The  Supreme  Court

This is the outdated material from the Supreme Court page.  It's all very interesting, but it is no longer as timely, so it has been parked here, out of the way.

The John Roberts subsection:

The Latest Media Coverage of Supreme Court Nominee John Roberts.  Check out the most up-to-date information and examples of liberal media bias in the coverage of the Senate hearings for Supreme Court nominee John Roberts.

Roberts's Sterling Showing:  The question of whether Judge John Roberts is qualified to be chief justice of the United States has been rendered moot by his performance in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings.  He is so obviously — ridiculously — well-equipped to lead government's third branch that it is hard to imagine how any Democrats can justify a vote against his confirmation.

Biography of Judge Roberts.

Bastardizing the Courts.  What on earth does [Hurricane] Katrina have to do with the role of the courts in general, with the Supreme Court in particular, or with Judge Roberts' judicial philosophy and fitness to serve on the Court?  Absolutely nothing, of course, but that's not how Leahy and Kennedy see it.

Referring to Roberts, not Miers:
The Safe Pick.  Conservatives hoped for a demonstrably conservative nominee with a streak of daring.  They didn't get one.

Confirming John Roberts:  Journalists walk around with the knee-jerk assumption that they are the most essential forces of democracy, there to enrich the nation and its citizens.  They truly see themselves as the conscience of the country, the First Amendment ideal in the flesh.

Schumer Confesses to Not Understanding the Constitution.  United States Senator "Chuck" Schumer broke his own stupidity record the other day following President Bush's announcement of John Roberts nomination to the Supreme Court.  In a tag-team appearance with Senator Pat Leahy (D. Vt.), ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee, Schumer confessed to the Nation that neither he, Leahy, nor the Democrat party for whom he spoke, understands a fundamental principle of American constitutionalism:  separation of powers.

The Samuel Alito subsection:

Alito Is Sworn in as Associate Justice.  With the confirmation vote, [Justice Sandra Day] O'Connor's resignation became official.  She resigned in July but agreed to remain until her successor was confirmed.  She has been at the court this week, and participated in one last appeal Tuesday [1/31/2006].  She voted with the other eight justices to refuse to block a Florida execution.  She begins teaching a class at the University of Arizona law school later in the week.

A Supreme Day for America as Justice Alito Takes the Bench.  Samuel A. Alito Jr. took the oath of office today as the 110th Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.  Judge Alito was elevated to the nation's highest court after having served 15 years as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  It's been 92 days since President Bush announced the nomination — the longest period in nomination history.  Alito endured 30 hours of questioning by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee during five days of hearings in which he answered more than 650 questions.

58 to 42:  Alito Confirmed.  For the past 20 years the Senate judicial confirmation process has become more and more dysfunctional.  But now thanks to special interest groups like the People for the American Way and their handmaidens in the U.S. Senate like Senators Kerry and Kennedy, the smear attacks and personal assaults have escalated to the point that nominees increasingly see themselves more as battle-ready legal warriors rather than neutral, disinterested jurists.

How to lasso Supreme Court justices.  Congratulations, Sam Alito!  And congratulations, U.S.A.:  It now looks like we have four out of nine justices who will not legislate from the bench.  But we still have a structural problem in our federal judiciary, one that is hard to solve.

Alito Nomination Goes to Full Senate.  All 10 Republicans voted for Alito, while all eight Democrats voted against him.  The partisan vote was almost preordained, with 15 of the 18 senators announcing their votes even before the committee's session began.

Who's Opposing Judge Alito?  If a man is known by the enemies he makes, Judge Samuel Alito is the perfect traditional values choice for the U.S. Supreme Court.  Judge Alito is being smeared in the media by a coalition of leftist organizations called the Coalition for a Fair and Independent Judiciary. … The philosophy of these organizations can be accurately described as anti-Christian, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, and militantly secularist.

Democrats don't need hearings.  It has never mattered who President Bush nominated to the courts, only that it was President Bush who nominated them.  Faced with devastating electoral losses, but flush with near record-breaking numbers of judges appointed by President Clinton, these leftist organizations had long depended upon activist courts to enact their radical agenda.

Alito Gets High Marks From Bar Association.  Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito received a unanimous well-qualified rating from the American Bar Association on Wednesday [1/4/2009], giving his nomination momentum as the Senate prepares for confirmation hearings next week.  The rating came after a vote of an ABA committee and will be delivered to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will launch Alito's confirmation hearings on Monday.

