Just a few minutes ago, President Bush nominated Samuel A. Alito, Jr., a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (northeast) to the United States Supreme Court. Known as "SCAlito" or "Scalia Lite" to liberal legal commentators, Alito, like Scalia, is sharp, conservative and experienced.
A key moment in Alito's 15-years on the Third Circuit was his dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1991) where he supported a Pennsylvania law requiring women to notify their husbands before having an abortion.
Alito wrote: "[t]he Pennsylvania legislature could have rationally believed that some married women are initially inclined to obtain an abortion without their husbands' knowledge because of perceived problems such as economic constraints, future plans, or the husbands' previously expressed opposition that may be obviated by discussion prior to the abortion."
Chief Justice Rehnquist's dissent in the 5-4 Supreme Court case, whose majority overturned the law, agreed with Alito.
On this Hallowe'en, we have a treat...and a war on our hands. Liberals are already calling Alito a "wacko." Let the debate begin on the role of judges vs. our elected representatives. It is a debate we will win.---OPS
Monday, October 31, 2005
Monday, October 10, 2005
Miers Supported Feminist Lecture Series
The Chronicle of Higher Education is reporting the Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers supported the establishment of a lecture series at Southern Methodist University focusing on Women's Studies. (Note: This link will be available to non-subscribers for only five days.)
http://chronicle.com/temp/email.php?id=ukbn5ph1qz7c00muysmau89ummlzr81d
http://chronicle.com/temp/email.php?id=ukbn5ph1qz7c00muysmau89ummlzr81d
Greenville Reporter Remembers Miers Pastor
"Back in 1984, as a political writer for The News and Observer in Raleigh, I had the distinction of being tossed out of the state Republican Party's convention as conservative ire boiled over at the N&O's liberal bent.Allies of then U.S. Sen. Jesse Helms dominated the convention and passed a resolution, quite unanimously, expelling all of N&O ilk.
As I was departing with colleague Rob Christensen, two steps ahead of an escort squad of Helms Youth, the convention chairman thundered: "The cancer has been removed."
That chairman was Barry McCarty (left). Today, Dr. Barry McCarty is the preaching minister at conservative, evangelical Valley View Christian Church in Dallas, where, published reports say, anti-abortion literature is passed out.
By various accounts, one of his parishioners is a tithing Sunday school teacher who makes it back for an occasional Sunday service despite her job in Washington: Harriet Miers."
--Political reporter Dan Hoover in The Greenville (SC) News, 10/9/2005.
[PFC Note: Barry McCarty came to Valley View Christian Church as Preaching Minister in March, 2004. Before McCarty, the Pastors of Valley View were Dennis Slaughter and Ron Key. The church has since split with about 200 members joining Key, according to a lengthy report that can be found at the religious studies site adherents.com.]
Friday, October 07, 2005
Lindsey on Miers
After an hour-long personal meeting with Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, Senator Lindsey Graham has reportedly told her critics to "shut up for a minute." According to the Myrtle Beach Sun News, Graham says we need to "give the lady a chance." While I don't think we should be admonished to "shut up" in a democracy, I am inclined to agree with our senior senator otherwise. Let's see what she has to say.
P.S. : On the matter of what she is saying, I understand that in a meeting with Senator Patrick Leahy (Very D-Vermont) she mentioned "Warren" as one of her favorite justices. She later qualified that to be Warren Burger (CJ 1969-1986) not Earl Warren (CJ 1953-1969). Earl Warren was very liberal and controlled by others on the court. Warren Burger was relatively conservative but not the best leader either.
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Disappointing Those Who Want a Fight?
Don’t Underestimate Miers
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4876
Key quotations:
“There is a doom-and-gloom element on the Right which is just waiting to be betrayed, convinced that their hardy band of true believers will lose by treachery those victories to which justice entitles them.”
