10.03.2005

Perplexed But Not Despairing

I am admittedly concerned, hesitant about the President's pick for the Supreme Court today. But, it's early.

From what I read from Hugh Hewitt, the ACLJ and the Drudge Report, I was encouraged by Harriet Miers' apparent conservative judicial phiolosophy. And, I do trust the president's judgement on this matter.

However, I have also read from other conservatives William Kristol and David Frum that this was a missed opportunity for the president to select a solid conservative.

Lots of investigating to be done and discussion to be had.

All I know is that, for many of us, this is the reason we voted for the president: to choose men and women committed to upholding and not re-writing the constitution.

12 Comments:

At 10/03/2005 08:03:00 PM, Blogger Jaymeister said...

I think the issue here isn't one of Ms. Miers' ideology or judicial philosophy but of her qualifications. I realize that there is precedent for selecting Supreme Court justices without judicial experience, but that doen't make this selectioin any less perplexing. Surely there are many well qualified conservative (and female, if that was necessary) judges who would have been able to survive the confirmation process - and more deserving of the honour. But in picking Harriet Miers, right after the confirmation of John Roberts (another relative neophyte when it comes to the bench), President Bush leaves himself open to more questions about cronyism. Not to mention another question: In selecting nominees with little judicial history to examine, what is he trying to hide about them? And even if the Supreme Court turns out to be all you hope it to be, do the ends justify the means?

 
At 10/03/2005 09:43:00 PM, Blogger Layman said...

Lores,

I do not understand why Bush went with Meiers, even if she is as conservative judiciously as Hugh and Sekulow hope. The fact is that they knew this would blow up the base, which is why they had Dick Cheney ready to appear on Rush's show first thing in the morning and on Hannity's show first thing in the afternoon. With 06 coming up, I simply do not understand the risk that is being taken.

Even if she is confirmed, another two months will have passed. There is no time for her to "prove" to conservatives that she is one of them before the republicans will desparately need their base to turn out in droves. Many will say, turn out why? No matter how many republicans they keep electing the court does not change. This disillusionment, combined with disappointments on spending in general and illegal immigration handling in particular, could spell big problems for the off-years.

I suspect Meiers does believe in judicial restraint and will be reliable on that count as a Justice. She has helped Bush pick fine judges for the appellate bench and with Roberts. Bush knows her well and said he'd pick justices who believe in restraint. By some accounts she is a conservative Christian, even an evangelical.

There are additional problems. Many conservatives wanted someone younger than 60. She might have 10 or 15 years as a justice. She obviously does not have as impeccable credentials as other nominees, though being president of the Texas Bar Association is no small feat. No judicial experience? Some people see that as a plus and the WH is hyping it. I tend to favor some judicial experience, though it certainly does not have to be on the federal bench. These factors lead me to doubt that she could be an influential justice, one whose stature and reasnoning influence others instead of just being counted as one vote.

What does my gut tell me? I was excited when Roberts was nominated, believing he was sure to be confirmed, sure to be a great justice (perhaps one of THE great justices), and -- perhaps most of all -- that President Bush was keeping his his word to the base. Now I am uneasy. Going into a fight like this the President needs his base to be excited, not uncertain.

 
At 10/03/2005 09:58:00 PM, Blogger The Game said...

I think GWB has betrayed his base for the last time. Instead of picking a strong, sound conservative for the Supreme Court, GWB picks nobody Harriet Miers.

Why doesn't Bush get some balls and pick someone that would please the people who elected him President twice?

We already have to tolerate his spend, spend, spend mentality.

Conservatives are now going to turn on him...they will look for a true conservative to vote for in 2008. If the Republicans nominate Rudi or McCain, there will be a third party "Perrot" type guy that will guarantee a win for the Democrats. I am very sure about this.

We have no one to stand up for us anymore....no one to represent us....we are the majority, yet the fact that the Dems and the MSM fight a better fight, we have to sit here and take it.

We made Republicans the majority in the House and Senate. Republicans hold all the power and give it up freely. They should be ashamed of themselves.

