Home Store In Memoriam Deborah Newsletter Forum Topics Blogfeed Blogroll Facebook MySpace Contact Us About

Hannity & Colmes' "Fair And Balanced" Analysis of Harriet Miers Nomination Runs The Gamut Of Conservative For Her Appointment and Conservative Against

Reported by Ellen - October 6, 2005

Democrats have been completely frozen out of any discussion about the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. Monday night was Mary Matalin, Tuesday was Ann Coulter and last night was Ken Starr, introduced only as "Dean of Pepperdine School of Law" and "Judge Starr." No mention of his controversial role during the Clinton Administration. No mention last night, even from Alan Colmes, about what Democrats might find troubling in Miers' nomination.

Unlike Coulter, who expressed grave doubts about Miers' qualifications, Starr said "Oh, I think she's terrific... She is enormously talented." He expressed surprise that anyone wouldn't be impressed by her credentials.

Colmes said she might be a great lawyer and a wonderful person but, "The question is, is she the most qualified person the president could have picked for this job?" Comment: It's a good question but it's more of a bi-partisan concern than a liberal or Democratic one. But it was the only question that Colmes raised or had time to raise.

Starr never answered a direct "Yes," that Miers is the most qualified candidate. Instead, he praised her "rich variety of experience at the practical level. It's hard to think in my mind of anyone who brings that set of qualities and experiences."

Hannity, however, was unconvinced. He complained about her lack of a record and that we don't know her judicial philosophy. Starr tried to assure him that Miers would be the kind of "originalist" judge conservatives are looking for.

Comment: While Hannity & Colmes debates whether or not Miers is conservative enough (a debate that will surely be replayed over and over until she is confirmed), a myriad of other aspects and concerns go unaddressed.

As a brilliant post on Attytood puts it, "George Bush wants Harriet Miers on the Supreme Court for one reason, and one reason alone. The president -- and his minions -- want to concentrate an unprecedented amount of power in the executive branch. And Bush wants to use that power to further take away your rights, to use the military to keep order here at home -- and God knows what else."

For example, Ken Mehlman said that Miers would know the importance of not letting the courts or the legislative branch “micromanage” the war on terrorism.

And, as the Boston Globe reported,

As President Bush's counsel, Harriet E. Miers continued the expansive interpretation of presidential powers favored by her predecessor, Alberto Gonzales, who backed Bush's authority to hold terrorist suspects without trial, as well as the White House's right to withhold more administration documents from public disclosure than in the past.

Miers has also been outspoken in her support of reauthorizing the Patriot Act, which gave the executive branch new powers of surveillance over US citizens.

And now Bush is talking about using the military in response to an Avian Flu outbreak.

As Attytood summed up," What Bush is proposing is a slippery slope. And he knows it will be challenged up to the Supreme Court. And pretty soon, he'll know that he has the votes."

Seems to me that the very bedrock of our republic is on the line here. But don't expect to hear about it on FOX News.

Post a comment

Remember Me?

We welcome your opinions and viewpoints. Comments must remain civil, on-topic and must not violate any copyright or other laws. We reserve the right to delete any comments we deem inappropriate or non-constructive to the discussion for any reason, and to block any commenter for repeated violations.

Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.