A Difference of Opinion
That's the title of this column by Lorie Byrd, who kindly quotes me. I couldn't agree with Lorie more when she writes:
From the day of the announcement, I have been in what some have called the “wait and see” camp. My initial decision came effortlessly, because for over four years, Republicans have told Democrats that the president is entitled to his choice of judicial nominees and that each of those nominees should be given a fair hearing and an up or down vote.
Right now, of course, we know relatively little about Harriet Miers. What we do know includes this: That she is personally pro-life, that she espoused a political view on homosexual rights substantially to the right of Justice Clarence Thomas, that she has personally exercised her Second Amendment rights, and that the President (who does, of course, have a stake in this battle at least as large as our own) believes both that she has served him well as his personal attorney and in The White House, and also that she shares the judicial philosophy -- his judicial philosophy -- that has led to some extremely capable and principled judges being appointed to the U.S. Courts of Appeals (and to the Supreme Court). Those who know her and her work are willing to go on the record in support; if there are those who know her and her work equally well who oppose her, let's just say that they've been significantly less willing to step forward and be identified.
Was Harriet Miers my first choice? No, for the hundredth time. But I'm still waiting for something besides a lot of leaks, rumors and innuendo about how unhappy senators are, and how poorly she's performing in her "murder boards," and how supposedly lackluster her qualifications are before turning on her and the President. And I continue to be amazed that so many are so willing to go so far before Ms. Miers has even had an opportunity to offer one public word in her own defense.
From the day of the announcement, I have been in what some have called the “wait and see” camp. My initial decision came effortlessly, because for over four years, Republicans have told Democrats that the president is entitled to his choice of judicial nominees and that each of those nominees should be given a fair hearing and an up or down vote.
Right now, of course, we know relatively little about Harriet Miers. What we do know includes this: That she is personally pro-life, that she espoused a political view on homosexual rights substantially to the right of Justice Clarence Thomas, that she has personally exercised her Second Amendment rights, and that the President (who does, of course, have a stake in this battle at least as large as our own) believes both that she has served him well as his personal attorney and in The White House, and also that she shares the judicial philosophy -- his judicial philosophy -- that has led to some extremely capable and principled judges being appointed to the U.S. Courts of Appeals (and to the Supreme Court). Those who know her and her work are willing to go on the record in support; if there are those who know her and her work equally well who oppose her, let's just say that they've been significantly less willing to step forward and be identified.
Was Harriet Miers my first choice? No, for the hundredth time. But I'm still waiting for something besides a lot of leaks, rumors and innuendo about how unhappy senators are, and how poorly she's performing in her "murder boards," and how supposedly lackluster her qualifications are before turning on her and the President. And I continue to be amazed that so many are so willing to go so far before Ms. Miers has even had an opportunity to offer one public word in her own defense.
posted by LadybugUSA at 10:56 PM
2 Comments:
Why the uproar? Harriet Miers is different, not what a Justice should be say the most of the MSM and some of the blogs, they will have to wait and see. After the confirmation of Harriet Miers, we can watch the next battle.
You can find related thoughts here, where I explain why I think you've identified preserving the Constitution too closely with advancing the Republican party.
Post a Comment
<< Home