“The President’s smashing victory in obtaining 78 votes for the confirmation of John Roberts did not confirm these conservative critics in their understanding of the President’s formidable abilities as a nominator of Justices. Au contraire, this taste of Democrat defeat whetted their blood lust for confirmation hearing combat between the likes of a Michael Luttig or a Janice Rogers Brown and the Judiciary Committee Democrats. Possibly their own experience of debating emotive liberals over-identifies them with verbal combat as political effectiveness.”
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4876
Key quotations:
“There is a doom-and-gloom element on the Right which is just waiting to be betrayed, convinced that their hardy band of true believers will lose by treachery those victories to which justice entitles them.”
“The President’s smashing victory in obtaining 78 votes for the confirmation of John Roberts did not confirm these conservative critics in their understanding of the President’s formidable abilities as a nominator of Justices. Au contraire, this taste of Democrat defeat whetted their blood lust for confirmation hearing combat between the likes of a Michael Luttig or a Janice Rogers Brown and the Judiciary Committee Democrats. Possibly their own experience of debating emotive liberals over-identifies them with verbal combat as political effectiveness.”
Two Windows to Miers Faith
Here are thumbnails of two articles on Harret Miers faith excerpted by Al Mohler of Soutnern Seminary. The evidence is consistent with what World editor Marvin Olasky is reporting."In Midcareer, a Turn to Faith to Fill a Void," The New York Times, October 5, 2005.
By 1979, Harriet E. Miers, then in her mid-30's, had accomplished what some people take a lifetime to achieve. She was a partner at Locke Purnell Boren Laney & Neely, one of the most prestigious law firms in the South, with an office on the 35th floor of the Republic National Bank Tower in downtown Dallas.
But she still felt something was missing in her life, and it was after a series of long discussions - rambling conversations about family and religion and other matters that typically stretched from early evening into the night - with Nathan L. Hecht, a junior colleague at the law firm, that she made a decision that many of the people around her say changed her life.
"She decided that she wanted faith to be a bigger part of her life," Justice Hecht, who now serves on the Texas Supreme Court, said in an interview. "One evening she called me to her office and said she was ready to make a commitment" to accept Jesus Christ as her savior and be born again, he said. He walked down the hallway from his office to hers, and there amid the legal briefs and court papers, Ms. Miers and Justice Hecht "prayed and talked," he said.
She was baptized not long after that, at the Valley View Christian Church.
"Strong Grounding in the Church Could Be a Clue to Miers's Priorities," The Washington Post, October 5, 2005.
Hecht and other confidants of Miers all pledge that if the Senate confirms her nomination to the Supreme Court, her judicial values will be guided by the law and the Constitution. But they say her personal values have been shaped by her abiding faith in Jesus, and by her membership in the massive red-brick Valley View Christian Church, where she was baptized as an adult, served on the missions committee and taught religious classes. At Valley View, pastors preach that abortion is murder, that the Bible is the literal word of God and that homosexuality is a sin -- although they also preach that God loves everybody.
Harriet Miers: Maybe Not
George Will: Why Did Bush Nominate Miers? (link to column)
Manuel Miranda: Who Harriet Miers is Not (link to Human Events column)
Bill Kristol: THE WEEKLY STANDARD (Fox News)
ANCHOR: Joining us now that talk to talk about President Bush's second nominee, Fox News Political Analyst and Editor of the Weekly Standard Bill Kristol. Are you surprised?
KRISTOL: I am surprised, yes.
ANCHOR: Because why? Because she doesn't have judicial experience? Because why?
KRISTOL: Well, both -- it would be hard to make the case she was the most distinguished candidate available to the President and there's not much on her record that proves she will do what the President has said he wants to do and what conservatives have wanted to do for two or three decades which is to move the court in the direction of constitutionalism and restraint. I talked to five Republicans and Democrats and they're demoralized.
ANCHOR: Disappointed, but clearly, this is a woman that the president knows pretty well. He must feel like he has a good handle on how she would rule.
