The AP reports Sen. Bill Frist said this about SCOTUS nominee Harriet Miers:
"With this selection, the president has chosen another outstanding nominee to sit on our nation's highest court. Ms. Miers is honest and hard working and understands the importance of judicial restraint and the limited role of a judge to interpret the law and not legislate from the bench." — Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.Now reread Sen. Frist's statement, which I've changed only slightly:
"With this selection, the president has chosen another outstanding nominee to sit on our nation's highest court. (Name of best friend here) is honest and hard working and understands the importance of judicial restraint and the limited role of a judge to interpret the law and not legislate from the bench." — Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.Frist's statement works for my best friend. How about yours?
UPDATE: Oct. 3, 1 PM
Law professor Steven Bainbridge lays out the case against Miers nomination point-by-point. You don't need to be a lawyer to understand everything he's saying.
Most conservative bloggers who are speaking out are either disappointed, angry, or both, with most of the anger directed at President Bush for what's seen as his failure to appoint any one of many qualified jurists. Many fear Miers will be "another Souter." Michelle Malkin has a roundup.
Marshall Manson at comfirmthem.com reminds readers Miers opposed the adoption by the ABA of a statement endorsing abortion on demand. He ends: "I urge everyone to take a breath and hang on until we learn more."
2 comments:
I just don't understand it. The only answer that makes sense is that Bush is not a conservative and never has been. He's an opportunist who rewards loyalty above all things. I will be grateful to be wrong about Bush and Miers.
I've been satisfied with the President's appointments and policies so far, although I wish he was tighter with the money. I'm conservative, from Texas, and I'm hearing some good things about Ms. Miers.
No, she'd not who I'd have picked either, but absent the political ability to break a filibuster, I'm not sure we could get somebody I'd pick. I don't, today, see the Republicans in the Senate in a position to break a filibuster, or in a position to use the so called "nuclear option."
Absent these conditions, what other candidate is possible other than some kind of stealth candidate ? Yes, I know we got burned with Souter, O'Connor and Kennedy in the past, but I feel better about this Bush than I did his dad. I think his instincts are good.
At any rate, the appointment is done,and we must see what comes of it. Until we have some evidence that this choice really is the wrong one, I'm disposed to give the President the benefit of the doubt. With so many foreign and domestic enemies battering at the gates, I see no good reason to give them comfort by Conservatives failing to back the President to the nth degree now.
Post a Comment