Monday, October 3

Harriet Miers Nomination Opinions Round-Up

The news is buzzing about Harriet Miers nomination. As far as I am concerned, the jury is still out, and may well be out even after she is confirmed--assuming she is confirmed. I'll have to second Olasky's words, "I'm in the 'we report - you decide' camp."

This nomination, in combination with Roberts, will have a huge impact in a thousand ways for the future of our country. I have to agree with Dr. Dobson in that no one can really "know absolutely about matters of integrity and philosophy until a jurist is given the tremendous power and influence of their position." Let us all hope that Bush is keeping his promise to nominate originalist judges who will "not use the bench to write social policy." It's all on his word at this point.

Here is the round-up:
Rush Limbaugh:
"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." More Maha Rushie quotes

Hugh Hewitt:
Harriet Miers isn't a Justice Souter pick, so don't be silly. It is a solid, B+ pick. The first President Bush didn't know David Souter, but trusted Chief of Staff Sunnunu and Senator Rudman. The first President Bush got burned badly because he trusted the enthusiams of others.

The second President Bush knows Harriet Miers, and knows her well. The White House Counsel is an unknown to most SCOTUS observors, but not to the president, who has seen her at work for great lengths of years and in very different situations, including as an advisor in wartime. Leonard Leo is very happy with the choice, which ought to be enough for most conservatives.

As I wrote last night, Judges Luttig and McConnell are the most qualified nominees out there, but I think from the start that the president must have decided that this seat would be given to a woman, and it is very hard to argue that she is not the most qualified woman to be on the SCOTUS for the simple reason that she has been in the White House for many years.

Marvin Olasky:
(WorldMagBlog has good posts on both pro and con views on the nomination)

People are asking whether I support the Miers nomination. OK: I wish W had chosen one of the judges with a clear, on-the-record, conservative judicial philosophy, and then been willing to fight it out. In the absence of a clear record, it's important to know who a SCOTUS nominee's friends are. Since Nathan Hecht is a good friend of Miers and also a good guy, that's significant. So is the opposition of other thoughtful conservatives. Overall, this time, I'm in the "we report - you decide" camp. We'll put on this blog, and in World when we go to press on Thursday, views by credible people on both sides.

Dr. James Dobson: (Statements via U.S. Newswire)
"We welcome the president's nomination of Harriet Miers to the U.S. Supreme Court. He pledged emphatically during his campaign to appoint judges who will interpret the law rather than create it. He also promised to select competent judges who will 'not use the bench to write social policy.' To this point, President Bush's appointments to the federal bench appear to have been remarkably consistent with that stated philosophy. Based on the information known generally about Harriet Miers, and President Bush's personal knowledge of her, we believe that she will not prove to be a lone exception.

"On the other hand, one cannot know absolutely about matters of integrity and philosophy until a jurist is given the tremendous power and influence of their position. As Lord Acton said: 'Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.' Sadly, that seems to have happened to Justices Souter and Kennedy. All we can say now is that Harriet Miers appears to be an outstanding nominee for the Supreme Court.

"We look forward to learning more about her at the confirmation hearings."

Tags: , , , News, Current Affairs, Religion, Media, Culture, ,