Miers' Qualifications Are 'Non-Existent'

by Patrick J. Buchanan
Posted Oct 3, 2005

Handed a once-in-a-generation opportunity to return the Supreme Court to constitutionalism, George W. Bush passed over a dozen of the finest jurists of his day -- to name his personal lawyer.

In a decision deeply disheartening to those who invested such hopes in him, Bush may have tossed away his and our last chance to roll back the social revolution imposed upon us by our judicial dictatorship since the days of Earl Warren.

This is not to disparage Harriet Miers.  From all accounts, she is a gracious lady who has spent decades in the law and served ably as Bush’s lawyer in Texas and, for a year, as White House counsel.

But her qualifications for the Supreme Court are non-existent.  She is not a brilliant jurist, indeed, has never been a judge.  She is not a scholar of the law.  Researchers are hard-pressed to dig up an opinion.  She has not had a brilliant career in politics, the academy, the corporate world or public forum.  Were she not a friend of Bush, and female, she would never have even been considered.  

What commended her to the White House, in the phrase of the hour, is that she “has no paper trail.”  So far as one can see, this is Harriet Miers’ principal qualification for the U.S. Supreme Court.

What is depressing here is not what the nomination tells us of her, but what it tells us of the president who appointed her.  For in selecting her, Bush capitulated to the diversity-mongers, used a critical Supreme Court seat to reward a crony, and revealed that he lacks the desire to engage the Senate in fierce combat to carry out his now-suspect commitment to remake the court in the image of Scalia and Thomas.  In picking her, Bush ran from a fight.  The conservative movement has been had -- and not for the first time by a president by the name of Bush.
Choosing Miers, the president passed over outstanding judges and proven constitutionalists like Michael Luttig of the 4th Circuit and Sam Alito of the 3rd.  And if he could not take the heat from the First Lady, and had to name a woman, what was wrong with U.S. appellate court judges Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owens and Edith Jones?

What must these jurists think today about their president today?  How does Bush explain to his people why Brown, Owens and Jones were passed over for Miers?  

Where was Karl Rove in all of this?  Is he so distracted by the Valerie Plame investigation he could not warn the president against what he would be doing to his reputation and coalition?

Reshaping the Supreme Court is an issue that unites Republicans and conservatives   And with his White House and party on the defensive for months over Cindy Sheehan and Katrina, Iraq and New Orleans, Delay and Frist, gas prices and immigration, here was the great opportunity to draw all together for a battle of philosophies, by throwing the gauntlet down to the Left, sending up the name of a Luttig, and declaring, “Go ahead and do your worst.  We shall do our best.”

Do the Bushites not understand that “conservative judges” is one of those issues where the national majority is still with them?

What does it tell us that White House, in selling her to the party and press, is pointing out that Miers “has no paper trial.”  What does that mean, other than that she is not a Rehnquist, a Bork, a Scalia or a Thomas?

Conservative cherish justices and judges who have paper trails.  For that means these men and women have articulated and defended their convictions.  They have written in magazines and law journals about what is wrong with the courts and how to make it right.  They had stood up to the prevailing winds.  They have argued for the Constitution as the firm and fixed document the Founding Fathers wrote, not some thing of wax.

A paper trail is the mark of a lawyer, a scholar or a judge who has shared the action and passion of his or her time, taken a stand on the great questions, accepted public abuse for articulating convictions.

Why is a judicial cipher like Harriet Miers to be preferred to a judicial conservative like Edith Jones?

One reason: Because the White House fears nominees “with a paper trail” will be rejected by the Senate, and this White House fears, above all else, losing.  So, it has chosen not to fight.  

Bush had a chance for greatness in remaking the Supreme Court, a chance to succeed where his Republican precedessors from Nixon to his father all failed.  He instinctively recoiled from it.  He blew it.  His only hope now is that Harriet Miers, if confirmed, will not vote like the lady she replaced, or, worse, like his father’s choice who also had “no paper trail,” David Souter.

I don't care what anyone says about Pat - he's brilliant.  I always read his articles.  It's pretty hard, IMO, to debate what he writes about.

And yes, Bush blew it big-time.  


CMOS

yup looks like bush really fucked his base in the ass.

Quoted: I don't care what anyone says about Pat - he's brilliant.  I always read his articles.  It's pretty hard, IMO, to debate what he writes about.

I don't necessarily agree with him all the time, but he is one smart and insightful guy.

