[RealGun]

New nominee for Supreme Court reported to be Harriet Miers, White House counsel. She has no judicial experience.

[geekWithA.45]

Looks like she used to be Democrat.

http://www.newsmeat.com/washington_political_donations/Harriet_Miers.php

[El Tejon]

Yet another Souter. Oh, well, the Constitution was a nice idea. :scrutiny:

[Greg M]

Supporting Al Gore in 1988 isn't the same as supporting him in 2000. I don't know if Gore was ever pro-gun, but he was a more conservative democrat years ago.

Greg

[Kharn]

Ms. Miers stopped donating to the Democrats before 1990, and has been Republican ever since, that was 15+ years ago. Don't forget that even Reagan was a Democrat for a while, too.

Kharn

[RealGun]

Looks like she used to be Democrat.

We need more of those people. :evil:

[geekWithA.45]

Oh, I'm sure that more than a few of us have been known to vote for a Democrat or two before waking from our slumber and taking note of what's going on... ;)

[hso]

The head of the TX supreme court referred to her as a strict constructionist WRT the constitution.

[antsi]

I get the impression Bush is bending over backwards to avoid controversy over his judicial picks.

If we get good judges out of this, it will be pure luck, because that's not the criteria being used to select them. The only criteria I can see is "difficult for the liberals to attack."

[dolanp]

It worries me a bit that Bush picks his buddies for such a high court nomination, especially considering that this woman has never been a judge.

We can only hope that she will be true to the constitution, but old George isn't the most reliable.

[Henry Bowman]

Oh, well. Just wait 'till next time! :neener: :uhoh:

[El Rojo]

Do you need to be a judge to read the Constitution? If anything, it might be nice to have some untainted blood to get in there and just do the right thing. Ah hell, it doesn't matter, we will see what happens when she gets in there. Are there any more judges who Dubya might get to pick in the next three years?

[Bruce H]

Personally I don't want a nominee to be a judge and would prefer them not to be an attorney.

[Camp David]

The only criteria I can see is "difficult for the liberals to attack."

That's about it in a nutshell! We are reduced to picking nominees for the Highest Court in the Land and their only qualifications need be "no experience" so liberals can't criticize them! No only is this dangerous to Constitution, it is dangerous to existing Supreme Court to appoint justices that are handicapped with little expertise!

I am underwhelmed! Harriet Miers? Was Marge Simpson busy?

:(

[Reno]

Harry Reid supported her. This is very concerning.

[Silver Bullet]

The head of the TX supreme court referred to her as a strict constructionist WRT the constitution.Best news I've heard all day. That's exactly what I want in a justice.

[Molon Labe]

"If confirmed, I recognize I will have a tremendous responsibility to keep our judicial system strong and to help insure the court meets their obligations to strictly apply the laws and Constitution," Miers said.Strictly apply the laws and Constitution? Those are fight'n words according to most Democrats…

[geekWithA.45]

Those are fight'n words according to most Democrats…

So be it. There can be only one.

[Rockstar]

Here's another radical thought: Maybe GWB got through Yale undergrad and earned an MBA from Harvard (how many on THR have done that?) because he's REALLY not a dumbass? Could it be possible that he knows Ms. Miers personally and knows her conservative, strict constructionist views? Don't be surprised to see Schumer claiming that Miers worked secretely as a sheet seamstress for the Ladies Auxiliary of the KKK.

[Satch]

Hey,I was a Democrat for 30 years but haven't voted for them since Reagen.

[Gary H]

It was reported that she was centrally involved in Bush's search for a new justice. This implies that she has his trust regarding this issue. The real question is why should we trust Bush? If we believed Bush's stated goal of having the courts interpret rather than create law, then he will always provide a nominee that is in agreement with our desires. If we believed Bush we would not have threads like this one. We would be certain that he is true to his word. Fingers crossed on this end..

[News Shooter]

http://frum.nationalreview.com/

[Rockstar]

Bush, like 90% of American citizens (read: "voters") doesn't have as deep an interest in the 2nd as do those of us who post on gun boards. That's just the political reality of the situation. I know a lot of good, conservative, strict constructionist Republicans who couldn't give a ratsass about owning a firearm.

[Azrael256]

Ok, everybody sit down. Take a deep breath. Now repeat after me: "She's not Gonzales."

We now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion.

[rick_reno]

I'm sure this was the best choice he could make. Given the performance record of some of his other choices in recent weeks, this President has certainly demonstrated that he is capable of putting the best person possible in positions of government. I'm sure Harriet Miers will prove to be an excellent justice - and more importantly she passed that litmus test of "diversity".

"The reaction of many conservatives today will be that the president has made possibly the most unqualified choice since Abe Fortas, who had been the president's lawyer. The nomination of a nominee with no judicial record is a significant failure for the advisers that the White House gathered around it."

Some conservatives not thrilled by Miers - Source (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9536142/)

Really? Conservatives not thrilled? Who cares what they think.

[M-Rex]

The local AM radio news station her in northern California just reported a quote from Charles Schumer stating something to the effect of, he is very pleased that the President is finally bringing forth someone who is balanced on the issues.

I apologize for not having a direct quote. The report was on AM 1530 KFBK.

IF Charles Schumer is not troubled by this appointment, then I am.

[countertop]

Al Gore in the 1980s wasn't a bad person at all. He was a Senator from Tennessee and fairly friendly to gun owners. He was also very supportive of the military. He only took his weirdly radical standsa later on, once on the national scene and while beholden to the Democratic special interests.

Now, don't get me wrong. Having grown up in the DC Ritz Carlton on Dupont Circle and attending St. Albans here in DC he was hardly a good 'ol boy. Still, he had enough sense to understand that taking away the guns of his constituents wasn't a good idea politically.

