Those that know me, know my political pursuasion. In this era of judicial activism and elitist politics, there is no exception that Harriet Meirs fills a void in the court - that of a person that comes from an "everyday" person lifestyle. She has never been a Washington elitist and has only been part of the establishment for 6 months. That being said, I have to stongly echo the sentiments of Charles Krauthammer in his op-ed for the Washington Post - remove this nomination.
Harriet Meirs has produced the largest uprising in the Republican party since President Bush betrayed the party by signing the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform bill in 2002. Gee, was that a political move to win seats in the midterm elections?
President Bush needs to find a female John Roberts, or even a minority non-female John Roberts. There is no question that his political weight with the conservative wing of the party is floundering. Bush must be loyal to the base which elected him and will push to elect his replacement.
Harriet Meirs may have the effervescent feel of a conservative candidate, but she lacks the necessary legal backbone from which the Senate may draw on for advice and consent. Certainly, liberals and conservatives alike can see that this nominee has prima facia status, but she lacks the de facto credentials necessary to act in the mold of Scalia or Thomas.
We must also consider the position for which she is replacing. Justice Sandra Day O'Conner has never been considered a hard line conservative (nor do I think Reagan intended her to be when she was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1981). Instead, she brought with her mainstream value America, that same American that led Reagan to capture so many Reagan Democrats in 1984. Bush has not considered the O'Conner factor when appointing Meirs. She doesn't come from the West, she comes from the land of Oil, Business, Big Business and even bigger Business.
So, we come back to where we began. Does Meirs have the understanding necessary to convince the majority United States Senate that she is the woman for the job? Can she really get to the bottom of judicial activism, bench legislation, and decide on the side of the Constitution (not her social agenda) when deciding on cases that will come before the High Court? Can Harriet Meirs, who has never been the judge in any case ever, decide what is right based on her sound legal reasoning and "years" of experience of Constitutional Studies?
This conservative thinks no. Mr. Bush - withdraw this nomination. Choose a Janice Rogers Brown (could have been the first black female Supreme Court Justice) or an Edith Brown Clement, or an Edith Hollan Jones or someone else that has already demonstrated through many years of legal rulings that they will act in the mold of Scalia or Thomas. Mr. President - pick someone that will show some bright spot to your dismal presidential legacy. Choose a conservative that can prove that he or she is a conservative in the LAW.
We have taken numerous interior pictures of the house, but there really isn't much to see except 2x4s and interior wire. Over the weekend, I wired the house for multi-room audio and structured wiring bundles. I also installed the central vacuum ductwork. If you're unsure what all that can do, look here. We also put insullation in the wall between the Master Bedroom and the Family room. In the process, I cracked the drain pipe between the tub and the sink in the girls bathroom. I hope nobody notices :)
