Harriet Miers: It's A Good Start

Frankly, I don't think I need to see a more profound reason to support Harriet Miers than to see one more average, blog-viating lawyer take a header off of a ledge.

Unfortunately, quite a few conservative bloggers are so busy impressing themselves with their Inter-lect (read: the ability to tear things apart), they'll simply pass right over Bush's defense for Harriet Miers this morning.

President George W. Bush, trying to soothe critics from his own Republican Party, said on Thursday he was fulfilling a campaign promise by nominating Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court because she shared his judicial philosophy.

"She will strictly interpret the Constitution," Bush said at a news conference with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

"I said that when I ran for president. I said, 'If you elect me, I will name people that will have that judicial philosophy,'" Bush said.

He said the questionnaire shows Miers' judicial philosophy, which was the main reason he chose her for the Supreme Court.

Pity that some number of, relative to Miers, unaccomplished hyper-intellectualists can't appreciate the likely common sense approach I'd anticipate from Miers. Nor can they probably appreciate that most Americans would welcome that very thing, as well. That, as opposed to another cerebrally stuffed-shirt of a legal gymnast who can make one-thousand overly semantic, jurisprudential word-monkeys dance on the tips of one hundred gavels in their briefs.

I witnessed enough monkeys dancing in their underwear during the Clinton years and I'd like to see it supplanted with some maturity, straight-forwardness and, above all, common sense. My instincts tell me that that's precisely what our duly elected president is attempting to do. And I'm not so disengaged from who I am as a human being, perhaps through an advanced, or even a legal degree, to have lost touch with and consequently stopped trusting those instincts. They tend to serve me very well.

I didn't help elect this President by reading his campaign literature, or by reviewing his grades - which were superior to his opponents, by the way. I voted for him because I listened to him, I looked at who he was as a person, and I came to trust him to do the job. Some minor differences aside, that has never really changed. I submit that if the approach is sound enough for me to cast my treasured vote, it's enough for him to put the faith bestowed in him when elected in a Harriet Miers sitting on the Supreme Court.

Committee head Specter, sitting next to Patrick Leahy said he was basically unimpressed, or perhaps insulted by a Miers submitted document. Frankly, I don't care. I suspect were I ever called before a Senate committee I might just hope to leave them feeling the very same way. I'm tired of a government more interested in pleasing and not insulting Senators, than returning the government to the good people where it belongs.

My Chief hope at this point is that George Bush puts the hyper-typists, TV pundits and other media aside and remains the President of the people who elected him by giving us a Justice perhaps as close to being one of us as we may ever hope to be able to get, anymore. In a government designed by and for We the People, has that really become too much to expect? If so, than maybe some of her current critics are more out of touch with the constitution than they would allege is Harriet Miers.

Comments

[Jimmie]

I"m sorry, but I'm buying it.

I'm taking the Miers nomination on the only real hunk of fact we have: that she shares President Bush's ideas on the Constitution. ON that basis, there's no way I can possibly support her, because I disagree strongly with his judicial philosophy.

This is the same President who signed McCain/Feingold even though he publicly said it was unconstitutional, who came out in favor of affirmative action quotas in the M of Michigan law school case, who is seriously considering usurping state and local authority at disaster scenes with Federal troops, who has yet to make a peep about the Execrable Kelo decision, and who sided against the states in the Raich medical marijuana case (on the grounds that it was interstate commerce, as I recall, which is exactly the wrong way to look at it).

I'm not very impressed with the President's way of viewing the Constitution. I suspect that the only place he really particularly cares about Constitutional issues and the Supreme Court is on the War on Terror and that he nominated Miers because he believes she will give him the results he wants, judicial philosophy be damned.

I realize that's harsh, but the President has spent four years burning through the "trust" credit I was more than happy to extend him in 2001 and he's tapped out as far as I'm concerned.

I do not doubt that he is a good man. I do not doubt that he has good motives. I do doubt that he understand what he actually promised conservates in 2000 and I doubt that he really understands the difference between a judge who comes to a "conservative" result because that's what she wants to have happen and one who does so because her faithfulness to the original intent of the Constitution demands nothing else.