Plus, in 1988 he was running against Michael Dukakis for the nomination.

In fact, one could look at this as being part of the Bush family plan - support the more conservative primary challanger to force Dukakis to really go liberal to satisfy the base and set him up to be knocked over in the primary.

I'm just saying, thats all.

[Waitone]

Harry Reid has no problem.
Chuck Schumer has no problem.

Why are my spider senses prickly?

Now I find out her political allegiances shifted (which is not necessarily a problem) and that she has supported some questionably political figures in the past.

Sorta forces me to the conclusion she is a member of the ruling class, acceptable to both sides. Precisely the kind of person we don't need. We don't need ruling elites supported by both "parties."

She is the inevitable consequence of the practice of borking candidates. We now have court nominees for which there is nothing known. Shift congressional power to the courts, then put people on the courts about which we know nothing. Yep, that how you do tyranny.

[longeyes]

Everyone here knows that Bush had available to him a raft of sterling candidates who fit the conservative/originalist criteria. This is, of course, the PIVOTAL appointment (assuming W. doesn't get a third shot before '08). Miers would not, just based on her resume, have been my choice, and her close personal association with Bush is a minus, not a plus, for me because of the inference of cronyism.

But...

The whole SCOTUS process has now turned into war. Perhaps Miers is just the bookend to Ginsburg. What she really believes about the Constitution and what she will do about our Rights remains to be seen. It would be good if some of the right-leaning members of Congress asked some tough and pointed questions at her hearing.

Certainly the initial relaxed-sphincter response of the likes of Reid and Schumer gives one pause.

[Desertdog]

Looks like she used to be Democrat.
So was I at one time. Then my candidate was elected and did everything opposit of what he campaigned on. I have not voted Democrat since.

Check and see how many Republican congressmen have switched from Democrat after they were elected. Several hundred if I remember correctly.

[Byron Quick]

Y'all need to study the history of the nomination of Supreme Court Justices more. It's a history of Presidents attempting to appoint Justices who will support the administration and party. It's a history of conservative Presidents and liberal Presidents being consistently surprised and disappointed in their expectations.

Paper trail, smaper trail. Hardly any of the justices' actions on the Supreme Court could be reliably predicted by their 'paper trail.' Y'all are barking up a tree that doesn't have a squirrel in it.

Oh, yes. For the people who favor strict adherence to the Constitution...I certainly hope that you are not in the camp of those yipping about no prior experience on the bench. Not only is that not a constitutional requirement-it's not even a constitutional suggestion. It's common sense? Sorry, that's not a constitutional requirement, either.

[RealGun]

A couple comments.

O'Connor was not a former judge either.

Miers was a very active advocate for renewing the Patriot Act. I just heard an earlier speech wherein she said so. Not surprising at all that she would support the President's position on the matter, but before I would accept any strict constructionist hyperbole, I would like to hear her questioned about compromising freedoms under the guise of increased security.

[longeyes]

Is Miers W.'s security blanket?

And why does he need one?

And why is afraid, if he is, of fighting the good fight? Do we really care if the usual cadre of hard-left Dem head cases scream and yell? Are we to lose the country to placate a pack of unruly adolescents? You can't be chary of pissing people off when essential liberties are at stake.

Now I'm beginning to wonder about Roberts...? Was he picked for blandness rather than brilliance?

[Desertdog]

Liberals Express Concern; 'Miers Must Answer Questions'
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
October 03, 2005
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Try=No&Page=\Politics\archive\200510\POL20051003b.html
(Editor's note: This page will be updated as more Democrats and liberal interest groups offer their reaction to President Bush's nomination of Harriet

Miers to serve as associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.)

(CNSNews.com) - The person who replaces Sandra Day O'Connor could dramatically tilt the balance of the court," and that's the main concern of Sen. Patrick Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In a statement posted on his website, Leahy said it's too soon to "reach any firm judgment" about White House Counsel Harriet Miers, whom he does not know well.

"What I do know is that she has a reputation for being loyal to this President," Leahy said -- and that includes "working to advance his objectives."

Leahy, expressing concern about an "administration intent on accumulating executive power," said Miers' views will be particularly important for the Senate to examine. He questioned whether she would have the "judicial independence necessary" to adjudicate "issues of interest to this administration.

Leahy said many Americans "will be surprised that the president did not pick a Hispanic woman from the many qualified Hispanics across the country recommended to the president. I look forward to the time when the membership of the United States Supreme Court is more reflective of the country it serves," Leahy said.

Leahy said he hopes the White House will "cooperate" with the Senate by "providing us with the information we need to have a full picture of Ms. Miers's qualifications and record, and we will expect her to answer the questions that tell us what kind of a justice she would be in this especially crucial seat on our nation's highest court."

"We just don't know very much," said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) two hours after President Bush nominated White House Counsel Harriet Miers to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court.

"There's hope that Harriet Miers is a mainstream nominee," he said. "A very preliminary review shows nothing in her record that indicates she wouldn't be."

He said because Miers has been nominated to fill the "swing seat on the Supreme Court," it's very important to find out what her judicial philosophy is - even more important than it was to find out about John Roberts' philosophy.

Schumer said it will be very important for Miers to answer all questions completely and thoroughly.

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) said he looks forward to the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings to learn more about Harriet Miers -- "her qualifications, her ability to be independent from President Bush, and her views on the role of the Court in protecting fundamental rights and liberties."

Kennedy urged President Bush to make available to the Judiciary Committee documents and information relating to Miers's service in the White House and her work for Mr. Bush during his tenure as Texas governor.