KRISTOL: I guess. I don't know if he's discussed complicated issues of constitutional law with her. I mean, he's passed over conservative judges including female judges who have long and distinguished records on the federal court, on the state supreme courts. Maybe he's right. Maybe Harriet Miers is really -- she's obviously a capable lawyer. Maybe she'll be a first-rate justice and it looks like a capitulation. Looks like he was unwilling to put up Priscilla Owen or other distinguished female conservative judges who -- about whom there would have been a fight, but a fight on judicial philosophy. A fight that most I know would have welcomed. He put up someone with no judicial record and it's hard to see that as anything more than flinching from a fight.
ANCHOR: Are they -- does that mean he'll lose conservative members?
KRISTOL: I think almost all of them will go along with him. Of course, the hearings become more important. Let's see how she answers various questions about her judicial philosophy. I don't think it's a sure thing. And I think the Democrats will go after her. They'll do a big investigation. She has never been confirmed by the Senate. I'm sure there are no scandals, but all kinds of stuff can come up when one looks into someone's background. Votes at the city council, all kinds of stuff. The Democrats will give her a tough time. I think they'll accept her, as they regard this as another O'Connor or another Souter. So the question for me, do elected officials stand up and say, this is not what we wanted, Mr. President. It isn't what you said you would do. This is not a Scalia or a Thomas or a Rehnquist or for that matter, John Roberts, in terms of quality of pick and proven quality on the record.
ANCHOR: Well, this president hasn't backed away from a fight in the past. It would seem that he would have been willing to fight this one out, if he really thought that Priscilla Owen for instance was a better nominee.
KRISTOL: Yeah. That's why I was surprised. I expected the President to pick someone -- the President put Priscilla Owen in the Circuit -- nominated her in 2001 and 2002 and that signaled that he thought she would be a good federal judge. Harriet Miers is a competent lawyer and able woman who has worked loyally for the President for 10 years. He didn't put her on a court to suddenly elevate her to the Supreme Court. I think it's risky politically and I think it sends a bad signal. I mean, these conservative women who have been judges, who have been making the case for constitutional constitutionalism for five or 10 years, and they're passed over for someone with no record, that's hard to explain.
ANCHOR: The conservatives you're talking to and presumably they're the stronger voices from that side of the political spectrum, if they are disappointed, that doesn't bode particularly well for this nomination. I mean, I imagine she would be confirmed, but it doesn't bode well for a time -- for the president at a time when he is trying to build political support in the wake of the hurricanes and the Iraq war and everything else.
KRISTOL: Well, that's the question, Jon. Obviously, elected officials have different reactions in public than in private and they have different reactions than commentators. So he'll get a lot of support from leading Republican senators and I think from some people who want to be on the team with the President. But I think it's worrisome, if you're a conservative who wants this President to fight his way through on the big issues, I think it's very hard to make the case that this is a fighting move by the President.
ANCHOR: Bill Kristol from The Weekly Standard, and a Fox News Analyst, thank you.
Brownback skeptical on Miers nomination
SAM HANANEL
Associated Press
WASHINGTON - Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback is greeting the nomination of Harriet Miers for the U.S. Supreme court like many other conservatives - with skepticism.
Brownback, a Republican, said Tuesday he is disappointed Bush did not pick a candidate with a clearer track record on conservative issues like abortion and same-sex marriage.
"There's precious little to go on and a deep concern that this would be a Souter-type candidate," he said referring to Supreme Court Justice David Souter, a little-known judge nominated for the court by the first President Bush who later turned out to be liberal on the bench.
"The circumstances seem to be very similar," Brownback said. "Not much track record, people vouching for her, yet indications of a different thought pattern earlier in life."
Brownback, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he hopes to learn more about Miers' background when he formally meets with her in his Senate office on Thursday.
"I have not come to any conclusions, but there's a great deal of skepticism about her as a candidate," he said.