His only hope now is that Harriet Miers, if confirmed, will not vote like the lady she replaced, or, worse, like his father’s choice who also had “no paper trail,” David Souter.

Worth repeating...

Playing devils advocate here: If Miers is a real conservative, and constitutionalist then he made a good move, and attacked where he was not expected, and pulled a fast one over on the democraps.

You could say not that he was running from a fight but that he won it before it was fought... Kinda Sun Tzu.

No I have no idea if she is a staunch conservative and constitituionalist. I distrust ALL politicians and lawyers and Judges. The whole patriot act and skull n bones thing makes me think Bush is just another NWO globalist, fascist. So I wouldn't trust any of his nominies.

Quoted: His only hope now is that Harriet Miers, if confirmed, will not vote like the lady she replaced, or, worse, like his father’s choice who also had “no paper trail,” David Souter. Worth repeating...

Except David Souter was unknown by anyone in the Whitehouse. His nomination was pushed on Bush 41 by the New Hampshire congressional delegation.

Bush 43, on the other hand, personally knows and has worked closely with Meirs for over a decade. For the past several years he has worked with her on a daily basis. The odds are good that he has a pretty good handle on her judicial philosophy.

FWIW, how much time has Mr. Buchanan spent with Ms. Meirs? Or Judges Luttig, Alito , Browne, et al?

Quoted: Playing devils advocate here: If Miers is a real conservative, and constitutionalist then he made a good move, and attacked where he was not expected, and pulled a fast one over on the democraps. You could say not that he was running from a fight but that he won it before it was fought... Kinda Sun Tzu. No I have no idea if she is a staunch conservative and constitituionalist. I distrust ALL politicians and lawyers and Judges. The whole patriot act and skull n bones thing makes me think Bush is just another NWO globalist, fascist. So I wouldn't trust any of his nominies.

The problem is, the country should know her judicial philosophy BEFORE she gets on the bench.  Right now, Bush is the only one who knows and I guarantee she will not answer questions in the confirmation hearings.  

Bush is basically doing an end-run around the Senate.  They have the power to advise and consent but in order to do that, they need to be informed.  His policy with appointing SCOTUS nominees is to nominate someone with no paper trail and then basically never have to defend their views against the Democrats.

I want someone who is loyal to the Constitution, not the President

Quoted: I want someone who is loyal to the Constitution, not the President

[clap smiley]

Quoted: Quoted: Playing devils advocate here: If Miers is a real conservative, and constitutionalist then he made a good move, and attacked where he was not expected, and pulled a fast one over on the democraps. You could say not that he was running from a fight but that he won it before it was fought... Kinda Sun Tzu. No I have no idea if she is a staunch conservative and constitituionalist. I distrust ALL politicians and lawyers and Judges. The whole patriot act and skull n bones thing makes me think Bush is just another NWO globalist, fascist. So I wouldn't trust any of his nominies. The problem is, the country should know her judicial philosophy BEFORE she gets on the bench.  Right now, Bush is the only one who knows and I guarantee she will not answer questions in the confirmation hearings.   Bush is basically doing an end-run around the Senate.  They have the power to advise and consent but in order to do that, they need to be informed.  His policy with appointing SCOTUS nominees is to nominate someone with no paper trail and then basically never have to defend their views against the Democrats. I want someone who is loyal to the Constitution, not the President

Of the 28 SCOTUS nominees in US history that failed to gain the bench, only two were ever specifically rejected due to their judicial philosophy: John L. Parker in 1930, and Robert Bork in 1987. Of the 148 SCOTUS nominees, for the overwhelming majority the Senate had no idea of their judicial philosophy, and never asked. Instead, they focused on whether the nominees had the integrity and intellectual capacity to do the job.

The politicization of the confirmation process, with its obsessive focus on how a judge might vote in specific cases, is a recent phenonmenon.

Quoted: Quoted: Playing devils advocate here: If Miers is a real conservative, and constitutionalist then he made a good move, and attacked where he was not expected, and pulled a fast one over on the democraps. You could say not that he was running from a fight but that he won it before it was fought... Kinda Sun Tzu. No I have no idea if she is a staunch conservative and constitituionalist. I distrust ALL politicians and lawyers and Judges. The whole patriot act and skull n bones thing makes me think Bush is just another NWO globalist, fascist. So I wouldn't trust any of his nominies. The problem is, the country should know her judicial philosophy BEFORE she gets on the bench. Right now, Bush is the only one who knows and I guarantee she will not answer questions in the confirmation hearings.   Bush is basically doing an end-run around the Senate.  They have the power to advise and consent but in order to do that, they need to be informed.  His policy with appointing SCOTUS nominees is to nominate someone with no paper trail and then basically never have to defend their views against the Democrats. I want someone who is loyal to the Constitution, not the President

Pardon for only replying to one portion of your post but I have to say... Isn't that what the Democrats want? Meaning, isn't that what the whole approval process is about? It's to find out what views the person has.