"The record we have so far is simply insufficient to assess the qualifications of this nominee," Kennedy said. "While her resume lists impressive qualifications as a practicing attorney, it simply does not give the Senate -- or the public -- sufficient information to determine her qualifications to be a Supreme Court Justice and her commitment to core constitutional values."

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) made some conservatives nervous on Monday when he declared, "I like Harriet Miers."

Reid said Miers has worked with him "in a courteous and professional manner. I am also impressed with the fact that she was a trailblazer for women as managing partner of a major Dallas law firm and as the first woman president of the Texas Bar Association."

Reid also likes the idea that Miers is a practicing attorney: "A nominee with relevant non-judicial experience would bring a different and useful perspective to the court," he said in a statement.

"I look forward to the Judiciary Committee process which will help the American people learn more about Harriet Miers, and help the Senate determine whether she deserves a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court."

Interest groups

The Planned Parenthood Federation of America urged the Senate to take a close look at Harriet Miers' judicial philosophy, and that would include "full access to her records," the group said in a statement.

"We are concerned about the nomination of Harriet Miers and we demand she answer questions regarding her views of fundamental reproductive and privacy rights," said Karen Pearl, interim president of PPFA.

"We expect Miers to make clear her views on reproductive rights during the hearing process, and the Senate should not confirm a nominee who is not willing to do so.

According to Planned Parenthood, during her tenure as head of the Texas Bar Association, Miers led the campaign to reverse the American Bar Association's "pro-choice position on the right to choose."

"Had this campaign been successful, which it was not, the ABA would have been returned to its former position of neutrality," Planned Parenthood said.

Pearl said the nation cannot allow issues such as abortion to be subject to another "guessing game," as they were during the Roberts confirmation hearing.

"The public deserves to know if a nominee to our nation's highest court supports the rights that affect Americans everyday lives. Planned Parenthood calls on the Bush administration and senators to conduct a hearing with utmost transparency by demanding all relevant records and answers to questions."

The Alliance for Justice, a liberal advocacy group, said because Miers does not have a record that would shed light on her legal views, the Senate must take its advise-and-consent duties very seriously.

"A thorough, searching review of Ms. Miers' legal philosophy and the role she has played in some of the most controversial policies of the Bush administration is imperative," said Nan Aron, president of Alliance for Justice.

"The president clearly has some idea what Ms. Miers thinks. She has served by his side for more than a decade. It is now incumbent upon the Senate to obtain the information needed to let the American people know what the president does," Aron said.

NARAL Pro-Choice America said the public expects Harriet Miers to demonstrate that she shares retiring Justice O'Connor's commitment to fundamental freedoms, such as the "right to privacy as guaranteed by Roe v. Wade."

In a statement, NARAL said the burden is on the Bush administration and Miers "to prove to the American people that she will respect and protect our fundamental freedoms, including a woman's right to choose."

Miers' public record does not indicate whether she is a moderate in the tradition of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.

The Human Rights Campaign, a homosexual advocacy group, said given the dearth of information about Miers, it hopes the confirmation process will provide more insight into her views.

"It's critical that the Senate thoroughly examines her nomination and that she provide complete and candid answers," Said HRC President Joe Solmonese.

[Poodleshooter]

Harry Reid has no problem.
Chuck Schumer has no problem.

Reid did speak favorably of her, however Schumer has complained about the lack of information on her background,and has said nothing favorable about her.
Her only paper trail so far seems to be support for various conservative Christian groups. She'll might be a big government social conservative on the Rick Santorum mold, or supportive of "faith based initiatives". Hopefully she is supportive of private religious based welfare in lieu of more state sponsored welfare. Usually that's the divisive question between left leaning and right leaning self proclaimed Christians: Where does the charity money come from?
I've found nothing about her support for gun issues.

[rock jock]

Libeals demanding anything these days is just too funny.

[boofus]

So what the dimocrats want is someone that will uphold "our fundamental freedoms, including a woman's right to choose" which at best might be indirectly implied from the 9th and 10th amendments.

But the nominee must also be ready to tear down down explicitly protected rights like the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th amendments.

Maybe they should ask President-reject Kerry to nominate a judge. :rolleyes:

If they want to nominate judges they should try winning elections. How's gun control, affirmative action, islamic appeasement and michael moore working for ya?

[captain obvious]

especially considering that this woman has never been a judge.

And this is a problem...why?


The only issue I have [in regards to this] is that she's a lawyer.

Furthermore, in 1988 the Berlin Wall still stood.

A lot can change in seventeen years.

[rick_reno]

William Kristol on the Miers nomination.

I'M DISAPPOINTED, depressed and demoralized.

I'm disappointed because I expected President Bush to nominate someone with a visible and distinguished constitutionalist track record--someone like Maura Corrigan, Alice Batchelder, Edith Jones, Priscilla Owen, or Janice Rogers Brown--to say nothing of Michael Luttig, Michael McConnell, or Samuel Alito. Harriet Miers has an impressive record as a corporate attorney and Bush administration official. She has no constitutionalist credentials that I know of.

I'm depressed. Roberts for O'Connor was an unambiguous improvement. Roberts for Rehnquist was an appropriate replacement. But moving Roberts over to the Rehnquist seat meant everything rode on this nomination--and that the president had to be ready to fight on constitutional grounds for a strong nominee. Apparently, he wasn't. It is very hard to avoid the conclusion that President Bush flinched from a fight on constitutional philosophy. Miers is undoubtedly a decent and competent person. But her selection will unavoidably be judged as reflecting a combination of cronyism and capitulation on the part of the president.

