A Trio Of Loons Addressing The Newest On Miers...
Yes, we have a bit of new news regarding Miers. We're not going to address the bogus WaPo piece on her for the sheer fact that we're not letting a cage-liner like the WaPo determine what is and isn't conservative. No, we're going to address the president's statements regarding what he will and won't reveal in terms of documents regarding Harriet Miers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/25/politics/politicsspecial1/25confirm.html?ex=1287892800&en=a9a6623c20114648&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
"It's a red line I'm not willing to cross," Mr. Bush told reporters after a cabinet meeting, referring to the presidential right of executive privilege. "People can learn about Harriet Miers through hearings. But we are not going to destroy this business about people being able to walk into the Oval Office and say: 'Mr. President, here's my advice to you. Here's what I think is important.' "
This is not only utterly foolish, but misguided. We cannot learn anything about this woman if the White House is not willing to release some documents. Of course we are not asking for sensitive, protected, privileged documents. However, something that could nail down her judicial philosophy would be nice. Between the misunderstanding of the Equal Protection Clause that was cited in her questionnaire to people stating that she believed the USSC decision in Grutter was accurate and correct, there are questions regarding what she believes.
Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the committee, also requested the documents in a letter to Ms. Miers last week that asked her for fuller answers to a Senate questionnaire.
And they aren't the only ones needing answers. As we have expressed time and again, the nation is requesting answers. Moreso, 243 bloggers--some of the best and brightest--are standing in opposition to Miers. Only 49 stand in support of her, and 52 are apathetic. That's according to the latest numbers on NZ Bear's site. (And no, we're still not tracked up there, yet.) But this proves a solid point that people like Hugh Hewitt, who seems to be leading the "Loyalists," can't deny. A majority of people involved in this debate have serious questions regarding what this woman believes in her judicial philosophy.
And that is what this opposition is about. NO ONE has showed us anything regarding this vitally important question. And if the president continues to blow us off, there could be serious repercussions on the horizon. We need to make sure that this woman will not become another O'Connor, or worse, become a Souter. Her personal dealings in Texas, including those involved in the woman's studies group at Southern Methodist University, the behind-the-scenes shenanigans for the Texas Lottery Commission, and the exobitant amount of money given to her by then-Governor Bush raises questions. They aren't about her qualifications, but rather her ethics and ideology.
But all of that lends to how a person acts, and what they believe in when it comes to life in general. If her vehement support of a woman's studies group that included liberal, feminist icons like Gloria Steinem and Pat Schroeder are a precursor of what is to come, we are almost assured of another O'Connor; a mistake that could undo the gains made on the court thus far. Roberts was just one of the final nails in the coffin of judicial activism. With the departure of O'Connor, the president had the ability to nail another one home. He chose, instead, to nominate a longtime friend that goes beyond the concept of stealth. John Fund's piece yesterday illustrates this point clearly as he was unable to find anyone outside of the White House or Nathan Hecht to vouch for her.
Which puts us right back at square one. The "Trust me" square that's burned conservatives all too often. And people like Hewitt point to jurists he has appointed thus far and ask "With Miers, what changes?" What changes, Mr. Hewitt, is that America doesn't know squat anything this woman. Well, that isn't exactrly true, but what we do know about her is irrelevant. It's a great resume, but can she handle a grueling interview? The Judiciary Committee is not going to be kind to her. She has a lot to answer for, and she had better be forthcoming. And the answers had better be more than the "Miss America" equivalent that more than a couple senators have stated her answers are in their interviews.
The debate is heating up, and even after hearing the interview that Hewitt had this afternoon on his show with Stanley Kurtz, he's not convincing me. Kurtz brought up valid points that Hugh just couldn't respond very well to. Point being is there are questions that we have, and they revolve around this woman's philosophy. If the White House can't come clean, and the Loyalists like Hugh can't give reasons to trust her, or even a minimal guarantee she can be trusted with such an awesome responsibility, then she doesn't belong on the court. We oppose Miers, and we feel that we do so for good reasons.