STOP BEING SCARED AND STAND UP FOR YOUR BASE!!!!!

 
At 10/03/2005 10:06:00 PM, Blogger Poison Pero said...

"By objective standards, Harriet Miers has been among the few dozen most successful lawyers in private practice in the United States. Filter the Y-chromosome bearers out of that group and you're down to a couple dozen or less. Filter that group for significant public and governmental experience and we're down to a very small handful. And filter that small handful for lawyers in whom George W. Bush already has boundless personal confidence from first-hand experience, and your Venn diagram just has a one-member set left: Harriet Miers. Those are not inappropriate criteria, folks. From an overall viewpoint, using any reasonable criteria, she's qualified enough. But using those particular criteria, she's uniquely qualified." - BeldarBlog

http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2005/10/the_miers_nomin.html
------------
I'll have an opinion up tomorrow at the Right is Right
http://therightisright.blogspot.com/

 
At 10/04/2005 01:20:00 AM, Blogger Jamie Dawn said...

President Bush had a difficult choice to make.
I think he wanted to avoid a huge battle that would have resulted in a filibuster that would have not been good for either party.
Some people would be angry at Bush for nominating someone they felt would set-back women's rights and other issues, while other people would be angry with the Dems for filibustering. It would have been bad.
I think the Pres knows this woman well. I think he felt she could be confirmed without a huge battle. I hope he is right, and that his trust in her is well placed.

 
At 10/04/2005 02:58:00 AM, Blogger Mark said...

When I first heard about this appointment, I said, "Who?" Never heard of her.

Then, after reading some info about her,including info that she gave to Democrat campaigns, I said, "What was Bush thinking? This is a terrible appointment!"

Still later, after hearing some of her supporters, particuarly Jay Sekulow, (a man I have tremendous respect for)I said, "Well, maybe she is a good choice after all."

At this time, I can't say I have an opinion. I will have to learn more about her, but I will say this:

It really doesn't matter if she's conservative or not as long as she doesn't legislate from the bench.

 
At 10/04/2005 05:46:00 PM, Blogger Pelty said...

May I ask why it is that you look to Hugh Hewitt as a source on what type of stance you wish to take on various decisions that emanate from the White House? Don't get me wrong, I think that Hewitt is a very bright man and think his little manifesto, _In But Not Of_, is brilliant; but in the significant period of time that I have been visiting his site, he has made not one deviation from White House talking points. He bases this upon evidence that "the President has made tons of good decisions in the past, so trust him on these (both Roberts and now Miers)." This premise is thoroughly debatable and even if one grants this, is it reason enough to overlook his abject failure on his SCOTUS nominees (for I still see much to be concerned about w/ Roberts; I hope to be surprised). The President has demonstrated no leadership in these ventures and is, I would argue, bordering on cowardice in his wishes to avoid a showdown in the Senate, a Senate controlled by a significant margin by his party. So why the Hugh-worship in this regard?

 
At 10/05/2005 01:56:00 AM, Blogger Layman said...

Pelty,

I like Hugh too, but know what you are talking about. I think he's more of an infernal optimist than a White House lackey.

I really like the movie reviews, trailer reviews, and top ten lists on Friday afternoon though. :)

 
At 10/05/2005 02:37:00 AM, Blogger Goat said...

I have my opinion up with a compelling question.

 
At 10/05/2005 02:44:00 AM, Blogger Lores Rizkalla said...

pelty,
i respect his perspective as a lawyer, as former white house counsel and as a conservative committed to staying in the game and moving the ball down the field--as opposed to the all or nothing mentality that sometimes befalls conservatives. that said, i referenced Hewitt along with Sekulow, Kristol and Frum.

how this qualifies as hewitt "worship" is beyond me.

 
At 10/05/2005 03:26:00 AM, Blogger Layman said...

Lores,

Dont' forget James Dobson.

standing fast,

Chris

 
At 10/05/2005 03:57:00 AM, Blogger Lores Rizkalla said...

thanks chris. dobson's endorsement goes a long way.

keep standing :)

 

Post a Comment

<< Home