I'm demoralized. What does this say about the next three years of the Bush administration--leaving aside for a moment the future of the Court? Surely this is a pick from weakness. Is the administration more broadly so weak? What are the prospects for a strong Bush second term? What are the prospects for holding solid GOP majorities in Congress in 2006 if conservatives are demoralized? And what elected officials will step forward to begin to lay the groundwork for conservative leadership after Bush?


William Kristol is editor of The
Weekly Standard.

[idakfan]

I'm glad W picked a Christian Conservative pro-gun candidate. :uhoh:

:cuss:

[GunGoBoom]

I get the impression Bush is bending over backwards to avoid controversy over his judicial picks.

If we get good judges out of this, it will be pure luck, because that's not the criteria being used to select them. The only criteria I can see is "difficult for the liberals to attack."

Yap. +1

[Hawk]

...the history of the Supreme Court appointments is a litany of error in predicting how justices will vote once on the court. They don't all surprise us, but a lot of them do.
--- Michael Crichton, 2002

IOW, Byron Quick +1, +1

Nevertheless, the thread is fun. I will be following with interest.

[RealGun]

if conservatives are demoralized?

It's not about overturning Roe v Wade, ruling on gay marriage, or the Pledge of Allegiance. It's about combating activist rulings, sticking to the Constitution. I don't think any apologies are due to those who had some notion that they were voting to control the Supreme Court appointments on specific issues. I don't believe GW ever made any such commitment. He was just known to be religious and was claimed on that basis alone.

[xd9fan]

Too bad the GOP no longer wants (or maybe its no longer feels the need) to fight for the old party line. (Less Govt....blah blah that 200 year old crap)

Christmas of 2004 Bush had it all. He could have read some Jefferson maybe just maybe read some Reagan documents....and he could have launched.......now he could be the bill clinton of the GOP. sad

[Waitone]

Now my spider senses are really twitching.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/10/3/112632.shtml

Monday, Oct. 3, 2005 11:05 a.m. EDT

Reid Urged Miers Selection

The expected political brawl over President Bush’s second Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers might not ever take place – because it was a powerful Democrat, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, who had urged her selection.

The senator from Nevada first hinted that he thought highly of Miers shortly before Bush announced the nomination of John Roberts for a seat on the Court.

Bush phoned Reid to tout Roberts, and Reid took the opportunity to tell the president that had had enjoyed working with Miers, the White House legal counsel, during the search for a nominee.

A few days earlier, Reid had met with Miers and suggested ways to avoid a divisive confirmation process, according to a report published in August in The New Yorker magazine.

Now the Associated Press is reporting: "Democratic and Republican special interests groups had been braced for a political brawl over the (second) pick, but they may not get it.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., had urged the president to consider Miers, according to several officials familiar with Bush’s consultations with Congress.

After the nomination was announced, Sen. Reid issued this statement:

"I like Harriet Miers. As White House Counsel, she has worked with me in a courteous and professional manner. I am also impressed with the fact that she was a trailblazer for women as managing partner of a major Dallas law firm and as the first woman president of the Texas Bar Association.

"In my view, the Supreme Court would benefit from the addition of a justice who has real experience as a practicing lawyer. The current justices have all been chosen from the lower federal courts. A nominee with relevant non-judicial experience would bring a different and useful perspective to the Court.

"I look forward to the Judiciary Committee process which will help the American people learn more about Harriet Miers, and help the Senate determine whether she deserves a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court.”

[xd9fan]

wow......Reid in on the pick.......Bush nice knowing ya.....GOP we had some fun there for a while..........Individual Liberty...well I really wish you could have be a chioce for my children.. :cuss:

[Car Knocker]

Might want to hold off guzzling the hemlock 'till we see Roberts and Meirs actually make some rulings.

[bg]

Ok, everybody sit down. Take a deep breath. Now repeat after me: "She's not Gonzales."
Amen...so far

[SoonerGunner]

I hope she's not another Sleeper liberal like Kennedy (not Ted) was. He got liberal real fast or am I mistaken?

[saltydog]

I look at it this way. If "ALL" the Democrat's don't like a nominee then you know the "PICK" must be a good one for the Supreme Court. There are good people out there, right now, that fit that criteria! Everything else is taking a big chance. Both parties are moving to the center. That leaves only one party. they are called "DemReps". The Arnold and Rudy types that don't give a "Rats A$$" about the 2nd. I wish the Republican Party would grow some "Big Nuts!" :barf: :barf:

[longeyes]

Bush faked us out on Roberts. Face it, a lot of us expected a Miers then. Now we get her. If another vacancy arises, we can figure it will be Gonsalez. Or maybe Jeb...

Bush never had any intention of being the leader we wanted. I don't think he ever had the same vision of America that most of here have. If he really understood what's at stake for this nation with this selection, he would never have dipped down below the first rank, especially when, by all lights, he didn't have to.

The one clear thing Bush had going for him was his tax cuts, and he himself has endangered even those with his refusal to stop reckless governmental spending and now his posturings as a reborn FDR. The next three years should be "interesting."

[gunsmith]

If I have to choose between the gov of NM (a Dem who signed a CCW law)
and Gulianni (a Repub who is very anti gun) for President, then I would vote Dem.
If it came down between Gulianni and hilary I would vote 3rd party and stock up on guns/ammo/supplies

[longeyes]

Bush may be angling for the single, career woman vote with this selection. He's kidding himself. He won't get it.

[Colt]

Bush may be angling for the single, career woman vote with this selection. He's kidding himself. He won't get it.

Bush is in his last public office. He's not running for re-election. He doesn't give a rat's behind how SWCW vote.

Miers donated to Gore the '88 primary against Dukakis. I would have, too, if I wanted the lesser candidate to run against George HW Bush. Much like a non-declared voter could have donated to whack-job like Dean to give W an easy election vitory in 04.

