When did Laura Bush become President?

Techniguy - 10-11-2005

Why did this latest Superior Court appointment have to be a woman? Because the left said so? Because Laura Bush said so? I thought appointing judges was the job of the President. When did Laura Bush become president? Why has she been out in the media voicing her preference for the appointment to be a woman? Since when is gender a prerequisite or a factor for a court appointment? Is Harriet Miers the best candidate for the position, or just the best woman for the position?

We need Federal judges who decide cases based on the evidence presented, case by case, and how they relate to the Constitution, not personal preferences based on gender. These judges are supposed to make rulings based on fact, not on feelings or sympathy for one gender or the other. So what if Miers is to replace Sandra Dey O'Connor who happened to be a woman? Is there something in the Constitution that says a woman on the court must be replaced by another woman? I don't think so, that was just what the left wanted.

What ever happened to 1st term Bush? We're not seeing much of him in the second term and I'm not happy with what I'm seeing, especially now with this gender oriented appointment. Even in the post appointment discussions I see conservatives who opposes the Miers appointment saying “he could have appointed Janis Rogers Brown or Pricilla Owens, if it had to be a woman. This simply shows that it is not a “woman” they oppose, but rather have serious questions about Miers qualifications.

Opponents of Miers have been called "sexists" by Republican supporters and even by our First Lady. This is just more rhetoric that usually comes from the left and I don't like seeing it among conservatives. Today on “The Today Show”, Matt Lauer asked Mrs. Bush:

"Some are suggesting there's a little possible sexism in the criticism of Harriet Miers. How would you feel about that?"

Mrs. Bush replied: “I think that's possible. I think she is so accomplished, and, you know, I think people are not looking at her accomplishments and not realizing that she was the first elected woman to be the head of the Texas Bar Association, for instance, and all the other things. She was the first woman, managing partner of a major law firm. She was the first woman hired by a major law firm, her law firm.”

So she’s made some breakthroughs into a male dominated profession and industry, good for her, but how does that qualify her as a conservative and constructionist judge? But it’s still all about her being a woman with the First Lady. What was she going to do with George if he appointed a man, make him sleep on the couch? How many other decisions by the President have been weakened lately by Mrs. Bush? Was she an influence in the President’s decision to open the US Treasure to New Orleans? Could she have anything to do with the President signing so many spending bills laden with pork? I have always loved Laura Bush and thought she was the ideal First Lady for the country but now I’m beginning to see something that does not agree with me and seems to either lean more toward the left than the right in her, or shows a lack of understanding of the judicial process and what a constitutional judge is supposed to do.

It is not "sexist" to question Miers qualifications and wonder if she is the best qualified person the President could have come up with. I have a problem with the field being limited to only women on this appointment. What is this, affirmative action on court appointees? Is Harriet Miers better qualified than William Prior? It's not that a woman was appointed that bothers me, it's that only women were considered for the job and I see this as either caving into the left by the President, or caving into his wife, I'm just not sure which. In any case, I don't want the left or the President's wife making these important decisions for the country, that is the President's job and his alone.

There is every possibility that Miers will be every bit as good for the conservative cause on the court as Prior, Owens, or Brown would be but we just don’t know for sure because of her lack of a track record on conservative issues. That is one of the two things that bother her opponents. The other, and perhaps the larger issue is that they wanted that fight in the Senate to once and for all settle who is in charge of this country now. This Miers appointment avoided that fight so that issue will remain unsettled even if the effect on the court and court policy has the same outcome. There are some important cases soon to be heard by the Supreme Court and I’m sure President Bush wanted to be sure to have his appointee seated by that time. Perhaps this is the reason he chose the path that he did. I believe he knows what he’s doing, I just don’t like the way it was done.


Techniguy’s Newsletters
To see other Newsletter articles, JOIN the mailing list, or be REMOVED from the list go to
http://www.techniguy.com/Newsletters
PLEASE NOTE: Email addresses used for this newsletter are not authorized for use in group mailing lists from your address book under any circumstances. Thank you for your cooperation. You are welcome to post Techniguy's Newsletters to groups ,blogs, and forward them to others on your mailing list.
http://www.techniguy.com
Site Meter