Stones Cry Out

Will's first 6 paragraphs all have the same subject of the first sentence, 'Miers advocates ...'. He doesn't give reasons to oppose candidate Miers, but merely reasons to discredit the advocates. He really hates them. I think Will should judge the candidate for himself, not through the eyes of the advocates. However, I don't think this article or this debate is about Miers at all anymore. With zero Republican Senators coming out against Miers, the outcome of the nomination is not in doubt. The artical is about the secular right declaring war on the religious right, and he's blasting with all his cannons. This war was unwise to begin with, and only pride and hatred continue to fuel it. If at some point the secular right will tire of the war, they will experience the forgiveness of evangelicals and the party will be reunited. If not, ... then the party will be torn and the left will rise to power.

Hi Matt,

There are many fair reasons to oppose the nomination of Ms. Miers. However, some of your statements are not fair or even accurate.

At this point in the nominating process, Ms. Miers meets all of the criteria to be qualified. She would be qualified to sit on the Supreme Court even if she never went to law school or spent a single day practicing law. There are many good reasons to have a non-judge or even a non-lawyer on our highest court. There are also good reasons to have an outsider on the Court, there are good reasons to have a business person on the Court, and there are good reasons to have a person who looks for consensus on the Court. She may be female, she may be a close friend of the President, and she may not be the best qualified, but she is definitely qualified in more ways than one. Therefore, your claim that she is blatantly unqualified hurts your arguments against confirmation because it simply isn’t true.

You are also assuming that some Evangelical leaders support Ms. Miers solely because of a shared faith. How do you know this to be true? Do you have any names or any evidence of this? It seems you are making an unfair and unsupported accusation against Evangelicals.

Who is this group of conservatives you are representing or associating yourself with in your opposition? There are many principled conservatives who do know how she will proceed on Constitutional matters. One of the principled conservatives is President Bush. Another is Hugh Hewitt. Do you think you or George Will have more of a right to define conservative principles than our twice elected President?

Furthermore, you have misrepresented or misunderstood the separation clause. Opposition to a nominee that is based on the nominees religion is prohibited in the Constitution. Evangelicals have every right to prefer someone of their faith on the Supreme Court.

George Will was advocating conservatism while W. was failing as an oil man. I mean no insult to our President, but there are plenty of conservatives with better credentials.

Hewitt is fine, but I'll take Will and Krauthammer.

Hi again Matt,

I was hoping for a more thoughtful response from you. Abraham Lincoln failed a time, or two, or three, or four, or more, before he was ever elected President. He turned out to be a decent thinker and leader. Surely you are not now claiming that a conservative leader is someone who has never failed. Judge Bork, Ronald Reagan, and most…no, all others just got denigrated by you as conservative leaders.

There are plenty of thinkers with conservative credentials equal to Will or Krauthammer who support the nomination of Ms. Miers. More than a few were even elected to positions in government, unlike the conservatives you mentioned.

Is your argument against Ms. Miers based on the stature of the person making the argument or is it based on reason? I know there are good reasons to oppose her nomination. I also know there are good reasons to support her nomination. I’m not sure what your reasons are for claiming she is blatantly unqualified since it is a position that seems completely unreasonable to this conservative speaking for no one but himself.

Name me a thinker with the credentials of Will or Krauthammer that supports Meirs. I can think of three: Ken Starr, Thomas Sowell and Hugh Hewitt. That's it.

I'm not suggesting that W can't be President. I think I was painfully clear on that point. All I'm saying is that I trust Will's view of conservatism over Bush's, because Will has proven those credentials over and over. Bush has not, and if you think he has, then you do not understand the meaning of conservatism.

I can't think of a good reason to support Meirs. She has questionable views of affirmative action. She has no paper trail to suggest she has a clear view of Constitutional matters. She rejected the Federalist Society as "partisan." She worships the ABA, a moderate organization at best. She started a lecture series at SMU that has been a revolving door off far-left feminist thought. I could go on but that should suffice.

I am not asking that she be an appelate court justice. I am not asking that she be a politician or a law professor. I am asking that a nominee publicly demonstrate, before their confirmation hearings, that they are, as the President promised his supporters, original constructionists in the mold of Scalia or Thomas. Thus far, I have no reason to believe that Harriet Miers meets that criteria.