With a significant portion of senate republicans actually RINO's, W may be smart to avoid a fight. It's one he could lose, nuclear option or not. If the objective is to change the leanings of the SCOTUS, it may be eaiser to get it done with a stealth candidate.

I've trusted Bush this far, and I'm willing to trust him a little further. YMMV.

[TonkinTwentyMil]

Since she's a long term Texan, and since Texas is a pro-gun state with Concealed-Carry available to qualified citizens...

... Just ask her this question:

-->> DOES SHE HAVE A TEXAS CONCEALED CARRY HANDGUN LICENSE?

This could be readily discovered by journalists, or revealed in the Senate Judiciary's questioning.

Not some Hunting License. A real CCHL that actually indicates that:

1. She has taken the training to understand and use deadly force for personal protection in a Self-Defense situation.

2. She believes that the 2A is NOT about Duck Hunting/Trap Shooting.

3. She does NOT believe that Self-Defense (at the point of attack) is "uncivilized" (as our European friends believe), or "vigilantism."

4. When some future Court case comes before her, she is NOT likely to decide for further erosion of the 2A (a) "For The Children," or (b) "For The Common Good"... no matter WHO is president then... or what his/HER political policies (the President's) may be.

If she cannot pass this test...

... then it's likely that she's just another smart corporate lawyer well on her way to becoming a judicial activist/elitist Washington Insider... despite her Democrat-turned-Republican church-going credentials.

She may not have the judicial "track record" that could sink her nomination, but her personal history vis-a-vis the 2A will speak volumes.

[longeyes]

Now I hear she's a widow with two grown children. Whatever.

Does she pack? That's the question.

[jeff-10]

Might want to hold off guzzling the hemlock 'till we see Roberts and Meirs actually make some rulings

Uh, by then it is too late. The problem is Republicans consistently put Justices on the bench who make a hard turn to the left. Stevens, Kennedy and Souter. Democrats don't ever seem to have that problem. I am a lifelong Republican and I really can't see myself switching to Democrat but this is disheartening. Republicans have been consistent over the years in only one thing, showing they have no backbone.

[TheEgg]

the "swing seat on the Supreme Court,"

this could be mis-interpreted in so many ways. :eek:

AHEM, back on the High Road now. -- I really despise what our politics have become. We can't have a legitamate open discourse with our nominees about their judicial philophoy. Instead we have to rely on 'stealth' candidates, and none of us, on the right, left, or in the center, will know what we have until it is far too late.

[MrTuffPaws]

I think what they are asking for is for someone that just won't dance around the questions.

[bountyhunter]

Another stealth candidate who will smile and say "Sorry.... I can't answer that." to every question.

Gee.... who could have seen that coming?

[GunGoBoom]

I think we should all encourage our Senators, both Repub and Dem, to vote her down, in order to try to force Bush to actually nominate a 'conservative' constructionist/constitutionalist to the court. Sad that Bush won't even do what his party & base want him to do without being forced. Shrub will go down as one of the worst presidents in US history, and certainly the worst since LBJ (and that is saying a LOT given Nixon, WJC and Carter), and his 2nd term is not even 1/4 done.

[Crosshair]

Wait, don't we just need a 50% vote. To heck with the dems, don't we have enough votes already. :neener:

[davec]

President Press Conference - Nov 4, 2004

Oh, in terms of feeling free, well, I don't think you'll let me be too free. There's accountability and there are constraints on the presidency, as there should be in any system. I feel -- I feel it is necessary to move an agenda that I told the American people I would move. Something refreshing about coming off an election, even more refreshing since we all got some sleep last night, but there's -- you go out and you make your case, and you tell the people this is what I intend to do. And after hundreds of speeches and three debates and interviews and the whole process, where you keep basically saying the same thing over and over again, that when you win, there is a feeling that the people have spoken and embraced your point of view, and that's what I intend to tell the Congress, that I made it clear what I intend to do as the President, now let's work to -- and the people made it clear what they wanted, now let's work together.

And it's one of the wonderful -- it's like earning capital. You asked, do I feel free. Let me put it to you this way: I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style. That's what happened in the -- after the 2000 election, I earned some capital. I've earned capital in this election -- and I'm going to spend it for what I told the people I'd spend it on, which is -- you've heard the agenda: Social Security and tax reform, moving this economy forward, education, fighting and winning the war on terror.



So picking nobodies with no records and no firm stance on any issue is the Presidents way of spending his political capital?

George Bush to "terrah-ists" : Bring it on!
George Bush to minority party Senate Democrats: Not in the face!

[dolanp]

... Just ask her this question:

-->> DOES SHE HAVE A TEXAS CONCEALED CARRY HANDGUN LICENSE?

This could be readily discovered by journalists, or revealed in the Senate Judiciary's questioning.

Not some Hunting License. A real CCHL that actually indicates that:

1. She has taken the training to understand and use deadly force for personal protection in a Self-Defense situation.

2. She believes that the 2A is NOT about Duck Hunting/Trap Shooting.

3. She does NOT believe that Self-Defense (at the point of attack) is "uncivilized" (as our European friends believe), or "vigilantism."

4. When some future Court case comes before her, she is NOT likely to decide for further erosion of the 2A (a) "For The Children," or (b) "For The Common Good"... no matter WHO is president then... or what his/HER political policies (the President's) may be.

If she cannot pass this test...

You do realize Dianne Feinstein has a concealed carry license...

