The Lichfield Group

This article appeared in the October 25, 2005 issue of the Washington Times.

Harriet Miers apes former liberal Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun in saluting racial and gender quotas and set-asides. She disputes the equal opportunity North star of Associate Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. But President George W. Bush says Ms. Miers is a philosophical clone of Scalia and Thomas, and Mr. Bush says conservatives should trust him.

This article appeared in the October 21, 2005 issue of the Washington Times.

Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers flunked her first Kodak moment with the Senate Judiciary Committee. In a 57-page response to a questionnaire, Ms. Miers exhibited a shocking misunderstanding of constitutional principles. With nine Harriet Miers on the High Court, the Constitution would be lacerated.

This article appeared in the October 18, 2005 issue of the Washington Times.

Ms. Harriet Miers is ill-equipped to interpret the Constitution’s separation of powers, a chief task of the United States Supreme Court. She may be summoned against herself to prove the point.

This article appeared in the October 11, 2005 issue of the Washington Times.

The patently lame arguments of defenders of Harriet Miers’ O Henry-like surprise nomination to the United States Supreme Court confirm her unsuitability. She should graciously withdraw and spare the Supreme Court and herself embarrassment.

This article appeared in the October 6, 2005 issue of the Washington Times.

Cronyism is the signature of the Bush administration. Ms. Harriet Miers’ nomination to the United States Supreme Court is the high water mark. The Senate should reject the nomination to honor the original meaning of the Constitution. As Alexander Hamilton amplified in Federalist 76, the Senate confirmation role was intended to “prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity.”

This article appeared in the October 4, 2005 issue of the Washington Times.

The United States Supreme Court under the stewardship of Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. will soon decide whether political speech will wither and die from the mad assaults of campaign finance reformers. The latter characteristically awaken from slumber each night terrified by the thought that sometime, somewhere, a candidate may be raising or spending a penny to persuade voters.