Kansas Sen. Pat Roberts, also a Republican, issued a statement praising Miers as a "trailblazer for women" in the legal profession.
"I look forward to learning more about her qualifications for the Supreme Court through the confirmation hearings," Roberts said.
Miers, 60, is Bush's trusted White House counsel. Though she has a lengthy record as a lawyer in private practice and a public official in Texas, she has no experience as a judge.
Brownback's views reflected the opinion of other conservatives, who hoped Bush was ready for a fight with Democrats over an outspoken conservative nominee in the mold of Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council says conservatives have faith in Bush's judgment, but that they would have preferred a nominee with a documented conservative track record. Perkins has not taken a position on the nomination, saying he will be looking for clues to Miers' judicial philosophy during her confirmation hearings.
Democrats, meanwhile, appeared to be approaching Miers' nomination cautiously, though Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Monday he was "very happy that we have someone like her" to fill the seat of retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
Brownback said he is concerned about Miers' political ties to some Democrats. She contributed $1,000 to Al Gore in his failed 1988 bid for the Democratic presidential nomination and gave the same amount that year to Texas Democratic Sen. Lloyd Bentsen, according to research by Political Money Line, a nonpartisan campaign finance tracking service.
But she has contributed money to Republicans too, including President Bush. The practice of giving money to both sides of the aisle is not unusual among members of large law firms like the one Miers worked for in Dallas.
For now, though, Brownback is withholding judgment, listening to what others have to say and gleaning information from the press.
"The best thing she's got going for her is President Bush's consistency on judicial nominations," he said.
Manuel Miranda: Who Harriet Miers is Not (link to Human Events column)
Bill Kristol: THE WEEKLY STANDARD (Fox News)
ANCHOR: Joining us now that talk to talk about President Bush's second nominee, Fox News Political Analyst and Editor of the Weekly Standard Bill Kristol. Are you surprised?
KRISTOL: I am surprised, yes.
ANCHOR: Because why? Because she doesn't have judicial experience? Because why?
KRISTOL: Well, both -- it would be hard to make the case she was the most distinguished candidate available to the President and there's not much on her record that proves she will do what the President has said he wants to do and what conservatives have wanted to do for two or three decades which is to move the court in the direction of constitutionalism and restraint. I talked to five Republicans and Democrats and they're demoralized.
ANCHOR: Disappointed, but clearly, this is a woman that the president knows pretty well. He must feel like he has a good handle on how she would rule.
KRISTOL: I guess. I don't know if he's discussed complicated issues of constitutional law with her. I mean, he's passed over conservative judges including female judges who have long and distinguished records on the federal court, on the state supreme courts. Maybe he's right. Maybe Harriet Miers is really -- she's obviously a capable lawyer. Maybe she'll be a first-rate justice and it looks like a capitulation. Looks like he was unwilling to put up Priscilla Owen or other distinguished female conservative judges who -- about whom there would have been a fight, but a fight on judicial philosophy. A fight that most I know would have welcomed. He put up someone with no judicial record and it's hard to see that as anything more than flinching from a fight.
ANCHOR: Are they -- does that mean he'll lose conservative members?
KRISTOL: I think almost all of them will go along with him. Of course, the hearings become more important. Let's see how she answers various questions about her judicial philosophy. I don't think it's a sure thing. And I think the Democrats will go after her. They'll do a big investigation. She has never been confirmed by the Senate. I'm sure there are no scandals, but all kinds of stuff can come up when one looks into someone's background. Votes at the city council, all kinds of stuff. The Democrats will give her a tough time. I think they'll accept her, as they regard this as another O'Connor or another Souter. So the question for me, do elected officials stand up and say, this is not what we wanted, Mr. President. It isn't what you said you would do. This is not a Scalia or a Thomas or a Rehnquist or for that matter, John Roberts, in terms of quality of pick and proven quality on the record.