Alito's opponents unwittingly make case for him.  When you examine their most common objections to Judge Alito, you will find they are usually centered on the very things we should applaud in a judge.  What they regard as denigrations of certain rights, we should understand as stewardship of the Constitution itself, without which we would have no rights.

Abortion, Abuse, Accusations and Alito.  Months from now, when political scientists definitively analyze the current Supreme Court confirmation hearings, they will concur that the Alito hearing was a watershed moment in America's political climate.  Before the confirmation hearings, leftist groups engaged in extremist rhetoric — bragging that they would "destroy" Samuel Alito.

Who Caused Alito's Wife to Cry?  A group cleverly called People for the Alito Way says the Associated Press wrongly characterized an incident at Samuel Alito's hearing today that left his wife in tears.

People for the ALITO Way

Democrats are Sinking to a New Low.  This week in the confirmation hearings for Judge Samuel Alito, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary committee demonstrated a blatant disregard for facts and a proclivity toward political hyperbole of the worst kind.  Non-partisan observers could only come to one conclusion:  Democrats live in their very own make-believe political la-la land in which reverence for facts and truth are nonexistent.

Kennedy questions Alito's integrity?  Well, it's not as if Judge Alito is a spoiled trust baby who got kicked out of Harvard for cheating.  Nor is he a United States senator who got drunk, drove a young female campaign worker to her death, then chose not report it to authorities until the next day, and then, only after calling his lawyer, concocting an alibi and developing a strategy to contain the political fallout.

What the Media Won't Report About Ted Kennedy:  Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) has been largely preoccupied and extraordinarily concerned about potential Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito's apparent affiliation with a conservative, all-male organization while he attended Princeton ... and America's press are eating it up. ... The delicious irony that ... Kennedy himself was a member of an all-male social club when he attended Harvard. ... What's the likelihood of any mainstream media outlets sharing this with the public?

Alito:  unacceptably mainstream.  The New York Times characterizes Judge Alito's views as "radical."  In assessing its claim, we should know whether the paper is talking about his judicial or political philosophy.  If the Times accepted the court's role as an interpreter, not maker, of laws, Alito's political views would be irrelevant.  But they matter enormously to liberals.  They want judges who are political and judicial liberals — that is, judges who will bastardize the Constitution to impose the liberal policy agenda.  Judge Alito fails both tests.

The Past and Future of Roe v. Wade:  Samuel Alito Jr. wrote a memo in 1985 arguing there is no constitutional right to abortion, and pro-choice groups are alarmed by that document.  They say it proves he's a right-wing extremist with a "long history of hostility to reproductive freedom," in the words of the National Abortion Federation.

Have You No Sense of Decency?  The Judiciary Committee Democrats have disgraced themselves.  The Associated Press, once esteemed for its even-handed reporting, put out a dispatch which implied that Senator Graham was the one who abused the judge, triggering the outburst.  That the AP would attempt such a violation of common sense betrays the desperation of the media branch of the Democratic Party.  It won't fly because it does not ring true to common experience.

Borking has lost its bite.  Borking was once a Democratic smear tactic.  This week — amid intellectually exhausted and politically befuddled Democrats — it became a laugh track.

The revolt of the counterestablishment.  Liberalism still dominates the elite universities, but that means much less than it used to, thanks to the counterestablishment that has nurtured and credentialed the likes of Samuel Alito.  At his hearings, Alito didn't seem counter- anything.  He is sober, intelligent, and thoughtful.  He is the opposite of a bomb-thrower, but when he entered Princeton University in 1968, that made him a dissident.

Myths about the American federalist:  [For example …] Federalists are teeming with hate and rage.  This is one of the most central, pervasive Democratic myths about federalists; particularly those who sit on the bench.  It leads you Senate Democrats to believe that if you can just ask the right question of a federalist, he will erupt into a hissing, spitting parody of Bill O'Reilly and then try to strangle you with his bow tie on C-SPAN.

The reasonable Judge Alito.  With the calm, clear and reasoned testimony of a careful jurist, Judge Samuel Alito demonstrated yesterday [1/10/2006] why President Bush nominated him for the Supreme Court in the first place.  It will be exceedingly difficult for Democrats to paint him as outside the mainstream; he is simply too reasonable.

