Harriet Miers - another one with no paper trail

[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]

I voted Democrat!

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]

Let's Give Her This Simple Litmus Test:

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.

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.

 

[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]

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.

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]

Lots of Experience

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.