Bush’s Supreme Court Choice Angers Those Looking for a Fight
By Mary Mostert (10/06/05)
Throughout the 2004 election and right up until President Bush announced his latest pick for the Supreme Court millions of words have been written in the media and on both the right and the left about the battle that would take place when George W. Bush nominated a Supreme Court justice.
Then – he nominated John Roberts to become Chief Justice. The expected battle fizzled out during the televised hearings of Judge Roberts before the Senate Judiciary committee. Without notes and with a calm and unruffled demeanor Judge Roberts easily answered scores of questions thought up by scores of Senate staff members who combed thousands of pages containing written statements on court cases Roberts was involved in for the past 23 years.
He not only refused politely and consistently to tell the senators how he would rule on a variety of issues they brought up but also reminded them repeatedly that judicial ethics PROHIBITED him from answering their prying questions. In the end, the great battle over his nomination never really got off the ground and he was approved with a 77-22 bipartisan majority.
However, we were told by the media that the NEXT Supreme Court battle would be far more contentious. It would be a BIG battle. And, then President Bush nominated Harriet Miers, who does not have a judicial record. Also, like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who, though a known liberal, was approved 97-0, she was actually recommended to the President by the minority leader of the Senate from the opposing party as an “acceptable” candidate. Just as Republican conservative Orrin Hatch suggested Ruth Bader Ginsberg as a candidate that was sufficiently acceptable to win approval, this time Democrat liberal Harry Reid suggested Harriet Miers as an acceptable candidate that at least some Democrats will approve.
The President has said Miers was an “an American of grace, judgment and unwavering devotion to the Constitution and laws of our country.” He tells us that HE knows the woman he’s known and worked with for more than a decade and “will not legislate from the bench.” For those spoiling for a big fight, both liberals and some claiming to be conservatives, this was a huge disappointment. What both sides appear to have thought the most important qualification for the next Supreme Court Justice was someone who would divide the nation as much as possible. After all, big fights always make money for the media.
The homosexual rights organization Lambda questioned Miers' “commitment to equality and fairness for all Americans, including lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people” whereas another homosexual rights group, the Human Rights Campaign thought Miers' response on a 1989 questionnaire in which she stated she believe homosexuals and lesbians should have equal “civil rights” indicated she “is more fair-minded than our opponents are hoping.”
A “civil right” is a right defined in law by a government – such as who has the right to vote (limited to white males in the original US Constitution,) who has the right to public education, who can own property, etc. Neither the sexual behavior of homosexuals, which once was called “sodomy” nor the sexual behavior of adulterers has ever been legislatively approved sexual behavior in the USA and thereby legislated “civil rights.” On the other hand, in modern times neither of them was denied the right to vote or the right to a trial by jury, the right to own property or to enjoy any other Civil Rights protected by the Constitution as defined by previous legislatures and courts.
Why, then, would there be such a concern on both sides of this question as has developed over Harriet Miers? Is it because of a fear that a NEW civil right may be CREATED by the Supreme Court, only for homosexuals, by changing the definition of the word “marriage” just as a new civil right to abortion was created in 1973 to allow women to kill their unborn babies?
In spite of the clever writings of the homosexual lobby and many in the media, no civil right has been legislatively created in America for a man to marry a man or a woman to marry a woman. Laws in EVERY state have ALWAYS assumed that marriage was between a man and a woman – and all of them even limit them to prevent a man from marrying his sister, or mother, or aunt, or stepmother, etc. Those who were looking forward to a huge, bruising battle on Roe v Wade and same-sex marriage have been disappointed because the President has chosen someone he trusts who will not legislate from the bench, and there are a lot of people who think they ought to be able to make the President do what THEY would do if they were president.
Years ago George W Bush hired another person he felt he could trust to find the ideal vice-presidential candidate. Eventually he decided that the person he’d chosen to LOOK for the perfect vice presidential candidate WAS the perfect vice presidential candidate – Dick Cheney. They have been a great team.
Again, it appears, George W. Bush has decided that the best person to BE the next Supreme Court justice was the woman who was SEARCHING for the next Supreme Court candidate, and who found John Roberts. Would the person who found and urged the appointment of John Roberts turn out to be either a closet liberal or a right wing ideologue bent on bending the Constitution to fit her personal prejudices? I don’t think so.
Ideologue liberals and conservatives who were looking forward to war over the next Supreme Court nomination and have been caught off guard by President Bush’s choice of Harriet Miers, a candidate of character, accomplishment and unity. She was actually recommended by Minority Leader Harry Reid. But, neither side can figure out exactly how she is going to vote on issues coming before the court, nor will she tell them.
Sounds to me like Harriet Miers is exactly the kind of judge we need on the Supreme Court.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Mary Mostert