I'm not ready to write her off yet. Time will tell...

Quoted: yup looks like bush really fucked his base in the ass.

Seems to be a family tradition.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Playing devils advocate here: If Miers is a real conservative, and constitutionalist then he made a good move, and attacked where he was not expected, and pulled a fast one over on the democraps. You could say not that he was running from a fight but that he won it before it was fought... Kinda Sun Tzu. No I have no idea if she is a staunch conservative and constitituionalist. I distrust ALL politicians and lawyers and Judges. The whole patriot act and skull n bones thing makes me think Bush is just another NWO globalist, fascist. So I wouldn't trust any of his nominies. The problem is, the country should know her judicial philosophy BEFORE she gets on the bench. Right now, Bush is the only one who knows and I guarantee she will not answer questions in the confirmation hearings.   Bush is basically doing an end-run around the Senate.  They have the power to advise and consent but in order to do that, they need to be informed.  His policy with appointing SCOTUS nominees is to nominate someone with no paper trail and then basically never have to defend their views against the Democrats. I want someone who is loyal to the Constitution, not the President Pardon for only replying to one portion of your post but I have to say... Isn't that what the Democrats want? Meaning, isn't that what the whole approval process is about? It's to find out what views the person has. I'm not ready to write her off yet. Time will tell...

That is what every Senator, regardless of party, should want.  They can't know how she will rule on specific cases but this woman never served as a judge so she has no rulings that can be considered.  All of her work has been as an attorney both private and for the President.  In these cases, she can state that she was only representing her client or she can claim attorney/client privilege.  

We know Janice Rogers Brown.  We know that she would have understood the rule of a SCOTUS as well as appeased those looking for diversity.  We know nothing about how Harriet Miers will rule until after she has already done so

Unfortunately, by the time we know her judicial philosophy she may already be on the bench. That being said, I will reserve judgement. I really don't think that it is a great disadvantage that she has never been a judge. In fact, its somewhat favorable. And the fact that the Dims are squirming always makes me happy.

I had wanted to see JRBrown nominated IF for no other reason than the Dims would have to try to say that a black, female was not qualified. A friend of mine tried to point out that they tried to derail Clarence Thomas the same way, and would have no hesitation to try to do it again. But that is precisely where the payoff would have been IMO. At the time of the Borkdom and subsequent Clarence Thomas confirmation, there was almost zero media equity out there. I think the advent of more balanced reporting and the blogosphere would make incredibly obvious the two-faced nature of the Dimocratic party.

Quoted: Quoted: His only hope now is that Harriet Miers, if confirmed, will not vote like the lady she replaced, or, worse, like his father’s choice who also had “no paper trail,” David Souter. Worth repeating... Except David Souter was unknown by anyone in the Whitehouse. His nomination was pushed on Bush 41 by the New Hampshire congressional delegation. Bush 43, on the other hand, personally knows and has worked closely with Meirs for over a decade. For the past several years he has worked with her on a daily basis. The odds are good that he has a pretty good handle on her judicial philosophy. FWIW, how much time has Mr. Buchanan spent with Ms. Meirs? Or Judges Luttig, Alito , Browne, et al?

The question boils down to whether or not we trust Bush to do the right thing with this nomination.

Frankly, I don't.

Bush signed CFR which was a HIDEOUS assault on the 1st.

This nominee may turn out to be a wonderful one, but she can just as easily be a disaster of Biblical proportions.

We don't know which.

The Republican party seems completely unable to nut up enough to fight for judges, which is one of the MAIN reasons they were handed power.

That is not encouraging.

There could be some gigantic inside pool scheme going on here to advance by stealth a very conservative judge on the President's behalf, and  an effort by the Dims to try and say nice things to scare his base into taking out the nominee for them.

But the fact remains that when it comes to judges Bush's base doesn't trust him. I pray he is doing the right thing, but I do not believe that he is doing what I voted for him to do. I believe he has the best of intentions, but his actions seem to be placing us into an even WORSE state than we were in judicially prior to his election.