ANCHOR: Well, this president hasn't backed away from a fight in the past. It would seem that he would have been willing to fight this one out, if he really thought that Priscilla Owen for instance was a better nominee.
KRISTOL: Yeah. That's why I was surprised. I expected the President to pick someone -- the President put Priscilla Owen in the Circuit -- nominated her in 2001 and 2002 and that signaled that he thought she would be a good federal judge. Harriet Miers is a competent lawyer and able woman who has worked loyally for the President for 10 years. He didn't put her on a court to suddenly elevate her to the Supreme Court. I think it's risky politically and I think it sends a bad signal. I mean, these conservative women who have been judges, who have been making the case for constitutional constitutionalism for five or 10 years, and they're passed over for someone with no record, that's hard to explain.
ANCHOR: The conservatives you're talking to and presumably they're the stronger voices from that side of the political spectrum, if they are disappointed, that doesn't bode particularly well for this nomination. I mean, I imagine she would be confirmed, but it doesn't bode well for a time -- for the president at a time when he is trying to build political support in the wake of the hurricanes and the Iraq war and everything else.
KRISTOL: Well, that's the question, Jon. Obviously, elected officials have different reactions in public than in private and they have different reactions than commentators. So he'll get a lot of support from leading Republican senators and I think from some people who want to be on the team with the President. But I think it's worrisome, if you're a conservative who wants this President to fight his way through on the big issues, I think it's very hard to make the case that this is a fighting move by the President.
ANCHOR: Bill Kristol from The Weekly Standard, and a Fox News Analyst, thank you.
Brownback skeptical on Miers nomination
SAM HANANEL
Associated Press
WASHINGTON - Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback is greeting the nomination of Harriet Miers for the U.S. Supreme court like many other conservatives - with skepticism.
Brownback, a Republican, said Tuesday he is disappointed Bush did not pick a candidate with a clearer track record on conservative issues like abortion and same-sex marriage.
"There's precious little to go on and a deep concern that this would be a Souter-type candidate," he said referring to Supreme Court Justice David Souter, a little-known judge nominated for the court by the first President Bush who later turned out to be liberal on the bench.
"The circumstances seem to be very similar," Brownback said. "Not much track record, people vouching for her, yet indications of a different thought pattern earlier in life."
Brownback, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he hopes to learn more about Miers' background when he formally meets with her in his Senate office on Thursday.
"I have not come to any conclusions, but there's a great deal of skepticism about her as a candidate," he said.
Kansas Sen. Pat Roberts, also a Republican, issued a statement praising Miers as a "trailblazer for women" in the legal profession.
"I look forward to learning more about her qualifications for the Supreme Court through the confirmation hearings," Roberts said.
Miers, 60, is Bush's trusted White House counsel. Though she has a lengthy record as a lawyer in private practice and a public official in Texas, she has no experience as a judge.
Brownback's views reflected the opinion of other conservatives, who hoped Bush was ready for a fight with Democrats over an outspoken conservative nominee in the mold of Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council says conservatives have faith in Bush's judgment, but that they would have preferred a nominee with a documented conservative track record. Perkins has not taken a position on the nomination, saying he will be looking for clues to Miers' judicial philosophy during her confirmation hearings.
Democrats, meanwhile, appeared to be approaching Miers' nomination cautiously, though Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Monday he was "very happy that we have someone like her" to fill the seat of retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
Brownback said he is concerned about Miers' political ties to some Democrats. She contributed $1,000 to Al Gore in his failed 1988 bid for the Democratic presidential nomination and gave the same amount that year to Texas Democratic Sen. Lloyd Bentsen, according to research by Political Money Line, a nonpartisan campaign finance tracking service.
But she has contributed money to Republicans too, including President Bush. The practice of giving money to both sides of the aisle is not unusual among members of large law firms like the one Miers worked for in Dallas.
For now, though, Brownback is withholding judgment, listening to what others have to say and gleaning information from the press.
