October 12, 2005

Two TN Senate Candidates on Miers

Yesterday I mentioned that I would be asking Ed Bryant along with other Senate candidates about Bush's choice of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court (per Bob Krumm's question).

I was specificially interested in Bryant's response due to his past experience on the House judiciary committee and potential future involvement (if elected) with any future choices.

I have received responses from both Bryant and Ford, Jr., and I present them both here for you to read.

From Ed Bryant:

President Bush’s nomination of Harriet Miers to fill the seat of retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor comes as we are engaged in a most significant dialogue – both in Washington and in the communities of Tennessee – about the impact the Supreme Court has on our nation and our values.

The usual left-wing critics have expressed skepticism at this nomination. However, some conservative voices have joined the criticism, albeit for different reasons.

Personally, I had hoped the President would nominate a person similar to now Chief Justice John Roberts. Someone with a clear and distinguished record of honoring the Constitution and not legislating from the bench. A jurist who reads the Constitution as it was written.

However, President Bush’s unconventional selection necessarily focuses us instead on having to first discover who Harriet Miers is.

The question for the U.S. Senate now becomes whether she is capable and qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. To cross this threshold, her judicial philosophy — how she would interpret the Constitution — must be determined.

As a prospective member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I believe these same standards ought to apply to all judicial nominees, whether the liberal nominee of a liberal president or the conservative nominee of a conservative president or, as we have here, a nominee without an ideology clearly defined by a record.

When the Miers’ confirmation hearings begin, both the Republican and Democrat members of the Committee will be asking tough questions. It is important to the process that no candidate for the highest court be “rubberstamped.” I sincerely hope that Miers is shown qualified and capable. As well, I trust she will demonstrate a strength and commitment to help redirect this court back to the Founders’ original vision of an apolitical judiciary which respects and follows the Constitution.

James Madison once wrote that the judicial branch of our government would be the “least dangerous”! Yet so far this year, we’ve seen controversial Supreme Court rulings such as a death penalty case overturned, in part, using foreign law, and a property rights ruling which ignores the plain language of the Fifth Amendment. I have been vocal in my disagreement with these rulings not just because I disagree with the policies they lead to, but because I honestly believe they were wrongly decided. What would Madison think?

Ultimately, we should move past ideological divides and return to nonpartisan confirmations, such as Antonin Scalia’s 98-0 confirmation, – and Harriet Miers’ nomination, once proven qualified, gives us that opportunity again.

From Harold Ford, Jr's campaign:

Not knowing much about Ms. Miers, I am interested in learning about the President’s nominee in the coming weeks. Ms. Miers and the President should expect a fair and rigorous review of her record. The fact that she has no experience as a judge and that she is replacing Justice O’Connor, the Court’s conservative model of fairness and open mindedness, will also warrant more direct questioning from the Senate about her philosophy, judicial temperament and positions on some of the most important and controversial issues the Court expects to consider. I look forward to hearing Ms. Miers answer the questions.

Update: I've also sent out requests for statements from Corker and Van Hilleary. I'll post those as I get them.

Comments:

Please Note! Failure to abide by the following may result in your comments being edited or deleted: Remain on topic. Foul language and/or personal attacks are not permitted. Excessive links (more than three per thread) must be approved first. If you do include a link in your comment, make sure it is a short link (go to tinyurl.com if it is too long). Try to keep comments to 125 words or less. Thank you.

That sounds like some mealy-mouth horsepuckey to me there, Ed Bryant.

What do you think of Bryant's response, Wylie? Is it about what you were expecting? I thought his people would've crafted something with a little more red meat.

If I were Van Hilleary I would issue a harsh statement on Miers and get to the Right of Ed on this.

Posted by: A. C. Kleinheider at October 12, 2005 04:33 PM

What's Bryant supposed to say AC? Should he just completely dismiss her without first hearing what she says at her nomination hearings. I think most conservatives are disappointed with Mier's nomination, but it's irresponsible for a Senator to just dismiss her without getting all the information.

Posted by: GOPgurl at October 12, 2005 04:59 PM

Well, I'm not saying he should go off half-cocked and trash the woman. But there were things he could've said about Bush's decision-making process that would've indicated he knew the score and indicated that he was willing to subtly rebuke the POTUS when it is quite clear he should be. Bryant didn't do any of that and I am dissapointed.

The problem isn't Miers the person. It is quite possible that she will be a fine justice. But the fact is she hasn't paid dues enough to get this appointment. That's just truth.

The President picked her because she is a woman and she had no paper trail. What does that say to young male conservative lawyers who are paying their dues, joining the Federalist Society, fighting the good fight? Bush essentially flipped the bird to every resumed conservative jurist in America and he should be called out, however subtly, by a man trying to win the votes of conservatives in a Republican Primary.

Posted by: A. C. Kleinheider at October 12, 2005 06:21 PM

Here's an interesting read regarding lack of paper trails and justices who tend to move to the left:
http://tinyurl.com/834sj

Posted by: Blake at October 12, 2005 06:27 PM

That is a good article and the points made are solid and the fear that Miers's judicial philosophy will "evolve" (to the extent that she has one) is real.

However, in certain respects it's not even about that. Her evangelical Christianity and pathological loyalty to Bush may very well keep her "in line." But even if we had a crystal ball and were assured of "proper" rulings for the next twenty years, she still hasn't earned the position.

Bush ducked from a fight and his capitulation concedes the point that a creditialed conservative cannot be nominated and that affirmative action in judicial nominees is proper. On both those points, Miers should be opposed regardless of ideology or philosophy.

Senators SHOULDN'T confirm or deny a nominee based on ideology. A President should be able to appoint who they want as long as they are qualified and not wildly outside the mainstream. Miers nomination is a concession to the Left on that point. It's unacceptable.

Posted by: A. C. Kleinheider at October 12, 2005 06:54 PM

"As a prospective member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.."

Hold yer horses, there, Mr. Bryant.

Posted by: joe public at October 12, 2005 08:54 PM

My name is Jeff Moder and I'm a Tennessee Republican running for the U.S. Senate. I posted the following on my campaign blog Monday, Oct. 3.

"With the announcement of Harriet Miers to replace Justice O'Connor, I feel just like a number of conservatives across the country. I'm hopeful and disappointed.

Hopeful that Ms. Miers is truly as conservative as the President has promised. Disappointed that she is not clearly what the President promised -- a justice in the mold of Scalia or Thomas. If confirmed, Miers could turn out to be everything we worked and hoped for, and more. Or she could be a another Souter or Kennedy. We just don't know.

Republicans may not have another opportunity like this to shape the court for a very long time. There are a number of clear conservatives that could have been chosen, including Sam Alito, Michael Luttig, Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown. Any of these choices make it much less of a guessing game.

Republicans control the White House and both houses of Congress. It's time we start making decisions that reflect the values and ideals of those voters that made this possible. If we don't, we could easily find ourselves in the minority because we'll have disillusioned our conservative base so much, they'll stay home for the next election."

The only addition I would make to my above comments in the week and a half since my original post is that appointment of judges is a constitutional right of the President. And even though we all have specific ideas about our own choices for that important position, it is not our choice to make. I will support the President and remain hopeful about Harriet Miers.

--Jeff Moder
Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate
www.jeffmoder.com

Posted by: Jeff Moder at October 13, 2005 11:27 AM