October 3, 2005

Bush Nominates Harriet Miers to Supreme Court. Was She the Best Available?

by @ 7:13 am. Filed under Questionable Items

So it has been announced that our President has selected Harriet Miers to replace the sometimes Conservative Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. As the Wall Street Journal reports Miers has no judicial experience, has a short paper trail, has a successful career in law, but never faced the US Supreme Court, was the President’s personal lawyer in Texas and her first job in DC was White House staff secretary.

Wait a minute, she used to be the top secretary and has worked her way up to the US Supreme Court? Now does that sound like a super-promotion, above and beyond what would be considered normal or what? Sure she’s been a good lawyer, but she is not the most qualified and respected in her field. She is no John Roberts when it comes to her skills and reputation in the legal field. I’m sure we are going to hear how great a role “White House staff secretary” is now. I’m sure it will be played up to be the 2nd best thing to being on the high court 😕 .

Bottom line, she was a Bush insider that got the job via being inside the network. She was heading the search team for the next Justice, but being such a great cheerleader for Bush’s proposals she was selected for the job. There is some good in that despite my criticism. Bush probably has a good idea how she will rule in cases. That’s a good thing. But was she just cheering on the boss or does she have a proven record of being in the mold of Justices Scalia and Thomas? With a short paper trail we don’t really know. We’ll have to trust the President’s judgement I guess. But she does not stand out as the most qualified. I would have preferred that the President select someone that is a long time outspoken Conservative So what if Liberals would hate them. And he should have selected someone that would have been respected as possibly the most qualified for the position. I think he should have put up a fight for someone like Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owens or Miguel Estrada (if he was willing to take the heat this time)!

Well lets pray for the best. Cause she’s the pick now and if she gets in we’ll have to live with her decisions for a very long time. I hope she’s a real Conservative and not a “swing vote Justice”.

update (10/3/2005 3:52PM ET): A bit of possibly good news. Miers urged the American Bar Association to back away from their pro-let babies be killed stance.

Miers Led Bid to Revisit Abortion Stance

As president of the Texas State Bar in 1993, Harriet Miers urged the national American Bar Association to put the abortion issue to a referendum of the group’s full membership. She questioned at the time whether the ABA should “be trying to speak for the entire legal community” on an issue that she said “has brought on tremendous divisiveness” within the ABA.

Miers was among a group of lawyers from the Texas bar and elsewhere who had argued that the ABA should have a neutral stance on abortion.

The ABA’s policy-making body overwhelmingly rejected the Texas lawyers’ group’s 1993 proposal to put the issue to a referendum by mail of the ABA’s then-roster of about 360,000 members.

update (10/3/2005 6:19PM ET): Pat Buchanan has authored an excellent piece about this nomination.

From: Miers’ Qualifications Are ‘Non-Existent’

A paper trail is the mark of a lawyer, a scholar or a judge who has shared the action and passion of his or her time, taken a stand on the great questions, accepted public abuse for articulating convictions.

Why is a judicial cipher like Harriet Miers to be preferred to a judicial conservative like Edith Jones?

One reason: Because the White House fears nominees ?with a paper trail? will be rejected by the Senate, and this White House fears, above all else, losing. So, it has chosen not to fight.

Again I say pray for the best. At this point I don’t think we have any other options. Personally I am not for the Senate rejecting someone simply because they may not be of the same political point of view. The President should have his pick unless they are unfit in the sense of not being able to think coherently.

Pat said it well in saying:

His only hope now is that Harriet Miers, if confirmed, will not vote like the lady she replaced, or, worse, like his father?s choice who also had ?no paper trail,? David Souter.

But I must say, that now is not just the President’s only hope for greatness, but also our only hope of maintaining a respectable Republic!

4 Responses to “Bush Nominates Harriet Miers to Supreme Court. Was She the Best Available?”

  1. Independent Conservative Says:

    Liberals using Red Herrings to rally Conservatives against Harriet Miers?

    While Conservatives are questioning the qualifications of Harriet Miers, it appears Liberals are trying to fan the flames with potentially misleading statements!

  2. Independent Conservative » Blog Archive » Liberals Using Red Herrings to Rally Conservatives Against Harriet Miers! Says:

    […] In a previous post here I questioned if Harriet Miers is the best qualified for nomination to the US Supreme Court. See: Bush Nominates Harriet Miers to Supreme Court. Was She the Best Available? […]

  3. Independent Conservative » Blog Archive » Wait a second, Pat Buchanan is upset Bush picked Harriet Miers. The pot calls the kettle black! Says:

    […] After more review I must say Pat Buchanan has little room to talk! His criticism of President Bush picking Harriet Miers for the US Supreme Court is a bit hypocritical considering Mr. Buchanan’s own history of nominations. I posted Pat’s write-up in this other post. And Pat has been out speaking against the President’s pick on shows like The Savage Nation, Michael Savage’s radio talk show. Now what about Pat’s history of nominations?… It’s almost comical to mention and I’m sure Pat’s praying nobody would bring it up! […]

  4. Independent Conservative » Blog Archive » Enough about putting up Priscilla Owen already! Says:

    […] I’m still hearing folks claim that Bush should pull Miers and put up Owen. Sorry, but she did not have the guts for another fight! And if she does not have the guts for a fight, how could she ever be relied upon to stand up to people who want to use the judiciary as a legislative body? She is simply not strong enough for the fight and should never be considered or mentioned again!. Her and anyone else that ran from the fight. I did mention Miguel Estrada in a previous post, but now I think it’s time to stop looking to these weak kneed candidates. […]

Independent Conservative - Copyright 2022 - Copyright Notice

[powered by WordPress.]

82 queries. 0.283 seconds