision to reach, and to have it change again is a bit disconcerting. For those that have not been following the posts in recent weeks you know we are referring to the president’s nomination of Harriet Miers for the vacancy being created by outgoing Supreme Court Justice, Sandra Day O’Connor. Initially, I was in favor of her. So was our newest blogging member, Sabrina. Thomas, however, was staunchly opposed to her.
And I remained that way for well over a week. I hammered my points against her home with Marcie, and she changed her mind. Sabrina, though still supportive of Miers, is now questioning a few things. But today, we listened to the recording of the announcement by Dr. James Dobson about Harriet Miers. Hugh Hewitt had on Nathan Hecht—a close personal friend of Miers. In the end, along with corroborating information being revealed, we have had to adjust our stance on Miers.
We still have many questions that need to be answered. Much of this is in regards to her judicial philosophy. For those that keep claiming that people like are demanding answers to specific cases are literally fools. It could not be further from the truth. Though neither of us are lawyers, we have enough informal education to know that such questions, though not forbidden, will more than likely go unanswered. No, what worries us the most is where she stands on one single issue in this debate.
What is your opinion regarding the proper role of the judiciary of the United States? Do you believe it to be a "super-legislature" that with decisions are to right wrongs? Should the court act in such a fashion? This is what we’re referring to when we say we want to know what her judicial philosophy is. It doesn’t matter to us that she really has never worked her way through the study of the Constitution. It doesn’t matter that she’s never been a judge. And we could really give a rip about where she went to school. Her philosophy is key to this debate.
But enough people are coming to her defense, and I am not simply referring to the White House, bloggers, and pundits that have been on her side the whole time. For the first time today, as we heard, Nathan Hecht granted an interview. Dr. Dobson referred to conversations he has had with Karl Rove, and the full story of how this nominee came to be.
Dobson revealed that there were key female nominees that requested their name be withdrawn from the list; the only one made public was Priscilla Owens the weekend immediately prior to the nomination of Miers. It was not that she was at the top of his short-list, but rather she was moved up. The only thing I can fault the president for on this point is that he chose a woman because he wanted a woman. Justice O’Connor’s seat doesn’t read, "women only." Men could have been considered, and it’s unclear yet whether the men were doing the same thing. It stands to reason that they might have.
The reason for this was, as Judge Owens cited, the process is far to hard and grueling. These people do not wish to undergo the sharks in the Senate, and they do not want to subject their families to the same treatment. Does anyone remember how twenty-four hours AFTER Roberts was nominated, the WaPo savaged his wife, attacked his son, and attacked the family for their "Leave it to Beaver" look? I do. We posted about it. It was low, even for the media.
So, I can’t fault those people for withdrawing. I don’t blame them for doing so. Only a masochist would desire to go through that process (BTW, Mr. President, I’m still waiting for my call.) They thought more about their lives than about the honor and prestige that would surely be delivered to them for serving on the court. I can’t blame them.
And neither can I. So, we are hereby announcing, and making it official: The Asylum now supports the nomination and elevation of Harriet Miers to the United States Supreme Court. She will make a fine addition to it, and WE seriously doubt that she will be a Souter. She seems more like an anti-Souter. We believe she will act accordingly, professionally, and accurately.
The Bunny & Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 6:10 PM
1 Comments:
I have the utmost respect for The Asylum. I've read and listen to what many say about Miers. I'm still wrestling with my feelings about her and her nomination. I would much rather have a firm positive opinion than having negative doubts. As I continue to evaluate what I read and hear, I'm hoping the hearing will shed some light on my doubts. Rawriter
Post a Comment
<< Home