Politicians often get them because they think they are more worthy of personal protection. However anybody could write the DPS and ask if she has one, she'll just get notified that you asked. :)

[One of Many]

The President has selected the ultimate Stealth nominee. No judicial rulings (never a judge), and a lawyer who has always been an "advocate" of the views of those who hired her. She can disavow anything that anyone tries to pin on her, and all of her papers fall under the client-attorney privilege and can not be forced to be revealed.

The only thing that may be used against her will be any public speeches she has made in the past; as the president of two different Bar Associations she must have had public speaking engagements, and they will be heavily scrutinized. This candidates qualifications appear to be entirely political, and the fact that she was the first woman president of two Bar Associations in Texas seems to indicate she is a politically savvy person.

The President says she is a strict constructionist of the US Constitution, but she has never been a judge, so there is no provable basis of record to make such a claim, except his personal knowledge of her viewpoint based on close association for over ten years.

I suspect that this may be a test case for the "nuclear option", except that Sen. Reid has pronounced his satisfaction with her nomination. Many conservative groups as well as liberal groups have expressed dismay with her selection. That old saying 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' comes to mind with a bit of alteration here; 'the friend of my enemy is my enemy'. I have a great sense of dissatisfaction with this nominee, since so little is known about her, and she appears to have the blessing of some anti-gun rights activists.

If she truly IS a strict constructionist, she may support the individual rights view of the 2nd Amendment; on the other hand, she may also view heavy restrictions as necessary under various other portions of the constitution.

The President seems to have picked someone that no-one can characterize, so she may squeak through the confirmation on the basis that the Senators must support the choice of the President or face being labeled an obstructionist prior to next years elections.

[RealGun]

Leahy said many Americans "will be surprised that the president did not pick a Hispanic woman from the many qualified Hispanics across the country recommended to the president.

The hispanic comes next, but that person will not be a woman. Alberto Gonzales will get his turn.

[TonkinTwentyMil]

DolanP, I do realize that Dianne Fineswine has held a concealed carry license... just like numerous other political luminaries using their "clout" for, umm, special treatment.

However, Miers is NOT such a luminary, although I'll concede that she IS now an "insider." But, she's never been elected to any political office... where she could have exercised her influence to obtain a difficult-to-obtain carry license.

Accordingly, since (a) she's a relative Washington newcomer, and (b) since she could have readily obtained a Texas CCHL -- just like any other good Texan -- during her lawyer-years there, I argue that THIS clearly speaks to her views on the 2A.

If (a) she was oblivious to the 2A back then, (b) or saw no need to seek self-supplied personal protection, (c) or had ever expressed disdain for/hostility toward fellow Texans who DID obtain carry licenses -- then that history would be a matter for our serious concern. And public opposition.

The gentle (*cough*) Senator from California has never made any secret about her opposition to personally-owned firearms for us peasants. The issue with Miers is: does she hold similar views, or does her PERSONAL history reveal practical understanding and support of the 2A... in its entirety (not just the narrow Lib/RINO "sportsmens' rights" interpretation?

[Werewolf]

:fire: This candidates qualifications appear to be entirely political,emphasis mine

Which is why when I watched the President nominate her on TV this morning and explain her qualifications I vowed to never vote Repugnican again. :cuss:

I'm fed up with them. They own government - why can't they keep their promises and rule like they talk? Bush especially talks the talk but sure as hell doesn't walk the walk. Why do they always have to bend over forwards to please the Democrats? I don't get it. Whose side are they on anyway - it certainly isn't the same side as the folks who elected 'em.

Cronyism is too delicate a term to describe what Bush has done with this appointment. Pandering to the democrats and worrying too much about how they'll react to a strongly conservative judge is the problem. The repugnicans are political cowards!

I am disgusted.

[antsi]

------------quote-----------
If I have to choose between the gov of NM (a Dem who signed a CCW law)
and Gulianni (a Repub who is very anti gun) for President, then I would vote Dem.
If it came down between Gulianni and hilary I would vote 3rd party and stock up on guns/ammo/supplies
----------------------------

Only problem with this theory:
If Gulianni were running for pres, he would slide in the direction of pro-RKBA.
If a formerly pro-RKBA governor were running for pres as a Democrat, he would slide in the anti- direction.
Al Gore was never a big anti- until he started courting the coastal liberals. Now he's as anti- as anybody.

[rick_reno]

Bush especially talks the talk but sure as hell doesn't walk the walk.

Werewolf - +1.

This President is amazing. He has a unique opportunity to change the direction of the Nation - and he does this. I can't understand it. He's got a Republican majority in the Senate, and he can always find 5 or 6 conservative Democrats to go along - there only explanation for this nomination is he that HE DOESN'T THINK THE DIRECTION OF THE COURTS IS THE WRONG ONE.

[RealGun]

If (a) she was oblivious to the 2A back then

I expect that she was directly involved in Texas getting the CHL law under Bush. I would see that as a plus.

There is no point in the President creating a big fight with a strongly controversial nominee. It would definitely undermine the balance of his presidency. When the smoke clears, he still has things on the agenda for dealing with Congress. We don't know that he has done any damage here.

[Molon Labe]

I couldn't care less what her views on the 2nd Amendment are. Because if I were to care, I would be admitting that her opinions are somehow relevant to my inalienable right to keep and bear arms.

My right to keep and bear arms is not dependent on her views, Scalia's views, or the views of Bozo the Clown.

[CAPTAIN MIKE]

This lady is a lot more qualified than most of us.

* CEO of a large well-respected Dallas Law Firm;
* First woman President of the Texas State Bar;
* Had Governor Bush as a personal client;
* Served as Deputy White House Counsel;
* Served as White House Counsel;

Pretty darn good resume if you ask me. She has accomplished a lot during her life and she deserves credit. The president who wins the election gets to pick who he or she wants when a vacancy comes open. There is no 'job requirement' that a Justice be a judge in their prior professinal history. There have previously been 37 people who were Supreme Court Justices without ever having been a judge in a county somewhere in Podunk, Texas.