It seems as if we have basically handed the judiciary entirely to the left for the duration.

I hope I am way off base and wrong about all of this.

I pray that he proves me wrong. I really WANT to be wrong on all of this.

My delicate inner sense of danger says that I am not wrong.

Quoted: Of the 28 SCOTUS nominees in US history that failed to gain the bench, only two were ever specifically rejected due to their judicial philosophy: John L. Parker in 1930, and Robert Bork in 1987. Of the 148 SCOTUS nominees, for the overwhelming majority the Senate had no idea of their judicial philosophy, and never asked. Instead, they focused on whether the nominees had the integrity and intellectual capacity to do the job. The politicization of the confirmation process, with its obsessive focus on how a judge might vote in specific cases, is a recent phenonmenon.

The recent phenomenone was brought about because there were idiots in the judiciary who were deciding that portions of the Constitution weren't there, and that other things existed despite NOT being there, and were using the bench to advance a political agenda.

The ever expanding courts need to be reigned in, and that isn't going to happen unless we start playing hardball with nominees.

GWBush has placed PLENTY of openly-conservative judges on the Federal bench.

But now he's had two opportunities to nominate an openly-conservative justice to the SCOTUS. Both times he's wiffed.

The message has been sent loud and clear now - if you're a conservative and everyone knows it, forget about getting nominated to the Supreme Court.

Unlike openly-leftist nominees like Ginsberg and Bryer who skated through Senate confirmation, any outspoken conservative with visions of being tapped for the high court can pretty much forget about it.

The lesson GWBush is sending is this: Conservatives better shut up, lay low, don't rule from a strict-constructionalist view - because if you do, you can just forget about ever getting a shot at the SCOTUS.

And GIVEN that we've seen from Clinton's appointments that openly-leftist judicial activists have no problem getting onto the Court...

and GIVEN that we have a Republican President and 55-45 Republican-majority in the Senate...

and GIVEN that the conservative voting base has made it QUITE clear that reason we reelected GWBush was to put clearly conservative justices onto the SCOTUS - my question is this:

If not now, when?

It is simply not enough to say, "just trust the President" because we have a LOT of burn marks on the conservative side because we just trusted Republican presidents - Souter, O'Connor, Kennedy, Stevens.

Saying that you "know" how any nominee will vote once on the Court is pure fantasy. Buchanan, just as others in this thread, has no actual way of knowing how THEIR preferred candidates would actually vote once they receive their lifetime tenure on the Court from which there is no appeal.

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. was nominated by TR, who was certain that Holmes would vote to uphold TR's trust busting. Teddy received a very rude shock in this regard, despite Holmes' crystal clear record on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, and his copious writings.  Earl Warren had a life-long history of being a moderate to conservative Republican. For goodness sake, it was he who demanded the internment of Japanese Americans in WWII, and look how he turned out on the bench.

Quoted: Unfortunately, by the time we know her judicial philosophy she may already be on the bench. That being said, I will reserve judgement. I really don't think that it is a great disadvantage that she has never been a judge. In fact, its somewhat favorable. And the fact that the Dims are squirming always makes me happy.

Conservatives are squriming just as much.

This woman is an inkblot at the moment: Nobody knows what she is. In the absence of a solid sighting, she is turned into what each fears most. The Dems are worried that she is another Thomas, and the Conservatives are worried that she is another Souter.

I had wanted to see JRBrown nominated IF for no other reason than the Dims would have to try to say that a black, female was not qualified. A friend of mine tried to point out that they tried to derail Clarence Thomas the same way, and would have no hesitation to try to do it again. But that is precisely where the payoff would have been IMO. At the time of the Borkdom and subsequent Clarence Thomas confirmation, there was almost zero media equity out there. I think the advent of more balanced reporting and the blogosphere would make incredibly obvious the two-faced nature of the Dimocratic party.

The Dim party is in total disarray.

The Republican party, however, is in WORSE shape.

Quoted: Saying that you "know" how any nominee will vote once on the Court is pure fantasy. Buchanan, just as others in this thread, has no actual way of knowing how THEIR preferred candidates would actually vote once they receive their lifetime tenure on the Court from which there is no appeal. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. was nominated by TR, who was certain that Holmes would vote to uphold TR's trust busting. Teddy received a very rude shock in this regard, despite Holmes' crystal clear record on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, and his copious writings.  Earl Warren had a life-long history of being a moderate to conservative Republican. For goodness sake, it was he who demanded the internment of Japanese Americans in WWII, and look how he turned out on the bench.

