One of the main points that they bring up is the fact that Miers isn't a
Constitutional scholar, that she hasn't had experience in Constitutional law. But a Supreme Court Justice's job is to read and interpret the Constitution. I submit that one doesn't have to be a Constitutional expert to do that.For instance, there are some people who argue that the 14th amendment guarantees a right to privacy, and by implication, a right to kill unborn babies. But all one has to do is read that amendment and see that the right to abortion is clearly not in there at all. There is contained in that amendment a right to life, and that tells anyone who has a modicum of common sense that the taking of a life violates that provision. And abortion is the taking of a life.
See? It isn't hard to interpret the Consitution. If I can do it, Harriet Miers can do it.
Ms. Ingraham conducted an informal poll asking her listeners to call in and tell her whether they thought Harriet Miers name should be withdrawn from nomination. The results were overwhelmingly in favor of withdrawing her name. I have to admit I was surprised by that. I was sure she had more support among Conservatives than that.
Here is what I would have said if I had been one of those polled:
Her name doesn’t need to be withdrawn. There is a Senate Judiciary Committee. Once they question her, if they decide that she is qualified, then the Senate will vote on her confirmation, but that is no guarantee that she will be confirmed.
If the Judiciary Committee doesn’t endorse her, she will still be voted on by the Senate but her confirmation would be next to impossible.
So let her go before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Let them do their job.
I agree with Bobby McFerrin. Don’t worry. Be happy.
I still believe that Miers is a good solid choice. I have yet to hear of anyone that has actually worked with her personally or knows her personally that is opposed to her nomination. If there is a problem with her Judicial Philosophy, or her ideology, I am confident that at least one of those people would have gone public with that news. As I have mentioned before, it is only those who don’t know her that seem to object to her nomination.
One doesn’t have to trust only the President on this. We can trust all of the people that really know her.
Enough about Harriet Miers already! We won’t know anything more about her until the hearings. I just wish the Senate would get started and either confirm her or not, so we can get on with things
16 comments:
I heard Laura, too, and turned her off.
Even if she's not the best choice, she's also not the worst choice.
One of my favorite Hugh Hewittisms:
"Don't hate the good because they aren't the perfect."
Hoo hoo. This is just gonna get gooder and gooder: "maybe Miers isn’t as qualified as President Bush has suggested ..." !!!
No way do I want to see her name withdrawn. I want to see her eaten alive, and then see the face on the president as he tries to understand why, and then see the faces on all the righty rights who have supported him without question when they comprehend that Ms. Miers said WORLDS about herself as well as Mr. Bush when she declared him the most brilliant man she had ever met. (Or whatever the exact words were).
We, the people do not have to be that bright. The president of the United States does. This president is not.
The emperor has been naked for goin' on five years now. He's been playin' with blocks and suckin' his thumb, too.
--ER
"I want to see her eaten alive, and then see the face on the president as he tries to understand why"
Seriously, ER, do you really think it would make Bush even raise an eyebrow?
I don't think so. he will just appoint someone else and then we go through the whole process again. hi ho
You may be right. Mr. Bush is pretty detached from reality. He probably wouldn't flinch.
--ER
Sometimes ER makes astute observations; then he posts dullard remarks like the ones above. I don't know if he means for his comments to be taken seriously, or not.
Ms. Ingraham conducted an informal poll asking her listeners to call in and tell her whether they thought Harriet Miers name should be withdrawn from nomination. The results were overwhelmingly in favor of withdrawing her name. I have to admit I was surprised by that. I was sure she had more support among Conservatives than that.
Mark, keep in mind this isn't a scientific poll; and if she has many regular listeners who are also "yes men" fans of hers, they're the ones most likely to take the poll questionaire and agree with whatever perspective she's pushing.
Ingraham points out some legitimate concerns, but it's also mired in unbalanced, unfair criticism. She's entrenched herself and can no longer see the forest for the trees in the harm she is doing.
I really think you should check out Hugh Hewitt's links for the counter arguments for supporting Miers. He's one of the brightest conservative pegs out there.
Wordsmith, What am I? Chopped liver? I made a valed point myself regarding Ms Miers, in that she is heartily endorsed by everyone that know her. That speaks volumes to me.
What a shock it would be if it turns out that the President appointed one of his pal's who wasn't qualified for the position.
RE Pastor:
No, Rove was smart enough to get Bush to the White House.
Wordsmith, What am I? Chopped liver?
No, but mince meat if you don't get on over to Hugh Hewitt's and get some additional "support Miers" talking points, other than people like her. :p
Well, and what is a "scientific poll", exactly? I worked for years in market research and political polling, and can say with confidence that they are all skewed in favor of whatever who is paying for the poll believes. And yes, I worked for a Republican (when I wasn't working for a Democratic) organization during that time, so I can say that it happens on both sides.
I think that what might be happening here is: Bush put up a nonentity like Miers because he didn't want a long confirmation fight, which is understandable. Unfortunately for him, this raised more questions than it settled, as it should.
And to address an earlier point: does it really take smarts on a personal level to win the presidency? Especially if you are entering the race with a large war chest (which Gore, Kerry and Bush all had) and connections up the ying yang?
I agree with Toad: it depends more on the strength of your handlers. Kennedy never would have got there without the corruption of the Daley machine in Chicago and volunteers literally handing out ten dollar bills in West Virginia, remember.
That is hardly the only example.
Is it possible that the President put up a nominee that he knew would be unacceptable in order to wake up the Conservative Base and put the seven wobbly Republicans in the Gang of Fourteen in a tight spot?
Are we all misunderestimating the President again?
Just a thought...
misunderestimating....that means mistakenly underestimating. Which means not underestimated at all.
The poll at my site has consistently run 85% in favor of Miers' confirmation.
I don't get the audience that Ingrahams does, but neither do I pay much attention to any of these polls.
Has Laura discussed her experience with Clarence Thomas?
President Bush promised to appoint SCOTUS justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. Looking back on Thomas before he rose to the SC, some suggest a similarity between that prior experience and Miers:
http://hedgehogcentral.blogspot.com/2005/10/clarence-thomas-and-harriet-miers.html
Hoo hoo. I've been away.
My comment was my opinion -- I don't think George W. Bush is very bright (I don't think Reagan was very bright, either; Nixon was dang near a genius; Eisehower was wise; get off my butt for dissing ALL Repubs, 'cause I don't, and I don't "hate" Bush, I'm embarrassed that he's president)-- wrapped in bait. And "pastor" Timothy bit. Back atcha on the alleged "hate," bub. You need to drop yer tag line when you get down in the muck with us. :-) 1. God's blessing don't come just on request; 2., it rings hollw sometimes. :-)
--ER
Post a Comment