Dems fumble, Alito scores.  The Supreme Court game's not over, but my scorecard after the first half of the hearings has Alito way ahead.  Calmly, concisely and in a rumpled, everyman manner, Alito tackled the Democrats' most hostile questions.

Unanimous Selections to Supreme Court:  Justice John Paul Stevens was confirmed unanimously, 98-0, on Dec. 17, 1975.  Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who would be replaced by President Bush's latest nominee — Samuel Alito — was confirmed 99-0 on Sept. 21, 1981.  Justice Antonin Scalia was approved by the Senate 98-0 on Sept. 17, 1986 and Justice Anthony Kennedy won unanimous backing, 97-0 on Feb. 3, 1988.

Alito's open mind offends Democrats.  Though Alito's record, demeanor and reputation bespeak of an extraordinarily humble, decent, ethical and scholarly man, senators Kennedy, Schumer and Co. have strained to convince us he is an unethical rogue, among other things.

Held in contempt:  During his first round of questioning, [Senator] Biden spent 24 of his 30 minutes talking, allowing only about six minutes for Alito to answer.  Some conversation.  Maybe Biden should have talked (dare we say filibustered?) even more.  When he, and his liberal colleagues on the committee, allowed Alito to speak, the nominee easily answered every question they threw his way.  Perhaps that's because they didn't have much to challenge him with.

And the winner is — Alito.  After a full day of interrogation by Senate Judiciary, it's a good bet Sam Alito will be confirmed — but a better bet Joe Biden is never going to be president. … Can no one shut this man down?  Friends don't let friends go on like this.

One man's judicial activism is another's sound interpretation.  The Democrats say they're worried Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito is "a judicial activist."  At first glance, that suggestion seems about as plausible as New York Sen. Charles Schumer's description of the mild-mannered 3rd Circuit judge as "strident."

Lauer Gives Extremist Tag to Alito:  "He Is an Ultra-Conservative".  On Tuesday's [01/10/2005] Today, co-host Matt Lauer applied an extreme ideological tag to Supreme Court nominee Sam Alito, telling former Senator Fred Thompson: "Let's face it, he is an ultra-conservative and his track record on the bench is that he, he, [talking over Thompson] he goes to the right on key issues."

"Today" show's Lauer calls Alito "ultra-conservative".  If Lauer calls Alito an "ultra-conservative," does he ever use the term "ultra-liberal"?  The liberal ADA — Americans For Democratic Action — scores members of Congress from 0 to 100, with 100 meaning most liberal. … Under the ADA rating, for example, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., receives an ADA rating of 100; Sen. Kennedy scores a 100; and Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisc., rates a 100.  Would Lauer refer to them as "ultra-liberals"?

Alito not extremist enough for left.  But for the seriousness of the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, it would be comical to observe the cries of extremism against Alito from those who argue that he would support President Bush in establishing a near monarchy.

Confirm Judge Samuel Alito.  With today's nomination [10/31/2005] of Judge Samuel Alito to the United States Supreme Court, President George W. Bush has fulfilled a promise made to the American people in 2004: He has nominated an exceptional jurist and scholar with a proven fidelity to the Constitution in the mold of Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia.

Democrats decry Bush's choice of Alito for US high court.  Opposition Democrats geared up for a fight over conservative judge Samuel Alito, President George W. Bush's choice to fill a Supreme Court vacancy.

A Good Choice.  In one respect, Samuel Alito is a more reassuring nominee even than John Roberts was. ... His opinions marry sound judicial philosophy with careful legal craftsmanship.  President Bush deserves credit for having the good judgment to nominate him.

Abortion Advocates Worried by Alito Nomination.  The pro-abortion group Planned Parenthood announced its disappointment over President Bush's nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

[That's a good sign.]

Alito called a 'fair-minded judge'.  Samuel Alito Jr., President Bush's latest nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, has been known as "Scalito" because he reminds people of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, but he is quieter and less predictable than the sharp-tongued justice.

Dangerously Radical:  The feminist left is outraged that judge Samuel Alito voted in 1991 to uphold a Pennsylvania law that would have required married women to notify their husbands of a decision to abort. … Planned Parenthood called Alito's vote "callous disregard of battered women." … A woman writing in the Philadelphia Daily News said Alito's vote in the case proved he is "dangerously radical."  Yet this attack is all wrong on the facts.  There was no callous disregard for women.

