White House counsel and Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers stands with Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid at the U.S. Capitol, Monday, Oct. 3, 2005, in Washington after President Bush nominated Miers to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.
The reaction from Conservatives on Harriet Mier’s nomination to the United States Supreme Court has been largely NEGATIVE.
Michelle Malkin has MESSAGE TO THE WHITE HOUSE.
130pm EDT. Dick Cheney just finished an interview with Rush Limbaugh. Cheney pleads for Rush to “trust” him. First caller after the segment is a Republican woman who is “so disappointed” with Bush and the GOP…they don’t seem to care about their base…we fought hard to get a Republican majority…I am so dismayed…”
Hearing the same from scores of rank-and-file Republican e-mailers today.
Next caller: “George Bush has caved on just about everything.” He lists education spending, campaign finance, budget, tariffs. Bush “advocates conservatism to placate the base and then he acts like a moderate because he is a moderate.”
Senator Chuckie Schumer and Senate Minority Leader are OK with the pick. And this is good news?
Captain Ed has Harriet Miers Gets The Nod
Miers may make a great stealth candidate, but right now she looks more like a political ploy. Color me disappointed in the first blush.
John Hinderaker at Powerline has A Disappointment.
The only positive spin I can think of is this: President Bush knows Miers well, and it is almost inconceivable to me that he is insincere in his repeated descriptions of what he is looking for in Supreme Court justices. He also is acutely aware that the Souter nomination was one of the chief blots on his father’s administration. Is it possible that he would waste a Supreme Court nomination on someone who isn’t a conservative? It’s hard for me to believe, but the evidence so far isn’t encouraging.
RedState.org has Harriet Miers — A Profound Disappointment
We can be convinced that Miers is stellar. We can be convinced that Miers will be an originalist willing to reject the liberal dogma of Roe. But from where we sit now, this is a profoundly disappointing nomination, a missed opportunity, and an abdication of responsibility to make sound, well qualified nominations. Whether it is also a betrayal of first principles is still to be determined.
Patterico via Angry Clam has Is this Really the Best They Can Do?
The only positive things about Miers going around on the blogs have essentially three sources. Theyâ€™re all weak.
David Frum from National Review Online has MADAME JUSTICE
The Miers nomination, though, is an unforced error.
Woefully disappointed the nominee was not Priscilla Owen.
Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family is carefully supporting Miers’ nomination.
Pat Buchanan has Miers’ Qualifications Are ‘Non-Existent’
Handed a once-in-a-generation opportunity to return the Supreme Court to constitutionalism, George W. Bush passed over a dozen of the finest jurists of his day — to name his personal lawyer.
In a decision deeply disheartening to those who invested such hopes in him, Bush may have tossed away his and our last chance to roll back the social revolution imposed upon us by our judicial dictatorship since the days of Earl Warren.
This is not to disparage Harriet Miers. From all accounts, she is a gracious lady who has spent decades in the law and served ably as Bushâ€™s lawyer in Texas and, for a year, as White House counsel.
But her qualifications for the Supreme Court are non-existent. She is not a brilliant jurist, indeed, has never been a judge. She is not a scholar of the law. Researchers are hard-pressed to dig up an opinion. She has not had a brilliant career in politics, the academy, the corporate world or public forum. Were she not a friend of Bush, and female, she would never have even been considered.
Well said Pat.
“This is a pick that was made from weakness. There was an opportunity here to show strength and confidence, and I don’t think this is it. There are plenty of known quantities out there who would be superb for the court.”