Individual exceptions aside, the point remains: Is it better to know SOMETHING about the person we are appointing, or is it better to put a known unknown in there?

Quoted: GWBush has placed PLENTY of openly-conservative judges on the Federal bench. But now he's had two opportunities to nominate an openly-conservative justice to the SCOTUS. Both times he's wiffed. The message has been sent loud and clear now - if you're a conservative and everyone knows it, forget about getting nominated to the Supreme Court. Unlike openly-leftist nominees like Ginsberg and Bryer who skated through Senate confirmation, any outspoken conservative with visions of being tapped for the high court can pretty much forget about it. The lesson GWBush is sending is this: Conservatives better shut up, lay low, don't rule from a strict-constructionalist view - because if you do, you can just forget about ever getting a shot at the SCOTUS. And GIVEN that we've seen from Clinton's appointments that openly-leftist judicial activists have no problem getting onto the Court... and GIVEN that we have a Republican President and 55-45 Republican-majority in the Senate... and GIVEN that the conservative voting base has made it QUITE clear that reason we reelected GWBush was to put clearly conservative justices onto the SCOTUS - my question is this: If not now, when? It is simply not enough to say, "just trust the President" because we have a LOT of burn marks on the conservative side because we just trusted Republican presidents - Souter, O'Connor, Kennedy, Stevens.

Bingo.

Folks, if we can't make the arguement NOW, then we will NEVER be able to. EVER.

Thanks for the link, Syd. The "red" on this site is virtually invisible on this screen. Blue is better.

P.S.

Run Pat Run.

Quoted: Saying that you "know" how any nominee will vote once on the Court is pure fantasy. Buchanan, just as others in this thread, has no actual way of knowing how THEIR preferred candidates would actually vote once they receive their lifetime tenure on the Court from which there is no appeal. .

This is true.

Its just that Bush COULD have nominated a known jurist.

But in the current political climate, the Dems would demonize BIG TIME any such known strict constructionist.

Its a losers game. Lose - lose scenario.

Quoted: Quoted: Saying that you "know" how any nominee will vote once on the Court is pure fantasy. Buchanan, just as others in this thread, has no actual way of knowing how THEIR preferred candidates would actually vote once they receive their lifetime tenure on the Court from which there is no appeal. . This is true. Its just that Bush COULD have nominated a known jurist. But in the current political climate, the Dems would demonize BIG TIME any such known strict constructionist. Its a losers game. Lose - lose scenario.

It isn't lose-lose.

It is fight or lose.

The Republican controlled senate CAN put through a good nominee. The combined force of the President and a Republican majority CAN win the fight.

But you can't win the fight if you are trying to duck it.

Quoted: The Republican controlled senate CAN put through a good nominee. The combined force of the President and a Republican majority CAN win the fight. But you can't win the fight if you are trying to duck it.

I agree.

Right now I'm formulating an open letter to all Repubs that my vote for ALL of them is in jeopardy becasue of the spineless Washington republicans.

Just as some senators voted for and against John Roberts, they will do the same for Miers. If she doesn't get approved, Bush will have to find another nominee.
Miers will get interviewed just as Roberts did. Maybe the results of the interviews will decrease the number of votes she gets. People put too much focus on Bush when he's really only nominating her.  There's a check and balance system and the Senate Judiciary Committee will make their decision when the time comes.

Quoted: Quoted: yup looks like bush really fucked his base in the ass. Seems to be a family tradition.

Seems more like a baseless assertion.

In Ms. Meirs role as White House Counsel, she gave the President almost DAILY advice on legal issues concerning the presidency, proposed legislation, policy issues, etc. Prior to that, Bush worked closely with her for years. One can safely assume that the President would form a much stronger opinion on this person's judicial philosophy then he would get from reading the opinions and writings of people with whom he did not have such regular interaction.

For all of you who bring up David Souter, let me remind you that Clarence Thomas had a nearly equal lack of a paper trail prior to his nomination. He, like Meirs, wa accused of being an intellectual lightweight unfit for the role. Tell me again how those predictions panned out?