The Democrats' Plan to Defeat Alito Nomination:  Let us be candid.  The real issue, which you will hear discussed in code at the hearings, is abortion.  O'Connor's vote implemented Roe v. Wade.  The Left fears that Alito might vote to overturn that ruling.  The Left didn't spend a dime to oppose Judge Roberts.  It has between $30 million and $50 million (depending upon whom you believe) in the bank to oppose Judge Alito.

Irrelevant questions:  The recent announcement by Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter that confirmation hearings on Judge Samuel Alito have been postponed until January was only the latest in a series of painful examples of what happens when Senate Republicans wimp out.

Let the Borking Begin.  Rather than admit that they oppose him on ideological or philosophical grounds, special interest groups and liberal Democrats instead choose the low road.  Lamenting that they had allowed the President's nominee for chief justice to sail through a confirmation with little controversy, this time they have decided to engage in a smear campaign.

A Narrowed Rift:  [Harriet] Miers, a woman of many fine qualities, was perceived as simply lacking the constitutional sophistication to withstand the pressures of a liberal Court majority and its allies in the academy and the media sufficiently to help bring the Court back from its self-assumed role as a political rather than a legal institution.  Everything we know about Judge Alito, which, admittedly, is not all there is to know, indicates that he is the man to do just that.

Substitute Any Other Group and the Liberals Would Be Howling.  The world's largest news service, the Associated Press, sent out a story today with an alarming headline that the appointment of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court would "tip" the Supreme Court to Catholics.  The story went on to identify the religion of each member of the court and indicated Alito's appointment as another indication that "Catholics have become part of the nation's political mainstream."

The "extremism" of Judge Sam Alito:  In short, an "extremist" — to a liberal — simply means someone with whom they disagree.

Counterattacking for Alito.  Red state Democratic senators, especially those up for re-election next year, face a dilemma in deciding how to vote on confirmation.  The liberal pressure groups orchestrating the attack on Alito are central to the political health of the Democratic Party.  But identification with them could be fatal in closely contested Senate races.

Liberals Can't Solidify Alito Opposition.  So far this year, the civil rights and women's groups opposed to President Bush's conservative court nominees have been rebuffed, rebuked and rejected.  And that's just by Senate Democrats.

Who is Samuel Alito?  Born April 1, 1950, in Trenton, New Jersey, Judge Alito has amassed an impressive list of accomplishments.

Statement of Eugene Delgaudio on Kennedy's Attacks on Alito.  "It was almost comical to hear Ted Kennedy lecturing Judge Alito on Ethics.  I half expect to next see Bill Clinton lecturing him on sexual morality or President Bush lecturing him on proper grammatical usage!"

The Smear that Failed.  It will be nice to have another justice on the Supreme Court who can put aside personal predilections and stick to interpreting the law.

Chocolate City' Sprinkled With Nuts.  This week, we found out Sen. Teddy Kennedy still belongs to an organization that doesn't admit women.  Oh — also, he killed a girl.  I'm fairly certain I've mentioned that before — I don't recall, Mr. Chairman — but I don't understand why everyone doesn't mention it every time Senator Drunkennedy has the audacity to talk about how "troubled" and "concerned" he is about this or that nominee.  I bet Mary Jo was "troubled" and "concerned" about the senator leaving her in trapped in a car under water while he went back to the hotel to create an alibi.

Attack dogs:  The boy who cried "Wolf" at least took the precaution of doing so when there was no alleged predator in view.  If he'd stood there crying "Wolf" while pointing at a hamster, he would have been led away for counseling.  That's the stage the Senate Democrats are at.

The '60s Cultural Divide is Still Visible in Alito Hearings.  Ted Kennedy took the party's conventional post-60s stance against law enforcement, accusing the government of "Gestapo-like" tactics in counterterrorism programs.  Republican Lindsey Graham expressed alarm at the threat of terror.  Democrats Patrick Leahy and Russell Feingold sounded alarmed by counterterrorism.

Democrats tried to smear Alito.  The contingent of Democratic senators, with no substantive arguments to question the stellar credentials of Alito, chose instead to smear him, and of course the brush that liberals predictably reach for in smear operations is racism.

The Harriet Miers subsection:

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.

