Hang in there Harriet Miers

[Terri]

Hang in there Harriet Miers

Rachel Alexander
The Loft at GOPUSA

You have to wonder if part of the reason some conservatives are attacking Miers is because of her similarities to Bush. Conservatives are angrier than ever at Bush for compromising on fiscal issues, and think he’s a big government conservative who has betrayed them. Miers is a lot like Bush, and so reminds people of Bush - a down to earth all-American who could easily be your neighbor next door, not the typical politician or lawyer who presents an aloof, brooding, analytical persona.

Intellectual conservatives are irritated because they feel that Bush has put himself on the Supreme Court - they see it as a slap in the face to all the slaving away they did in college and law school in order to graduate at the top of their Ivy League classes. But the truth is, the American people don’t want to be ruled only by the Ivy League. They would like to see at least one justice who looks like them and reflects their values. Intelligence doesn’t always translate into top schools - remember Bill Gates never completed his degree at Harvard. Apparently it wasn’t necessary for him.

More (http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/?p=84)

Rachel included an interesting resource link in the last paragraph of this article.

[CSchultz]

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">So hang in there Harriet Miers. Conservatives can’t take you down simply because they predict conservatives will take you down - it’s a bit redundant. [/QUOTE]

Good article.

Good point.

I like this girl.

Kind of like,... Deja vu all over again.
But, I've said that before. http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Cheesecake]

Right.

Could be Harriet is extra-ordinarily ordinary, and the biggest asset the ''man on the street'' could have been handed.

Remember, the last few decisions to come down from the court, made our hair curl. *

Will a ''voice of reason'' that knows what ''we'' are thinking, keep the SCOTUS honest and on track?

Pray.

[Nancy521]

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE"> But the truth is, the American people don’t want to be ruled only by the Ivy League. [/QUOTE]

This particular argument is starting to sound like a broken record to me. *I would venture to wager 95% of the people who are being accused of elitism and who voted for Ronald Reagan could have cared less that he didn't attend an Ivy League School. *

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">Intelligence doesn’t always translate into top schools - remember Bill Gates never completed his degree at Harvard. Apparently it wasn’t necessary for him.[/QUOTE]

For this argument to remain viable, then why pick a lawyer for this job? *Because they have &quot;some&quot; legal knowledge? *Why not just pick a third year law student then, if Bill Gates is a predictor of success because he didn't finish college. In fact, maybe Sam Walton should have been nominated when he was still alive, afterall...he didn't even finish high school!

Again, a lot of folks unhappy with this choice have not discounted her &quot;intelligence,&quot; they have questioned her depth of experience. *It's also not rocket science to read through her long list of achievements to understand she has a high level of intelligence. *That quality is not being questioned, except by a handful of political pundits. *

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">Attacks by the right on Miers for being an evangelical are bewildering. Isn’t it a good thing to be an evangelical? It tells us a lot about how Miers will vote, since everyone knows that the vast majority (I would wager over 95%) of evangelicals are very conservative philosophically and support strict constructionism constitutional theory [/QUOTE]

Food for thought on this idea: Could you say that a fundamentalist Muslim is very conservative? The Taliban are a very conservative bunch I'd say. Same with Wahabis. *&quot;If&quot; you open the door to using strong religious beliefs as a qualifier or predictor you're opening a can of worms I'd personally rather see kept shut. *Let's say Hillary gets elected in 2008 and gets a chance to nominate. *Would you still back a choice should she decide to level the playing field on the SC by chosing a Muslim? *Afterall, by most accounts, Islam is a very conservative religion. If the courts were meant to be stacked with representation from all walks of life (which they're not,) then you have to start playing by a whole new set of rules. Just picture an Iman from Detroit who graduated from say...UCLA Law School, with no judicial experience as a nominee. Would you still feel the same way?