Let's give the President some credit and give this high achiever he has selected the respect she deserves. One thing is for certain ---> she WON'T be "Legislating" from the Bench. In the words of Chief Justice Roberts, "A judge is supposed to be an umpire...."

[Waitone]

Bush did just as I thought he would. He would choose to satisfy himself since he was in a lose-lose-lose-lose situation. Did he nominate her to preserve some of his political capital? Looks to me like his capital reserves are gone. SS will be contentious and most lilkely will not come up in a real sense. Illegal immigration? He will have to go out and borrow capital to pull that one over on his base.

Whatever capital he has has just been spent with his nominee. I am underwhelmed for a number of reasons chief of which it demonstrates without qualification there is nothing for which he will fight. He is pragmatic to the bone and has no sense of idealism despite what he mouths.

I would love for his base to shove this nomination back into his face saying, "Don't you ever pull this stunt again. For 40+ years millions of voters have worked hard for you to do what? Roll over and let the statists scratch your belly?"

[bountyhunter]

Wait, don't we just need a 50% vote. To heck with the dems, don't we have enough votes already. Yes, and I am genuinely surprised at how few people realize that or what a total dog and pony show the "confirmation" hearings actually are.... they are confirmed the instant they are nominated. All the rest is just posturing.

[TonkinTwentyMil]

... when the President is either (a) Billary, or (b) McCain, or (c) Rudy G. (none of whom have ever indicated ANY genuine support for/understanding of the 2A).

Now...

A major 2A case (with huge legal-precedent implications) comes before the Court. Maybe the case arose from some legal challenge to a new law (WHICH one of the above Prez-pols gleefully signed into law AFTER Congress narrowly passed it -- For The Children/Common Good/blah blah, etc.).

Now what?

Or, let's say some state's (i.e., NewIllMassaCaliJerseyYork) legislature passes a confiscatory (post-registration data base) law that bans all those eeeevil Assault Weapons (including eeeevil semi-automatic handguns) and hi-cap magazines that, as we all know, can instantly turn Guns-That-Hunters-Don't-Need (cue up the "Kumbaya" music here) into school-yard-clearing machine-guns...

... Or the FedGov/National Guard confiscates citizens' guns in the wake of some terrible national disaster (a la New Orleans) or big terrorist incident, all readily facilitated by Congress essentially abolishing the old Posse Comitatas law... just so that the nice citizens of THAT state can enjoy European-style (*cough/barf*) "freedom from violence."

Then, the NRA grows a pair and challenges that state's new 2A-gutting law by taking it through the appeals process TO the SCOTUS.

-->> WHO do you want to be the Supreme's "swing-vote" sitting judge who calls the shot here... and defines YOUR Second Amendment rights?

[longeyes]

Miers' Qualifications Are 'Non-Existent'

by Patrick J. Buchanan
Posted Oct 3, 2005

Handed a once-in-a-generation opportunity to return the Supreme Court to constitutionalism, George W. Bush passed over a dozen of the finest jurists of his day -- to name his personal lawyer.

In a decision deeply disheartening to those who invested such hopes in him, Bush may have tossed away his and our last chance to roll back the social revolution imposed upon us by our judicial dictatorship since the days of Earl Warren.

This is not to disparage Harriet Myers. From all accounts, she is a gracious lady who has spent decades in the law and served ably as Bush’s lawyer in Texas and, for a year, as White House counsel.

But her qualifications for the Supreme Court are non-existent. She is not a brilliant jurist, indeed, has never been a judge. She is not a scholar of the law. Researchers are hard-pressed to dig up an opinion. She has not had a brilliant career in politics, the academy, the corporate world or public forum. Were she not a friend of Bush, and female, she would never have even been considered.

What commended her to the White House, in the phrase of the hour, is that she “has no paper trail.” So far as one can see, this is Harriet Miers’ principal qualification for the U.S. Supreme Court.

What is depressing here is not what the nomination tells us of her, but what it tells us of the president who appointed her. For in selecting her, Bush capitulated to the diversity-mongers, used a critical Supreme Court seat to reward a crony, and revealed that he lacks the desire to engage the Senate in fierce combat to carry out his now-suspect commitment to remake the court in the image of Scalia and Thomas. In picking her, Bush ran from a fight. The conservative movement has been had -- and not for the first time by a president by the name of Bush.

Choosing Miers, the president passed over outstanding judges and proven constitutionalists like Michael Luttig of the 4th Circuit and Sam Alito of the 3rd. And if he could not take the heat from the First Lady, and had to name a woman, what was wrong with U.S. appellate court judges Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owens and Edith Jones?

What must these jurists think today about their president today? How does Bush explain to his people why Brown, Owens and Jones were passed over for Miers?

Where was Karl Rove in all of this? Is he so distracted by the Valerie Plame investigation he could not warn the president against what he would be doing to his reputation and coalition?

Reshaping the Supreme Court is an issue that unites Republicans and conservatives And with his White House and party on the defensive for months over Cindy Sheehan and Katrina, Iraq and New Orleans, Delay and Frist, gas prices and immigration, here was the great opportunity to draw all together for a battle of philosophies, by throwing the gauntlet down to the Left, sending up the name of a Luttig, and declaring, “Go ahead and do your worst. We shall do our best.”

Do the Bu????es not understand that “conservative judges” is one of those issues where the national majority is still with them?

What does it tell us that White House, in selling her to the party and press, is pointing out that Miers “has no paper trial.” What does that mean, other than that she is not a Rehnquist, a Bork, a Scalia or a Thomas?