It's Morning in America!  Since Harriet Miers withdrew her nomination to the Supreme Court, Democratic senators such as Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, and Dick Durbin — i.e. all the people who had absolutely nothing to do with Miers' withdrawal — have been blanketing the airwaves with demands that Bush must now accede to their commands.

Bring on the Mother of All Judicial Battles.  This was never really about Harriet Miers, her gender, whether she was "qualified," what schools she went to, whether she was a "conservative," or any of the other blather drummed up by the media.  It was about a missed opportunity.  It was about the fact that there were so many better candidates for the job.

Conservatives Pleased; Liberals Worried.  "It's been a difficult few weeks for the president, his conservative base, and Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers herself, said American Values President Gary Bauer on Thursday [10/27/2005].  Bauer said President Bush did the right thing and showed "real leadership" in accepting Miers' withdrawal.

Dems might have voted yes for Miers.  Senate Democrats and their allies outside of Congress were powerless to prevent White House Counsel Harriet Miers from withdrawing her nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.  They might have preferred Miers to whomever President Bush selects next.

The Right Stares Down the White House, and Wins.  By taking a lead role in sinking the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers, the conservative wing of the Republican Party declared its independence from the White House and asserted its claim to steer the party rightward even after the George W. Bush era.

ACU Statement on Miers' Withdrawal.  "It is now time for the President to move forward with the selection of a Supreme Court nominee who possesses a thorough understanding of the Constitution and who has the intellectual strength to strictly interpret the framers' original intent."

Miers May Have Helped Save Bush's Presidency.  By withdrawing her nomination, Harriet Miers spared herself an agonizing inquisition and probable rejection by the Senate and did George W. Bush the greatest service of her career.

Miers writings show no aptitude.  Of all the words written about Harriet Miers, none are more disturbing than the ones she wrote herself.  In the early '90s, while she was president of the Texas bar association, Miers wrote a column called "President's Opinion" for The Texas Bar Journal.  It is the largest body of public writing we have from her, and sad to say, the quality of thought and writing doesn't even rise to the level of pedestrian.

Questions About Miers For President Bush:  Do you understand why Bush supporters are upset that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (who voted against Chief Justice Roberts) said he recommended her, while you rejected the recommendations of people who supported you?

Trust, but verify.  This appears to be the future of judicial nominees named by conservative Republican presidents.  We can't have a debate about critical legal and moral issues, because a nominee clearly on the conservative side might not be confirmed.

Disappointed, but still hopeful.  I was counting on the president to nominate a well-known originalist scholar.  Since he can pick whomever he chooses, why not select not only a strict constructionist, but someone well known to be among the very cream of the judicial crop?  More than a handful of potential nominees fill that bill, including Michael Luttig, Michael McConnell, Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, Edith Jones and others.  Few court watchers I know of considered Miers to be in that elite group.

Considered, confirmed originalism is not elitism.  Unfortunately, some conservative observers of the Miers nomination have fallen into an anti-elitist trap.  They correctly distrust over-intellectualizing — or at least the snooty, pseudo-intellectualism that emanates from the academic Left.

Bush takes a huge gamble on nominee.  After the nomination of John Roberts, Bush boosters hailed the president for bucking the political imperative of selecting a woman or a minority and for instead caring above all about high qualifications.  They now have to take all that back.  We don't know much yet about Harriet Miers, except that she is the anti-Roberts, a nominee whose credentials are less than sterling and whose qualifications for the Court are less than obvious.

Mystery-woman Miers:  New clues to her resume.  Harriet Miers, President Bush's nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court to replace Sandra Day O'Connor, is on record as supporting the establishment of the International Criminal Court, homosexual adoptions, a major local tax increase and women in combat, WorldNetDaily has learned.

The Conservative movement is dead.  The appointments of John Roberts as chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and Harriet Miers as associate justice serve as the epitaphs for the political movement.  But even before these betrayals, conservatism was on life support.  It could not have survived the irresponsible spending by the Republican Congress, approved by the president during the last five years.

Who was the 2nd choice?  Democracy sometimes leads to silly laws such as the one that prohibited married couples from buying contraception in Connecticut.  But allowing Americans to vote has never led to creches being torn down across America.  It's never led to prayer being purged from every public school in the nation.  It's never led to gay marriage.  It's never led to returning slaves who had escaped to free states to their slavemasters.  And it's never led to 30 million dead babies.