"The best thing she's got going for her is President Bush's consistency on judicial nominations," he said.
Monday, October 03, 2005
Harriet Miers: Maybe Yes
Monday, October 3, 5:03 p.m.
I have just completed a conference call with a host of conservative leaders on the nomination of White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the position of Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. As I expected, nothing has changed from my Early Skinny memo at noon today listing the pros and cons of the nomination. With the dearth of information on this individual, our warmth to her appointment may hinge on our trust in the President and trustworthy Texans (like Justice Hecht) who know her and assure us she is conservative and evangelical. Like a lot of Texans, she used to be a Democrat. But her leadership in the vetting of judges for the White House gave us Appeals Court Judges like Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown and Chief Justice John Roberts. Then again, there is no doubt but that this nomination is "huge." --OPS
Dr. James Dobson (PRO/WAIT)
Fred Barnes (PRO/WAIT))
*************************************
PRO-MIERS
Dr. James Dobson
Focus on the Family Action Chairman James C. Dobson, Ph.D., issued the following statement today regarding President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the United States Supreme Court:
"We welcome the president's nomination of Harriet Miers to the U.S. Supreme Court. He pledged emphatically during his campaign to appoint judges who will interpret the law rather than create it. He also promised to select competent judges who will 'not use the bench to write social policy.'(1) To this point, President Bush's appointments to the federal bench appear to have been remarkably consistent with that stated philosophy. Based on the information known generally about Harriet Miers, and President Bush's personal knowledge of her, we believe that she will not prove to be a lone exception."
On the other hand, one cannot know absolutely about matters of integrity and philosophy until a jurist is given the tremendous power and influence of their position. As Lord Acton said: 'Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.' Sadly, that seems to have happened to Justices Souter and Kennedy."
We look forward to learning more about her at the confirmation hearings."
PRO-MIERS
Fred Barnes from THE WEEKLY STANDARD
IF ALL GOES WELL, Harriet Miers will turn out to be a less impressive version of John Roberts: that is, a judicial conservative, or constitutionalist, who will cause the ideological balance on the Supreme Court to shift to the right. She's not likely to have Roberts's gift for describing and defending a conservative judicial philosophy, dodging questions on current issues, and toying with frustrated Democrats. All she needs to do is come off as a credible mainstream conservative, avoid the questions that Democrats will try to trick her on, and persuade senators she's not merely a Bush crony. That accomplished, she should be confirmed.
She'd better be able to do this. If she can't--if she's not really a conservative--the political effect will be to shatter President Bush's still-strong relationship with his base. The love affair will be over. The president will have dashed the hopes cherished by conservatives for a conservative Supreme Court. And he will be far weaker as a national political leader as a result.
Here's what people at the White House told me after Bush announced to nearly everyone's surprise that Miers, 60, now the chief White House legal counsel, was his pick to replace Sandra Day O'Connor: After running the judicial selection process along with Karl Rove--the process that led to the Roberts nomination--she had become a candidate for the high court herself.
The president and others at the White House have had long discussions with her about judges. She and Rove were involved in questioning at least five candidates for the court vacancy Roberts has filled. From those talks over the months, I'm told, it became clear to Bush that she had exactly the philosophy of judicial restraint he favors and that she wouldn't "grow" as a justice and turn into a swing vote or a liberal.
Also, I'm told, the president is fully aware of the stakes in this nomination. Roberts's replacement of William Rehnquist as chief justice was simply a conservative replacing a conservative. But Miers would succeed a swing justice. With her, I'm told further, Bush believes he would be altering the ideological makeup of the court, moving it to the right.
The question is: why pick Miers and not someone with a judicial record as a conservative? Bush had before him a list of roughly two dozen potential nominees with unassailable qualifications and clear conservative leanings on judicial matters. He'd already interviewed at least four of them. Any of them would be likely to win confirmation. No president whose party controls the Senate has lost a Court nomination fight since 1968. And that year, President Lyndon Johnson's selection of his buddy Abe Fortas came late in the term. That made it easy for Republicans to delay and ultimately kill the Fortas nomination.