Conservative cherish justices and judges who have paper trails. For that means these men and women have articulated and defended their convictions. They have written in magazines and law journals about what is wrong with the courts and how to make it right. They had stood up to the prevailing winds. They have argued for the Constitution as the firm and fixed document the Founding Fathers wrote, not some thing of wax.

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.

Bush had a chance for greatness in remaking the Supreme Court, a chance to succeed where his Republican precedessors from Nixon to his father all failed. He instinctively recoiled from it. He blew it. 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.


Copyright © 2004 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.

[RealGun]

there is nothing for which he will fight. - Waitone

Yeah, yeah, but what is it you want from him? What is he supposed to be fighting for? What did he promise?

[TexasRifleman]

I just threw up in my mouth a little......... :banghead:

[afasano]

Schumer sounded pissed about something so that's one thing in her favor.

[Monkeyleg]

Leahy said many Americans "will be surprised that the president did not pick a Hispanic woman whose Significant Other is an African-American woman, who converted from Judaism to Islam, who has adopted Asian, Russian and disabled children, and has Cindy Sheehan on speed dial."

As for the real world, I guess we'll have to wait to see what Myers is really about. But this appointment was just about GW's low approval numbers, and the Republican's chances next year.

[The Real Hawkeye]

"I worked with Harriet Miers. She's a lovely person: intelligent, honest, capable, loyal, discreet, dedicated ... I could pile on the praise all morning. But there is no reason at all to believe either that she is a legal conservative or--and more importantly--that she has the spine and steel necessary to resist the pressures that constantly bend the American legal system toward the left. This is a chance that may never occur again: a decisive vacancy on the court, a conservative president, a 55-seat Republican majority, a large bench of brilliant and superbly credentialed conservative jurists ... and what has been done with the opportunity?" - National Review Online

[RealGun]

That's just a backhanded way of saying he wanted someone with a paper trail. Miers is just as qualified as O'Connor or many of the past Justices who were not former judges. If it was supposed to be someone wearing a pro-life button, that's not going to happen.

[rick_reno]

What did he promise?

Realgun, not much. But he did "promise"

"I will be guided by President Jefferson's sense of purpose, to stand for principle, to be reasonable in manner, and above all, to do great good for the cause of freedom and harmony." He said this on Dec 13, 2000.

Has he been doing this? Please provide specifics.

[bountyhunter]

Bush capitulated to the diversity-mongers, used a critical Supreme Court seat to reward a crony, and revealed that he lacks the desire to engage the Senate in fierce combat to carry out his now-suspect commitment to remake the court in the image of Scalia and Thomas.

WHAT "FIERCE COMBAT"?

The GOP has a majority and the power to confirm any dufus that Bush throws up there..... and they would vote straight party line.

Bush could have put Charles Manson on the SC if he wanted to.

This whole baloney fest about confirmation hearings is nothing but a beauty pageant. When it comes to the vote, the dems can NOT stop any nominee Bush wants to pick.

[The Real Hawkeye]

+1 Bounty Hunter.

[Kim]

Volokh Conspiracy has a discussion on the blog about what she has said in the past about the right to keep and bear arms. It is interesting. It is a cherished liberty --one not to be given up because of those who misuse it to injure others.(paraphrase) Check it out.

[Desertdog]

Volokh Conspiracy has a discussion on the blog about what she has said in the past about the right to keep and bear arms. It is interesting. It is a cherished liberty --one not to be given up because of those who misuse it to injure others.(paraphrase) Check it out.
Kim, and all who reference material from other areas, please include the URL so we, who are not in the know, can go there and read it ourselves. Thanks

[davec]

Federalist No. 76:

To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. In addition to this, it would be an efficacious source of stability in the administration.

It will readily be comprehended, that a man who had himself the sole disposition of offices, would be governed much more by his private inclinations and interests, than when he was bound to submit the propriety of his choice to the discussion and determination of a different and independent body, and that body an entire branch of the legislature. The possibility of rejection would be a strong motive to care in proposing. The danger to his own reputation, and, in the case of an elective magistrate, to his political existence, from betraying a spirit of favoritism, or an unbecoming pursuit of popularity, to the observation of a body whose opinion would have great weight in forming that of the public, could not fail to operate as a barrier to the one and to the other. He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure.

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_76.html

[No_Brakes23]

no firm stance on any issue is the Presidents way I distinctly remember looking at Dubya's website in 2000 to figure out who I was going to vote for. When I went to the part where it talked about where he stood on the issues, all said was something to this effect:

"Please email us with your concerns and opinions about important issues."

His stance was non-existant then, so what is new?

The crony-ism here is dismaying, but unsurprising.

At least he didn't pick Gonzo.

[publius]

A real CCHL that actually indicates that:

1. She has taken the training to understand and use deadly force for personal protection in a Self-Defense situation.

2. She believes that the 2A is NOT about Duck Hunting/Trap Shooting.
It was not about defending yourself from street criminals, either. It was about maintaining a nation of Minutemen, capable of fighting an oppressive government (whether foreign or domestic). Hamilton (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_29.html) was pretty clear about that.

As for Miers, my main question about her is: can she correctly identify something - anything - that is NOT interstate commerce? The commerce clause is the source of most federal power grabs, which is why the Court is continually asked silly questions, such as, is growing wheat for your family on your farm interstate commerce?

We know O'Connor (http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZD.html) would say it is not interstate commerce. We know Scalia (http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZC.html) and the left wing of the Court would say it is interstate commerce.

So what about Miers? Asking her opinion on that matter is not asking about something she will have to rule on immediately. The ruling came this year.