Public Advocate Opposes Appointment of Miers.  The President's nomination of Miers is a betrayal of the conservative, pro-family voters whose support put Bush in the White House in both the 2000 and 2004 elections and who were promised Supreme Court appointments in the mold of Thomas and Scalia.  Instead we were given "stealth nominees," who have never ruled on controversial issues, more in the mold of the disastrous choice of David Souter by this President's father.

Miers gave to Gore and Bentsen.  Harriet Miers, President Bush's new nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, donated money to Democratic politicians in the late '80s, Federal Election Commission records show.  According to FEC data, Miers has contributed a total of $14,770 to candidates and special-interest groups since 1987.  Of that amount, $3,000 went to Democrats.

After Miers nomination, rumbling left and right.  Harriet Miers credentials are, shall we say, modest. … President Bush's introduction on Monday [10/3/2005] smacked of resume padding. … And, President Bush noted, as head of the Texas Lottery Commission Miers "insisted on a system that was fair and honest."  That's a bit like saying that, as head of the water authority, she insisted tap water be fit for human consumption; it's the right position but hardly a profile in courage.

President Bush's "Trust Me" pick.  Who is Harriet Miers?  President Bush's White House counsel, the woman who could fill Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's seat, is a completely unknown quantity.  Except for the fact that Miers has helped out Meals on Wheels, we know nothing about her.

Saving Face.  It's no secret that I think the Harriet Miers nomination was a mistake. … The president's mistake was thinking he could sneak a reliable conservative past the liberal litmus tests (on abortion, above all) by nominating a candidate at once exceptionally obscure and yet exceptionally well known to him.

Why should conservative Senators support Miers?  [President Bush] promised he would name justices in the mold of Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia.  Many voters supported Bush on the strength of this promise.  So, did he keep it or break it when he named his former personal attorney and current White House counsel to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor?  The public record does not come close to demonstrating that Miers is a Scalia-Thomas constitutionalist.  Some of it, in fact, points to the opposite conclusion.

A Bunt, Not a Swing for the Fences.  Bush's selection — for a decisive swing seat on the court — of a longtime aide with virtually no public record on constitutional issues left both parties in a state of highly agitated confusion and immediately visible division.  "The word would be flummoxed," said Colleen Parro, executive director of the Republican National Coalition for Life.  "We don't have any idea how she would measure up, because she doesn't have any available record."

No religious test.  Bush's statement leaves the definite impression that Harriet Miers' religion was one of the reasons he selected her.  Now, as president he is sworn to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution.  The Constitution (Article VI) states that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

This is what "advice and consent" means.  Harriet Miers went to Southern Methodist University Law School, which is not ranked at all by the serious law school reports and ranked No. 52 by US News and World Report.  Her greatest legal accomplishment is being the first woman commissioner of the Texas Lottery.

The Miers Support Team is Gloomy and Demoralized.  Strategists working with the White House in support of the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers are becoming increasingly demoralized and pessimistic about the nomination's prospects on Capitol Hill in the wake of Miers's meetings with several Republican and Democratic senators.

McCain's Blunder:  There are not enough Republican votes in the Senate to win an ideological fight over a nominee like Michael Luttig, Edith Jones, or Janice Rogers Brown.

Miers is the wrong pick.  There is no reason to believe that Miers' nomination resulted from the president's careful consultation with people capable of such judgments.  If 100 such people had been asked to list 100 individuals who have given evidence of the reflectiveness and excellence requisite in a justice, Miers' name probably would not have appeared in any of the 10,000 places on those lists.

Miers land had liens.  The failure of Miers, a former Dallas City Council member, to comply with city law and her slow response in reimbursing the city run counter to her image as a meticulous, detail-oriented attorney who is always well prepared.

Harriet who?  Conservatives who have for years contributed time, money, and sweat to help elect Republicans have often been justifiably outraged at the way the Republicans have then let them down, wimped out, or even openly betrayed the promises on which they were elected.  Much of that frustration and anger is now being directed at President Bush for his nomination of White House counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

Retreat.  If Harriet Miers were not a crony of the president of the United States, her nomination to the Supreme Court would be a joke, as it would have occurred to no one else to nominate her. … Nominating a constitutional tabula rasa to sit on what is America's constitutional court is an exercise of regal authority with the arbitrariness of a king giving his favorite general a particularly plush dukedom.

