The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Doozie and Harriet

10.10.05 @ 12:01AM

MIERED IN WOE
Re: George Neumayr's Conformist Credentials:

Even great Presidents make mistakes -- like when Reagan appointed the supposedly conservative Sandra Day O'Connor. I make this statement to point out to the conservatives and Republicans that think that no matter who Bush nominates, they will be excellent for the Supreme Court. The real issue is not whether this woman is qualified, but that conservatives have been suckered before by stealth nominees who may have been conservative at one time, but who ended up taking the big left turn when they got on the bench. Why should we keep on gambling when there are sure winners out there? We have played this game before and are not willing to take any more chances. It is absurd to gamble on an unknown when there are so many qualified rock-solid conservatives out there to choose from. This appointment is a sign of weakness and a "safe" choice by Bush in order to avoid a real fight, and to help liberal Republicans from having to stand up and be counted by preserving the judicial filibuster. Those Republicans that want to keep the status quo and not have a real fight for the Supreme Court, thereby preserving the judicial filibuster are just spineless cowards who need to be voted out of office.
-- Anthony Sorrentino
Enterprise, Alabama

Well, George, you get an "A" for originality. After all, how best to outshine your fellow travelers, Will, Kristol, and Coulter, than by turning the argument on its head by calling Miers an establishment elitist. Bravo! What intellectual dexterity. Methinks you are a bit too fixated on Miers's role with the ABA. While I agree that the ABA is mostly inimical to conservative perspectives (hence my refusal to join for 25 years), nonetheless you'd be surprised at the number of conservative lawyers who actively participate. Why I bet even Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts have had associations with it at one time or another. It's sadly part of what one has to do if one wants to be a "player." Come on George, what else could she as chairman of the rules committee do? Ignore the requests of her colleagues because of her ideological opposition to them? This is a professional association, after all. How many media forums have you protested and walked out on because the tone was anti-conservative? And give me a break on the campaign donations; you think she's the first conservative that has had to play this game? I could say that as part of the "elite media," you yourself are suspect; after all, the vast majority of your "colleagues" are shameless liberals. But you and others have managed to withstand the liberal media hegemony, so cut Miers some slack. Maybe she's as stalwart as you are.
-- A. DiPentima

I disagree with George Neumayr's unfavorable comparison of Harriet Miers to Antonin Scalia.

There are times when Scalia has been dazzling, but has his jurisprudence really been a fount of clarity to which ordinary Americans can look for understanding the Court and the Constitution? I'm sorry, I don't think so. I think it has been, more often, eccentric and obscure, even as it might be headed in the right direction.

How does Miers compare in that regard? Let's see how she does at her confirmation hearings.

My expectations for her are high, not low. I expect that she will please conservatives, including the estimable George Neumayr.
-- Martin McPhillips

I oppose Harriet Miers because I wanted a female Antonin Scalia but instead I got a female Michael Brown.

Honestly, I do not care if it could be guaranteed that every Miers vote over the next 20 years will be to the right of Clarence Thomas. A Supreme Court nomination is more than just the vote -- it should be about moving the conservative ball down the field. We should use this particular nomination to conduct a national debate about whether conservatism or liberalism is best for this country.

The nomination of John Roberts did not bring about this debate. Nor has anything our side has done since the 1994 election. The Contract With America was the last such debate but we never followed up on that victory to seal the deal with the American population. Now the country thinks conservatism means invading Iraq, adding another mandate to Medicare and wasting money on pork.

With Harriet Miers we will not get this debate. Instead, her nomination hearing will obsess on her being a born again Christian and on the definition of crony. I say pull her nomination and do it right.
-- Michael Richards
Glastonbury, Connecticut

Excellent article. I, too, will be watching the Miers confirmation hearings gavel to gavel. With Ginsburg and Souter having endorsed the "don't discuss potential cases" mantra of Roberts, which echoed their own, Miers will have the power of silence to wield over the Judiciary Committee Democrats. So, the hearings will be interesting not for what Miers says, but for the ways that the Senate Democrats develop to cover themselves in embarrassment.

You might be interested in my article on Miers as well, "Harriet Miers and the 'Pigpen' Press."
-- John Armor

NO RUDY, NO HOW
Re: Lawrence Henry's Giuliani Time:

Rudy Giuliani cannot win the GOP presidential nomination. Aside for his pro-abortion position and support for much of the homosexual agenda, Giuliani also has a record of being anti-Second Amendment and lenient on illegal immigration. None of these positions work to his favor. They put him on the wrong side of the curve. Face it, the best Rudy can hope for is a cabinet position.
-- Peter Skurkiss
Stow, Ohio

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Taxes, Hillary Clinton, Social Security, Religion, Islam, Abortion, Books, Hollywood, Constitution, Law, Supreme Court, Iraq, Israel, NATO, Conservatism, Immigration, Medicare