SwiftVets.com

[USS Endicott]

My problem with this nomination is that we are told to just trust the President and that is all we need to know. I'm sorry, but it's like the folks at the White House think they are the adults and the constituents are the kids and kids are to be seen and not heard. Why would I put my faith in someone whos nomination was approved by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. If Harry wants her in office, I have my doubts about her. If she is a stealth candidate, then she is a stealth candidate for the left as President Bush has no reason to nominate a stealth candidate. She may be a great person and make a great Supreme Court Justice. It's nice to hear that she is religious, but that should not be the only thing we need to know. The problem is that nobody knows where she stands on most issues. She has not been a strong, vocal supporter of Constitutional judges. Does she believe in the 2nd Amendment and will she uphold it. How does she feel about the whole Kelo Vs New London debacle. Will she back the current land-grabbers on the court? Roe V Wade should be a states right issue, and I wouldn't mind seeing the issue returned to the states, but it is not the only issue out there. The President says that he knows her and she will be loyal to him. I don't want a justice that will remain loyal to President Bush, I want a justice that will uphold the Constitution. If the President is playing politics to protect Tom Delay, which I really don't believe, that is even worse than selecting her just because she's a friend.

Maybe I've missed it, but President Bush has not struck me as being a strong Constitutionalist. The President is great when it comes to dealing with terrorists, but when it comes to protecting the borders of the United States he falls flat on his face. One of the reasons I had considered not voting for President Bush a second time was because of his open borders and amnesty policies, the liberal amounts of money he spends, the fact that he didn't veto McCain Feingold, his seeming lack of concern for the environment. There were two strong factors that decided me: the President's strong stand against terrorists and the fact that the idea of a Kerry presidency was absolutely revolting to me.

I guess this debate does disabuse the notion that Republicans march in lock-step with the President.
_________________
"God Bless America and keep watch over our military personnel. Thanks to all who have served and are serving now!" from a California American.

[msindependent]

i'm shocked by how some of the right wing pundits found it so easy to turn on the nomination of miers. it's not to attractive and i for one will remember their antics. they credit themselves with putting w into office? how about the soccer moms, hispanics and worried about terror moderates? what about independent thinkers who lean to the right when it comes to taxes and the war? what about the people who were just sick of the democrats and their constant ugly rantings? what about the people who think kerry and his ted kennedy friends or hollywood pals were bogus? please, these right wing pundits aren't the only ones who voted for w. the lady is qualified - period. i'm looking forward to hearing what miers has to say at her hearings. i feel it might be nice to have a non elite supreme, but will hold my judgement until the hearings. in the mean time, i think some of the extreme right wing critics should be ashamed of themselves.

[srmorton]

I usually love Laura Ingraham, but I can hardly listen to her show lately.
She was very critical of John Roberts until his brilliant performance in the
hearings no longer made it possible to criticize him. I know that Laura
herself is a brilliant woman, a lawyer, and a former clerk for Judge
Thomas. IMO, if she were not a "political" person, I would think that she
is qualified for the SCOTUS, but she says that she is not. It makes me
wonder just what she thinks the Consitution says about the qualifications
for the SCOTUS. All I can find is that the person be appointed by the
POTUS with the advice and consent of the Senate. She kept saying on
her show yesterday that HM was not "our" choice. WE do not get to
choose. The choice is up to the POTUS. She was having callers call
in "voting" on whether or not GWB should pull the nomination. The
calls were running 9:1 for pulling the nomination, but she should know
by now that GWB is NOT going to do that, barring the discovering of
something really scandalous or illegal in her background. I find it so
disappointing that so many of the conservative pundits (NOT including
Rush, although he is included in when the MSM mentions them) do not
even want to allow her to go through the hearings. It does not seem
to me to be "fair and balanced" for so many to deny her a chance to
make her case before the Senate Judiciary Committee. If she falls on
her face, it will be obvious that she should not be elevated to the
Supreme Court.

What really gets me is those that refuse to blame the ones that are
truly responsible for this debacle - the infamous "gang of 14". Had
they not made that agreement, the filibuster would be gone and GWB
could have nominated anyone he wanted. Another thing that annoys
me are the ones that keep bringing up McCain-Finegold. (Notice how
McCain's name keeps cropping up whenever trouble for the Bush
administration is mentioned.) I firmly believe that GWB signed that
bill because he believed in his heart that the SCOTUS would find at least
parts of it unconstitutional. Thanks to SDOC, it was found constitutional.
I think he feels confident that HM would not concur with that opinion.

If you think of the wonderful judges he has nominated in the past five
years, many of which have been vilified by the Dems and the MSM, you
can not possibly believe that he would choose someone not in that mold
for the most important court in the land? Just to nominate a "crony'???
He does not want to get burned as his father did. He has to be satisfied
in is own mind that the person is going to decide each case before her
on its merits with the Consitution as the only basis for her decision. As
for me, until I am proven wrong, I am more than willing to "trust" GWB
on the question of judges. BTW, even though I am a loyal Bush fan,
I too was upset when I first heard about his choice of HM. By the end
of that first day, I realized that GWB is alot more qualified to make these
decisions than I am!
_________________
Susan R. Morton

[Anker-Klanker]

Our Founding Fathers thought long and hard about the merits of Representative Democracy vs. Popular (or "pure") Democracy. The decided on the former because of the stability it offered (makes for some interesting reading). I think they were absolutely right as evidenced by history.

When they wrote the Constitution they made it very clear - no fuzziness there - exactly how the SCOTUS nomination/confirmation process works. Insofar as I can tell GWB has strictly followed his Presidential and Constitutional duties and responsibilities in making this choice.

So to the critics, I ask: Exactly what in our form of government and/or in our Constitution do you propose changing?

This is absolutely not a plebiscite, and the Constitution does not say anywhere that POTUS is supposed to consult with us, and especially the Washington-based pundits prior to making a SCOTUS nomination. In fact, the Representative Democracy form of government specifically is intended to insulate him from having to seek our approval on every decision he makes.

No, IMHO, this whole Harriet Miers fracas is not really about Harriet Miers at all. It has become obvious to me that the Washington Pundits, and the National Review crowd in particular, have somehow had their huge overblown egos deflated somewhere in the making of this nomination, and so have made it into an old-fashioned, mano y mano, public P'ing contest - it's become "NRO vs. GWB." And on pure principle, I'll back GWB every time on that one; I abhor the idea of an unelected "entity" with no accountability at all trying to make themselves a fourth branch of the government.