A timid and tepid pick.  The truth is that most Americans like conservative judges — you don't have to sneak them in under the radar.  The Bork debacle is ancient history.  (And most Americans would have liked him if they hadn't been so misled by smears.)

Supreme Court Will Be Bush's Legacy.  With the selection of John G. Roberts Jr. as the 17th chief justice of the United States and the nomination of Harriet E. Miers for associate justice, President Bush's presidency has the potential to be defined by a decades-lasting conservative shift in the Supreme Court.  And Bush may have the chance to name two more Supreme Court justices in the remaining three years of his second term.

Bork calls Miers nomination a 'disaster'.  "So far as anyone can tell she has no experience with constitutional law whatever.  Now it's a little late to develop a constitutional philosophy or begin to work it out when you're on the court already."

Conservatives urge Bush to withdraw Supreme Court nominee Miers.  Conservative outrage over President George Bush's controversial pick of Texas lawyer Harriet Miers to fill a vacancy on the US Supreme Court was unabated Sunday [10/9/2005] as activists called on the White House to withdraw her nomination.

Does this law degree make my resume look fat?  A Supreme Court nomination may not have been the ideal time for Laura Bush to start acting like "Buy One, Get One Free" Hillary Clinton.  At least President Clinton only allowed his wife to choose the attorney general.  (Remember the good old days when first ladies only got to pick the poet laureate and the White House china pattern?)

Dobson Clarifies Insight Offered by White House on Nominee Miers.  [Paul] Weyrich remembers Richard Nixon saying "trust me" about Harry Blackmun, who authored the majority opinion on Roe v. Wade during his tenure on the high court; Gerald Ford saying "trust me" about John Paul Stevens; and former U.S. Solicitor General Ken Starr saying "trust me" on Sandra Day O'Connor.  And he recalls similar assurances about now-Supreme Court justices Anthony Kennedy and David Souter.

Our Political Federal Courts:  Clearly we are not asking the right questions about Supreme Court nominees.  The issue is not how candidates intend to wield judicial power, but rather whether they understand that the Constitution imposes limits on that power in the first place.  We are guilty of permitting our federal courts to become politicized, when the proper role of those courts is to protect us from the very abuses that arise from politics.

More thoughts on Miers.  It is perfectly legitimate (and healthy) for conservatives to register their disapproval of the president's selection.  They (we) can bellow against it to their heart's content.  But they best not advocate that the Senate reject Miers just because they believe she may not be the most qualified for the position.

Miers, Bush, and a Discourse of Constitutionalism.  President Bush may have asked conservatives to just trust him one too many times.  On issues from the No Child Left Behind Act to prescription drugs, Bush has pulled his party along with policies many found distasteful by promising big political payoffs which have yet to materialize and (conservatives suspect) never will.  With Miers, they are being asked to make the biggest gamble yet.

Is Anything Not Interstate Commerce?  It is doubtful a single member of Congress — except Rep. Ron Paul, Texas Republican — truly wants a Supreme Court that is serious about the Constitution's limits on congressional power.

The Clarence Thomas subsection:

Clarence Thomas:  Clarence Thomas' own experiences shocked him into a realization that "affirmative action" and other policies being pushed by civil rights organizations and by liberals generally were doing more harm than good, both to blacks and to American society.  In an era when so many people have neither the time nor the patience to examine arguments and evidence, critics have tried to dismiss Clarence Thomas as someone who "sold out" in order to advance himself.

The Real Clarence Thomas:  What he brings to the court as no other justice does is a characteristically American skepticism of social engineering plans promoted by elites — whether in the media, academia or well-heeled lobbies in Washington — and a respect for individual self-reliance and individual choice.  He writes not to be praised by professors or pundits, but for the American people.

Clarence Thomas is not the hypocrite.  With the release of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' memoir, "My Grandfather's Son," all of the old smears directed against him since his confirmation hearings 16 years ago are once again being trotted out.  That he's "incompetent."  That he's "not qualified."  That the only reason he was appointed is because he's black.  In other words, that he's a product of affirmative action or, more precisely, an "affirmative action hire."

This is not a democracy.

Jump to the material about the Ten Commandments
Jump to the material about Property seizures
Jump to Lower-Level Judges and Lawyers in General
Back to the Home page

Bookmark and Share

Document location
Updated July 30, 2018.

Entire contents ©2018 by Andrew K. Dart Page design by Andrew K. Dart  ©2018