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">Bush was simply reassuring conservatives that Miers would vote as a strict constructionist, but doing it in a safe way that would not ensure her rejection by the Senate. [/QUOTE]

No one questions the method by which he was trying to reassure conservatives, but as far as it being a &quot;safe&quot; way to do it? Can we really believe that there isn't a single Democrat senator on the judicial committee that didn't get the secret code from the &quot;trust me&quot; line? *

Maybe he's clever enough that he figured this will highlight the consistent pattern in the DNC to bash Christians, and hopes this will be remembered by Christian conservatives in 2006/2008. *That's a pretty long shot in my opinion.

Nancy *http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif

[Terri]

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">This particular argument is starting to sound like a broken record to me. I would venture to wager 95% of the people who are being accused of elitism and who voted for Ronald Reagan could have cared less that he didn't attend an Ivy League School. [/QUOTE]

George Will and Ann Coulter.

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">
Food for thought on this idea: Could you say that a fundamentalist Muslim is very conservative? The Taliban are a very conservative bunch I'd say. Same with Wahabis. &quot;If&quot; you open the door to using strong religious beliefs as a qualifier or predictor you're opening a can of worms I'd personally rather see kept shut. Let's say Hillary gets elected in 2008 and gets a chance to nominate. Would you still back a choice should she decide to level the playing field on the SC by chosing a Muslim? Afterall, by most accounts, Islam is a very conservative religion. If the courts were meant to be stacked with representation from all walks of life (which they're not,) then you have to start playing by a whole new set of rules. Just picture an Iman from Detroit who graduated from say...UCLA Law School, with no judicial experience as a nominee. Would you still feel the same way? [/QUOTE]

You sound very frustrated today, Nancy. Maybe it's just me but that entire paragraph just doesn't fly for me. Are you saying something about diversity and choosing women? I don't think I've heard more than 3 or 4 conservatives who thought this pick had to be a female. Is that your point?

The process will work. Harriet Miers will withdraw, be withdrawn, be voted down or up. If she is withdrawn maybe she'll be replaced with George Will. That should cover all the bases. Just kidding. http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

I will decide if I'm for her or against her after I hear her speak at the hearings and then I'll let my senators know what I think.

And we will all be just fine if this process takes a few weeks. Unless the Party tears itself apart so badly that it cannot be mended.

[Nancy521]

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">You sound very frustrated today, Nancy. Maybe it's just me but that entire paragraph just doesn't fly for me. Are you saying something about diversity and choosing women? I don't think I've heard more than 3 or 4 conservatives who thought this pick had to be a female. Is that your point?
[/QUOTE]

After you mentioned this I had to think about being frustrated or not, and I suppose that's exactly my feeling toward that column! You know me too well Terri! http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

What I gathered from the column was that the author was perplexed why more conservatives weren't finding complete assurance in Miers because she is a Christian conservative. I am a Christian. My religious bias would obviously lean toward security knowing that Miers is also a Christian. But what I wanted to expound on was the idea that if we parade Mier's religion around as a qualifier, then do we open the door to allowing fundamental religious beliefs that are NOT to our liking? Does that make sense? For instance: Christians and Muslims may share similar faith based beliefs about abortion. But it's clear in Islamic family faith beliefs, that women have a very different place in society than Christians believe they do. If we are so quick to want to endorse based on religious faith, will we be as quick if the religious beliefs don't align with our own, and is this a door we want to open in the future should a liberal president take the reigns and decide to balance the court based on religious background? Will we have license to object?

Finally, President Bush really didn't have to mention her faith at all. The MSM would have supplied that information all by their lonesomes for us. And as we know by the recent questioning of Justice Roberts, the Senate would have also brought this information out. Just in terms of politics only, I think it was a poor choice for the President to be the messenger.

Nancy http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag17.gif

[Terri]

Ok, thanks for explaining. I understand what you were saying now.

I thought it was strange when the president mentioned her faith too. It would alienate Democrats at the same time it reassured Republicans.

I see it as an asset but not a determining factor. I want to know if she believes in the Constitution of these United States and I want to hear it from her.

I'm not sure if Rachel is supporting her so much as she is just wanting the process to play out.