The Bunny ;)
Mistress Pundit
Publius II
Yes, we have a bit of new news regarding Miers. We're not going to address the bogus WaPo piece on her for the sheer fact that we're not letting a cage-liner like the WaPo determine what is and isn't conservative. No, we're going to address the president's statements regarding what he will and won't reveal in terms of documents regarding Harriet Miers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/25/politics/politicsspecial1/25confirm.html?ex=1287892800&en=a9a6623c20114648&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
"It's a red line I'm not willing to cross," Mr. Bush told reporters after a cabinet meeting, referring to the presidential right of executive privilege. "People can learn about Harriet Miers through hearings. But we are not going to destroy this business about people being able to walk into the Oval Office and say: 'Mr. President, here's my advice to you. Here's what I think is important.' "
This is not only utterly foolish, but misguided. We cannot learn anything about this woman if the White House is not willing to release some documents. Of course we are not asking for sensitive, protected, privileged documents. However, something that could nail down her judicial philosophy would be nice. Between the misunderstanding of the Equal Protection Clause that was cited in her questionnaire to people stating that she believed the USSC decision in Grutter was accurate and correct, there are questions regarding what she believes.
Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the committee, also requested the documents in a letter to Ms. Miers last week that asked her for fuller answers to a Senate questionnaire.
And they aren't the only ones needing answers. As we have expressed time and again, the nation is requesting answers. Moreso, 243 bloggers--some of the best and brightest--are standing in opposition to Miers. Only 49 stand in support of her, and 52 are apathetic. That's according to the latest numbers on NZ Bear's site. (And no, we're still not tracked up there, yet.) But this proves a solid point that people like Hugh Hewitt, who seems to be leading the "Loyalists," can't deny. A majority of people involved in this debate have serious questions regarding what this woman believes in her judicial philosophy.
And that is what this opposition is about. NO ONE has showed us anything regarding this vitally important question. And if the president continues to blow us off, there could be serious repercussions on the horizon. We need to make sure that this woman will not become another O'Connor, or worse, become a Souter. Her personal dealings in Texas, including those involved in the woman's studies group at Southern Methodist University, the behind-the-scenes shenanigans for the Texas Lottery Commission, and the exobitant amount of money given to her by then-Governor Bush raises questions. They aren't about her qualifications, but rather her ethics and ideology.
But all of that lends to how a person acts, and what they believe in when it comes to life in general. If her vehement support of a woman's studies group that included liberal, feminist icons like Gloria Steinem and Pat Schroeder are a precursor of what is to come, we are almost assured of another O'Connor; a mistake that could undo the gains made on the court thus far. Roberts was just one of the final nails in the coffin of judicial activism. With the departure of O'Connor, the president had the ability to nail another one home. He chose, instead, to nominate a longtime friend that goes beyond the concept of stealth. John Fund's piece yesterday illustrates this point clearly as he was unable to find anyone outside of the White House or Nathan Hecht to vouch for her.
Which puts us right back at square one. The "Trust me" square that's burned conservatives all too often. And people like Hewitt point to jurists he has appointed thus far and ask "With Miers, what changes?" What changes, Mr. Hewitt, is that America doesn't know squat anything this woman. Well, that isn't exactrly true, but what we do know about her is irrelevant. It's a great resume, but can she handle a grueling interview? The Judiciary Committee is not going to be kind to her. She has a lot to answer for, and she had better be forthcoming. And the answers had better be more than the "Miss America" equivalent that more than a couple senators have stated her answers are in their interviews.
The debate is heating up, and even after hearing the interview that Hewitt had this afternoon on his show with Stanley Kurtz, he's not convincing me. Kurtz brought up valid points that Hugh just couldn't respond very well to. Point being is there are questions that we have, and they revolve around this woman's philosophy. If the White House can't come clean, and the Loyalists like Hugh can't give reasons to trust her, or even a minimal guarantee she can be trusted with such an awesome responsibility, then she doesn't belong on the court. We oppose Miers, and we feel that we do so for good reasons.
The Bunny ;)
Mistress Pundit
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 4:59 PM
2 Comments:
I opposed her when the President nominated her. My opposition is strengthened by some revelations about her thinking or lack thereof. I've seen nothing that changes my mind. I hope she withdraws before the hearings and the President appoints one from Thomas's and Bunny's list. Rawriter
Raw,
I concur. INDEED. Their list was like many that I saw for people watching this. They seemed to nail down the ones that would have had the easiest go given their qualifications, and their benefits.
Anyone of them would have been preferable to Miers, and both Thomas and Marcie made little bones about balancing the choices--equal females to males ratio, and argued for both sexes vehemently.
There is no sentiment of sexism from either of them, nor elitism. They cared little for where these people went to school, but rather their qualifications which included their resumes. Miers has little in terms of Constitutional experience except for helping vet the president's nominees. That fact is now even under contention as she may not have participated in as many as was initially presented.
The president would have been wise to pay attention to either Thomas or Marcie; I'd even wager that they could guide him through the waters, and get whomever he chose confirmed.
Mistress Pundit
Post a Comment
<< Home