I will quiet my opposition if she defends herself well in her confirmation hearings. Thus far, she's not doing well with the Senate and, frankly, I think she should withdraw before the hearings start.

State of U.S. Courts. . .

Consider this:

Open Letter

October 23, 2005

United States Judicial Conference
Administrative Office
of the United States Courts
Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building
One Columbus Circle, N.E.
Washington D.C. 20544

Mr. Albert N. Moskowitz
United States Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
950 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530

Mrs. Mary Beth Buchanan
U.S. Attorney Western Pennsylvania
United States Department of Justice
U.S. Post Office and Court House
700 Grant Street, Suite 4000
Pittsburgh, Pa 15219

United States Judicial Conference
Chief Justice United States Supreme Court
c/o Mr. William K. Sutter, Clerk
Office of the Clerk
c/o Mrs. Pamala Talkin
Marshall of the Court
No. 1 First Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 20543

Third Circuit Judicial Council
United States Court of Appeals
c/o Toby D. Slawsky, Esq.
Circuit Executive
22409 U.S. Courthouse
601 Market Street
Philadelphia, Pa 19106-1790

Chief Justice
United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
c/o Toby D. Slawsky, Esq.
Circuit Executive
22409 U.S. Courthouse
601 Market Street
Philadelphia, Pa 19106-1790

RE: Formal Complaint (filed under the Judicial Improvements Act of 2002
28 U.C.S. Sections 351-364); Formal Complaint (filed under 28 U.S.C.
Section 372(c)); and Request for Investigation (pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 604)

Dear All:

Please be advise of the following criminal activity.

On or about October 11, 2005, Marcia M. Waldron, Clerk for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals forwarded a copy of an Order (No. 05-3702) that, among other, requested a copy of the district court docket entries. On October 21, 2005, I purchased a copy of the docket entries (No. 03-1400) and forwarded such to the Third Circuit. However, I noticed the August 16, 2005, entry entered by JSP that advised the clerk’s office couldn’t locate documents #16, #64 and #86. That is, the clerk office wasn’t able to transmitted the complete record (No. 03-1400) to the Third Circuit.

In short, previously I submitted unequivocal evidence of perjury (violation of Section 1746 Title 28, United States Code) to the Department of Justice, federal court and others. Since my request for a formal investigation, the evidence (documents #64 and #86) was somehow removed from the official court file.

At issue is an affidavit submitted to the court by Cassandra Colchagoff (an attorney). With the November 10, 2004 affidavit Mrs. Colchagoff attempted to change her testimony (December 2003 affidavit). That is, the district court specifically cited her December 2003 testimony as its reason for dismissing the constitutional claims in the matter No. 03-1400.
Mrs. Colchagoff had testified (made a material false declaration) that there was “no link to Kaplan Higher Education Corporation (Kaplan College) and no link to federal funding.”
The district court ruled that “without a link to federal funding” I couldn’t pursue my constitutional claims against Kaplan.

The only difference between the two Colchagoff affidavits is the November 10, 2004, testimony no longer suggested, “no link to Kaplan Higher Education Corporation (Kaplan College) and no link to federal funding.” Likewise, her attorneys, Sara Shubert, Laurence Shtasel, and Blank Rome appears to have changed their representation to the court. Her attorneys now acknowledged my October 15, 2000, Kaplan College enrollment letter and admitted in footnote 2 “certain colleges operated by Kaplan Higher Education Corporation, such as Kaplan College, received federal funding.”

Because this information (Document # 64 and #86) is “fatal” to the court’s decision at No. 03-1400, it has been unlawfully removed and withheld from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The unexplained disappearance of document #64 and #86 is further proof of criminal activity (obstruction of justice and intentional violation of my civil rights).

Please note, the November 10, 2004, Cassandra Colchagoff affidavit (Document #64 and #86) now missing from the court record, at paragraph 23, specifically admitted malfeasance.

In conclusion, the missing affidavit (Document #64 and #86) not submitted to the Third Circuit is decisive for all factual issues related to this matter and directly contradicts Judge David S. Cercone’s Memorandum opinions (May 14, 2004 and June 29, 2005).

I demand an immediate investigation.

Respectfully,
(Name Removed)