So why did Bush choose Miers? For him, these nominations are quite personal. He wants to feel comfortable with his nominee, confident his pick will be a conservative now and conservative 20 years from now. Bush picked Roberts after being impressed while interviewing him. His doubts were erased (and there were initial doubts about Roberts). My guess is with Miers his doubts were washed away too.
Conservatives shouldn't throw up their hands in despair, at least yet. They should wait until they hear from Miers as a witness before the Senate Judiciary Committee. It's then that we'll begin to find out if Bush was correct in his view that she's the person to fulfill the dreams of so many conservatives and finally shove the Supreme Court to the right.
I have just completed a conference call with a host of conservative leaders on the nomination of White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the position of Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. As I expected, nothing has changed from my Early Skinny memo at noon today listing the pros and cons of the nomination. With the dearth of information on this individual, our warmth to her appointment may hinge on our trust in the President and trustworthy Texans (like Justice Hecht) who know her and assure us she is conservative and evangelical. Like a lot of Texans, she used to be a Democrat. But her leadership in the vetting of judges for the White House gave us Appeals Court Judges like Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown and Chief Justice John Roberts. Then again, there is no doubt but that this nomination is "huge." --OPS
Dr. James Dobson (PRO/WAIT)
Fred Barnes (PRO/WAIT))
*************************************
PRO-MIERS
Dr. James Dobson
Focus on the Family Action Chairman James C. Dobson, Ph.D., issued the following statement today regarding President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the United States Supreme Court:
"We welcome the president's nomination of Harriet Miers to the U.S. Supreme Court. He pledged emphatically during his campaign to appoint judges who will interpret the law rather than create it. He also promised to select competent judges who will 'not use the bench to write social policy.'(1) To this point, President Bush's appointments to the federal bench appear to have been remarkably consistent with that stated philosophy. Based on the information known generally about Harriet Miers, and President Bush's personal knowledge of her, we believe that she will not prove to be a lone exception."
On the other hand, one cannot know absolutely about matters of integrity and philosophy until a jurist is given the tremendous power and influence of their position. As Lord Acton said: 'Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.' Sadly, that seems to have happened to Justices Souter and Kennedy."
We look forward to learning more about her at the confirmation hearings."
PRO-MIERS
Fred Barnes from THE WEEKLY STANDARD
IF ALL GOES WELL, Harriet Miers will turn out to be a less impressive version of John Roberts: that is, a judicial conservative, or constitutionalist, who will cause the ideological balance on the Supreme Court to shift to the right. She's not likely to have Roberts's gift for describing and defending a conservative judicial philosophy, dodging questions on current issues, and toying with frustrated Democrats. All she needs to do is come off as a credible mainstream conservative, avoid the questions that Democrats will try to trick her on, and persuade senators she's not merely a Bush crony. That accomplished, she should be confirmed.
She'd better be able to do this. If she can't--if she's not really a conservative--the political effect will be to shatter President Bush's still-strong relationship with his base. The love affair will be over. The president will have dashed the hopes cherished by conservatives for a conservative Supreme Court. And he will be far weaker as a national political leader as a result.
Here's what people at the White House told me after Bush announced to nearly everyone's surprise that Miers, 60, now the chief White House legal counsel, was his pick to replace Sandra Day O'Connor: After running the judicial selection process along with Karl Rove--the process that led to the Roberts nomination--she had become a candidate for the high court herself.
The president and others at the White House have had long discussions with her about judges. She and Rove were involved in questioning at least five candidates for the court vacancy Roberts has filled. From those talks over the months, I'm told, it became clear to Bush that she had exactly the philosophy of judicial restraint he favors and that she wouldn't "grow" as a justice and turn into a swing vote or a liberal.
