As for the Harriet Miers nomination goes I decided to take a "wait and seethe" attitude. Not much else I can do since barring unforeseen circumstances she will be on the court and we will just have to wait to see how she actually rules. Those who say that we should hold our fire until the confirmation hearings must not have followed Judge Roberts’ confirmation hearing. While we learned was that his favorite films are "Doctor Zhivago" and "North by Northwest." and how he was asked "how he feels" about certain circumstances and we didn’t get much more. Besides is a nominee ever going to say they are not going to follow the Constitution and that they will rule as they please? The problem with the Miers nomination is not that she might not turn out to be a fine judge who follows the original intent of the laws, but that considering the issues of the day like abortion, euthanasia, same-sex marriage etc there should have been a lot more certainty on this. There is no such thing as 100 percent certainty in this regard, but there certainly are varying degrees of risk. Considering the issues of the day her nomination does not appear to take these issues seriously enough. Especially since it appears that the President limited candidates to only women and that some of them demurred from entering the process. No wonder Harriet Miers is pro-affirmative action. Her days or rising through merit only have been supplanted by filling a gender seat only after others backed down. I guess she patched up those glass ceilings that got broken.
7 comments
I don’t buy your assertion that “barring unforeseen circumstances she will be on the court.”
All the momentum on this nomination — from the very moment is was announced — has been on the anti-Miers side. And the White House has come up with nothing to stop this momentum except to call people names.
At this point I will be very surprised to see her confirmed.
I have listened to the media banter about Ms. Miers for a few days now. Lately, Dr. Dobson and the National Right to Life Committee came out in support of her. I, like you, Mr. Curt Jester, am reserving my judgment. Everybody right now is looking for an absolute assurance that she’ll be a supremely (no pun intended) conservative judge. It’s boils down to an uneasiness about the future….which is something over which we have zero control. Even if she had a record as a prior judge, which most conservatives are saying is the end all be all to gauge a nominee’s stance on the issues, she could do a 180 degree turn once she’s in the supreme court. My fervent hope is that the Lord’s hand is in the whole mess (and I believe it is) and that he hears the cries of the faithful and the cries of the aborted calling for justice. If so, then we’ll get the judge we want and the incidence of wacky rulings should decreas!!!
Dr. Dobson was on Sean Hannity’s radio show on Wednesday and said that he was encouraged by her faith but that he would withhold taking a firm position on her until the hearings.
Waiting doesn’t work with a life-time appointment. Once we’re in a position to have some idea of where she stands, she’ll be entrenched in the judiciary for life. That’s why I am a proud member of The Rebel Alliance.
Dennis, it isn’t just that she has no judicial record or other real indicators of her judicial philosophy (if we are to make the huge assumption that she has one). It is also that she is underqualified to be on SCOTUS, which means that she will probably be a mediocre justice, and mediocre justices (e.g., Kennedy and Blackmun) tend to float leftward when on the court.
With a name like “Harriet” I am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt for the nonce. I mean that if her name was Brittany or Tiffany, Ashley, Kimberly, Tammy or some such appellation, it might be troubling that she probably had, and still has, her Barbie Doll collection. But with such an old-fashioned name like “Harriet” can Ozzie be far behind?
Then again, there is Hillary and Olympia, Barbara and Diane, Cynthia, Maureen, Joan and Jane…all somewhat old-fashioned names worn by contemporary Halloween fliers.
Another Harriet: ‘On National Public Radio, the chair of the National Women’s Political Caucus (NWPC), Harriet Woods, was asked if pro-life women were welcome in the organization. She responded, “Only if they kept their beliefs about abortion in the dark.” ‘
Publius,
It is my understanding that many supreme court justices haven’t had the proper credential to serve on the court (if credentials=time served on the bench)…to include Renhquist, who was a rather conservative judge. I’m not saying it’s right or wrong to appoint someone without credentials, in fact, I’d lean toward appoint someone with a record. However, what’s done is done (no way Bush will withdraw the nom) and I see an awful lot of angst and hand wringing out there. I’m just trying not to partake in the hand wringing and trust that God is in charge…that’s all.
Dennis
Comments are closed.