Quoted: In Ms. Meirs role as White House Counsel, she gave the President almost DAILY advice on legal issues concerning the presidency, proposed legislation, policy issues, etc. Prior to that, Bush worked closely with her for years. One can safely assume that the President would form a much stronger opinion on this person's judicial philosophy then he would get from reading the opinions and writings of people with whom he did not have such regular interaction. For all of you who bring up David Souter, let me remind you that Clarence Thomas had a nearly equal lack of a paper trail prior to his nomination. He, like Meirs, wa accused of being an intellectual lightweight unfit for the role. Tell me again how those predictions panned out?

It was well-known Thomas was a conservative - that's why the tried to torpedo him the way they did.

Quoted: In Ms. Meirs role as White House Counsel, she gave the President almost DAILY advice on legal issues concerning the presidency, proposed legislation, policy issues, etc. Prior to that, Bush worked closely with her for years. One can safely assume that the President would form a much stronger opinion on this person's judicial philosophy then he would get from reading the opinions and writings of people with whom he did not have such regular interaction. For all of you who bring up David Souter, let me remind you that Clarence Thomas had a nearly equal lack of a paper trail prior to his nomination. He, like Meirs, wa accused of being an intellectual lightweight unfit for the role. Tell me again how those predictions panned out?

<fingers crossed>

<rear end to the wall>

Come on, considering she was Bush's personal counsel he's got to know her fairly well.  What was Souter to Bush Sr before nomination?  GW has to know this woman and has to have a great deal of faith in her.  He isn't the type of a man that does that.  Look at how he operates from a business perspective.  He surrounds himself with the best he can find.

Patty

Quoted:  I don't have a problem of Prez. Bush's pick for now.  He knows her better than other people know her.  What I don't get, is that both parties seems to OK with the selection.  So there are something about her that Democrats like also. <snip>

Antonin Scalia breezed through his confirmation with absolute bipartisan support in 1986. He was confirmed by a 98-0 vote.

Sorry to keep injecting FACTS into this discussion (<--- this comment not aimed at you mojo). Far too many here seem to go with their FEELINGS on Meirs and how the nomination process works.

Quoted: Come on, considering she was Bush's personal counsel he's got to know her fairly well.  What was Souter to Bush Sr before nomination?  GW has to know this woman and has to have a great deal of faith in her.  He isn't the type of a man that does that.  Look at how he operates from a business perspective.  He surrounds himself with the best he can find. Patty

Yes, but in a government that is of, by, and for the people, I don't think a President should be so secretive with a nominee that will have a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land.  Like I said before, she has no rulings to scrutinize and any views she has can be covered by attorney/client privilege.

I want a little more than.  "Trust me.  It will all work out"

I just wish there was another Scalia clone out there or Thomas.  Those two rock!  Patty

Quoted: Quoted: In Ms. Meirs role as White House Counsel, she gave the President almost DAILY advice on legal issues concerning the presidency, proposed legislation, policy issues, etc. Prior to that, Bush worked closely with her for years. One can safely assume that the President would form a much stronger opinion on this person's judicial philosophy then he would get from reading the opinions and writings of people with whom he did not have such regular interaction. For all of you who bring up David Souter, let me remind you that Clarence Thomas had a nearly equal lack of a paper trail prior to his nomination. He, like Meirs, wa accused of being an intellectual lightweight unfit for the role. Tell me again how those predictions panned out? It was well-known Thomas was a conservative - that's why the tried to torpedo him the way they did.

Well, not quite. Thomas had almost no record. The great FEAR among Democrats was that he was a Conservative. They wanted a Black liberal to replace the retiring Justice Marshall. The Democrats, who asked him repeatedly about his judicial philosophy, had NOTHING to prove he was in fact a conservative. During his testimony Thomas swore that he had never formulated a position on Roe v. Wade, and no one could find a single written or spoke comment to contradict his testimony. Think about that one for a mintute. No record of him having ever even discussed abortion. Thomas also refused to answer all questions about how he might rule in any case, and about his approaches to Constitutional interpretation. Since the Democratic leadership, led by Judiciary Committee Chair Joe Biden, could not prove that Thomas was in fact a Conservative jurist, they leaked the Anita Hill story.

Again, Clarence Thomas was a stealth candidate with virtually no paper trail. Conservatives were essentially told "Trust me, he's one of us," which turned out to be VERY true. Souter turned out the opposite. Meirs has more of a record than did Thomas, including opposition to Roe, and support of the RKBA. She is also, unlike Souter, VERY well known by the nominating President.