Also, I'm told, the president is fully aware of the stakes in this nomination. Roberts's replacement of William Rehnquist as chief justice was simply a conservative replacing a conservative. But Miers would succeed a swing justice. With her, I'm told further, Bush believes he would be altering the ideological makeup of the court, moving it to the right.
The question is: why pick Miers and not someone with a judicial record as a conservative? Bush had before him a list of roughly two dozen potential nominees with unassailable qualifications and clear conservative leanings on judicial matters. He'd already interviewed at least four of them. Any of them would be likely to win confirmation. No president whose party controls the Senate has lost a Court nomination fight since 1968. And that year, President Lyndon Johnson's selection of his buddy Abe Fortas came late in the term. That made it easy for Republicans to delay and ultimately kill the Fortas nomination.
So why did Bush choose Miers? For him, these nominations are quite personal. He wants to feel comfortable with his nominee, confident his pick will be a conservative now and conservative 20 years from now. Bush picked Roberts after being impressed while interviewing him. His doubts were erased (and there were initial doubts about Roberts). My guess is with Miers his doubts were washed away too.
Conservatives shouldn't throw up their hands in despair, at least yet. They should wait until they hear from Miers as a witness before the Senate Judiciary Committee. It's then that we'll begin to find out if Bush was correct in his view that she's the person to fulfill the dreams of so many conservatives and finally shove the Supreme Court to the right.
The Early Skinny on Harriet Miers
Problems:
- The nomination has opened up charges of cronyism. She's very loyal to the President, but doesn't appear to have much of a judicial philosophy.
- She gave money to the Democratic National Committee in 1988, Al Gore's Presidential Campaign in 1988 and Lloyd Bentsen's Senate Campaign in 1987. (Was it because her law firm asked her to, or was she a conservative Democrat then, like a lot of Texans? Was Al Gore pro-life then?)
- We need to ask if this type of nomination is what conservatives have fought for since Reagan vs. Ford in 1976, and in 2000 and 2004. She doesn't appear to be what was promised: a Scalia or a Thomas.
- She has been on Minority Leader Senator Harry Reid's OK list twice.
- She agreed to run (clean up?) the Texas Lottery Commission.
- Her Texas judge friend, Nathan Hecht, says she would be another Lewis Powell (a fine Southern gentleman, but a moderate at best). But then Hecht was speaking on NPR. That she was a national leader in the American Bar Association (ABA) (as opposed to the Federalist Society) seems to put her in the Powell mold.
- It is a done deal. She will be approved by the Senate.
Positives:
- According to Marvin Olasky of World Magazine, who has spoken with her pastor (of Valley View Christian Church), she has been active there for a decade, tithes to that conservative evangelical church, and "has committed her life to Jesus."
- Based on conversations with her colleague, Justice Hecht, she would likely take an evangelical Christian position on abortion. She was a sponsor for Dallas Right to Life dinners while on city council there.
- Dr. Dobson and Chuck Colson have said they have researched her, and are openly supportive.
- She has been on Republican OK lists.
- There may be another opening on the court. Bush will get a third shot.
- As White House Counsel, she bravely pushed Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and other solid conservatives in a hailstorm of anger and hostility without buckling to pressure.
- She appeared to be one of the voices for breaking the Democratic filibuster with the "Constitutional option."
- Planned Parenthood is already working against her.
- She's a Texan born and bred (Southern Methodist University / SMU Law). Her cultural influences are not those of a David Souter (Harvard/Oxford/Harvard Law).
- Decision-making on the court can be a collegial affair. She will be influenced by Scalia, Thomas and Roberts and will more likely join their opinions rather than Breyer, Ginsburg or Stevens.
- Here ABA activities include a Texas Bar sponsored effort to get the ABA to switch its position from pro-Roe v. Wade to neutral.
Update: (October 5) Since I developed this ledger sheet, I notice that Al Mohler has done a similar pro- and con- exercise. That can be found here.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)