All about life, liberty and the pursuit of hopeiness.
| NY Mag. | 0 | |
| Wash Wire | 0 | |
| NYT | 0 | |
| WaPo | Calif. insurer’s rate increases draw attention of federal government |
0 |
| Red State | 0 |
Audacity of Truth
Spinsational:
"We were so busy just getting stuff done and dealing with the immediate crises that were in front of us that I think we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people about what their core values are and why we have to make sure those institutions are matching up with those values."
-Obama, explaining recent Democrat losses, 1/20/10
Velvet Lair- The sexiness of winning the battle of good versus evil January 26, 2010
- Ever wonder why? January 12, 2010
- The decision to bench Peyton Manning: Right or wrong? December 28, 2009
- Is my dad turning into a metrosexual? November 24, 2009
- My “Things To Do For Christmas” list November 23, 2009
One thing you shouldn’t hold against Miers
There’s been a lot of discussion in the blogosphere and on the opinion pages by conservative writers about the fact that USSC nominee Harriet Meirs used to be a Democrat.
Remember: I used to be one, too. And so did these Republicans (hat tip: Bryan Preston).
I have serious concerns like most conservatives about the President’s choice of Harriet Miers, but her being a former Dem isn’t anything I would hold against her.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
11 Responses to “One thing you shouldn’t hold against Miers”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
I know nothing of Ms. Miers (other than the fact she can’t even spell her own name :smile
and her former political persuasion makes no difference to me. If Mr. Bush knows this woman then I’m willing to give her the benefit of the doubt.
I’m less disappointed than I was earlier in the day. Like a lot of others, I wanted to see an unabashed conservative nominated to the Court. You’re going to have the same fight over the nomination anyway so I was hoping to see the demoncrats (yes, I meant to say that) implode even further as they went apoplectic over over someone with an IQ at least 3 times theirs.
The impression I’m getting, which I agree with, is that it isn’t so much that Harriet Miers is a female David Souter but rather that she isn’t Michael Luttig or Michael McConnell, who are great legal minds & rock-solid conservatives.
Luttig is very close friends with Chief Justice Roberts, too, & he would’ve made Schumer, Kennedy, Biden, et al, look like idiots just like Chief Justice Roberts did.
Hugh Hewitt put it best in saying that she’s a B+ nomination. My question to the President is this: Why didn’t you make the A+ pick instead of the B+ pick?
I understand your point, ST, but there is one major difference…you are on record for your current beliefs, via this blog and other sources. It’s no secret what you believe and where you stand on issues.
However, with Miers, we have no record of what she believes, what she stands for, what her view is on the Constitution, etc. We have to trust that the President made a good choice.
I think that, in combination to her former Democratic leanings, is what has Republicans concerned by this nomination.
david Limbaugh sums up my views on the nomination nicely:
“Disappointed, but still hopeful”
I am disappointed, yet happy, that the President’s choice for the Supreme Court is difficult to define with a convenient label. When a judge considers the Constitution to be superior to any special interest or political agenda, we can all gain. Let the special interest groups complain to their Senators that Ms. Miers is not an advocate for their cause.
The initial ambivalence demonstrated by those who expect judges to follow the Constitution is an opportunity for healthy debate. Objective individuals can listen to her speak without being distracted by the baggage of labels.
Democrats are on record to oppose any Bush nominee who fails their litmus test. The power to accept or reject the nomination rests with those Senators who will vote on her qualifications, not her affiliations.
In my post about Miers’ nomination, I linked a pretty lengthy bio I found of her that impressed me quite a bit.
She’s definitely capable and since she’s worked with Bush for as long as she has, you figure he’s got to know her pretty well. If he nominated her, I doubt she’ll be anything but a fellow conservative.
Like with Roberts, I think GWB nominated Miers at least in part because she offers a very small target for the Dems to snipe at and he wants to get her confirmed without too big a kerfuffle.
Fill the SCOTUS vacancy and get on with the business of running the country.
Look for them to go after the lottery scandal and the car dealerships thing back in Texas, the former being “alleged”, the latter involving the law firm she worked for at the time.
mlgsac: Not sure if I’ve welcomed you to the blog but if I haven’t, here’s the official welcome
I’ve kinda calmed down a bit about the nomination myself and plan on blogging about it in a bit.
Gary: I’m with you on the questions. Why NOT the A+ pick:?:
Brian: That’s a fair point, and I’m not saying that we shouldn’t have major reservations about HM, but her being a former Dem shouldn’t be one of them IMO.
Chief: Hi misChiefous! I think this is your first post on my blog – good to see you here, amigo. To all: Chief is my posting buddy at a popular Delphi political forum and a rock solid conservative
Ray: I’ve heard some speculation that the President deliberately picked a true stealth candidate for the reasons you mentioned (that it would be hard for the Dems to find anything that would disqualify her from being on the court). One ‘political analyst’ I heard on the radio this morning was saying he thought that it may come out in the next few weeks that she really is a hardline conservative, that as a result of that her name wouldn’t even make it to the floor for a vote, and at that time the President could say to his base “at least I tried to put a true conservative on the court.” We’ll see.
Seth: I’ll make sure to check out your post on HM. I’m lukewarm on the whole thing at this point, but could be persuaded to be more optmistic depending on what I read.