[warrenb]

So I guess, Dan, you agree with the Bush "control through fear" philosophy as well that has predominantly been part of the agenda of the administration from day one.

What a crock. Maybe you should write a note to Mr. Bush and maybe he'll pick you for Supreme Court Justice just because you also happen "agree" with his agenda, politics, and general Constitutional law polsitions. Why not? I'm sure you work hard and have the integrity we keep hearing Ms. Miers has so much of. Then again....couldn't we also say the same about almost any hard working American.

It's Cronyism all the way with this one "business as usual" and if you can't admit that well..................

[tester]

Well, its a life appointment. It should be taken seriously.

Rule of thumb is never trust a politician. They have personal agendas, followed by lobbiest agendas, followed by party agendas, followed by actual voter opinions.

So is the Miers placement a counter to the expected fallout from what has happened under the presidency. Is it going to hit the fan later?

[paul]

That, as opposed to another cerebrally stuffed-shirt of a legal gymnast who can make one-thousand overly semantic, jurisprudential word-monkeys dance on the tips of one hundred gavels in their briefs

Do you mean Rumsfeld, Rice, Rove, Chenny, Powel,
Ari,etc. etc. The poorly educated group that surrounds Bush. I bet they go on instinct too.

My instincts tell me that that's precisely what our duly elected president is attempting to do. And I'm not so disengaged from who I am as a human being, perhaps through an advanced, or even a legal degree, to have lost touch with and consequently stopped trusting those instincts. They tend to serve me very well.

Do you mean a supreme court justice should be a high school graduate instead of being blinded by the superficiality of a JD ?

Instinct is called eotion and the Republican PR wants just that. Say no on abortion or say God in speeches and you get the sheep to follow. Say bah.

I voted for him because I listened to him, I looked at who he was as a person, and I came to trust him to do the job.

You listened to a carefully selected concotion of RNC and speech writers. You can not know who a person is unless you live with him - did you live with him?
Did you listen to the profanity laced tapes concerning his militray and drug career. So he speeks one way in public, with the proper speech writer, and one way in private. Like no one knew this before 2004.

Trust him to do the job. Just what job.

Bush supported free entry to illegal aliens in his 2004 campaign and a guest worker program that makes borders vulnerable to terrorists and ousts US wokers from jobs.

Is that your kind of job?

Bush has surrounded himself with conmen - you do not get to that place without being one - and the conmen are not good enough to not get caught. Delay, Rove,

Is that your kind of job?

Like father like son - just read his lips.

Is that your kind of job?

A proponent of free trade that is loosing many jobs. But you support this - it wasn't your job was it.

Is that your kind of job?

Do you trust a drunk and dope addict no matter how long the claim to have been sober and found Jesus? Previous diatribes say you do not - but the bush version you do. Head for the mountains head for bush ___ .Nobody that has experience with one in their family does. And from his last preformance at the UN looks like a little wine is ok again.

Is that your kind of job?

Emotional response to a rational situation. This is your remedy for the many ills of the country and world. It has not worked in the past.

A little education is a terribly dangerous thing. You have demonstrated that fact.

Maybe an advanced degree could jerk you into the reality most sighted persons can comprehend.

to have lost touch with and consequently stopped trusting those instincts. They tend to serve me very well.

Like the instinctive loyalty you show to the Holloway/Twitty family when you supposedly happen upon an unnamed source with unseen information and/or photographs.

[Dan]

Paul,

Metinks the lady doth protest too much.

[paul]

Paul,

Metinks the lady doth protest too much.

Posted by: Dan | Oct 20, 2005 4:05:05 PM

Bastardized Shakespere. The result of tooooo much education.
Prevent judges from having an education.

[tester]

Paul,

Cut to the chase, tell us how you really feel..

[katya]

Never trust a lawyer who let her dues to the Bar Association lapse- for a couple of years like Miers did. So an unlicensed lawyer is the best this administration came up with?