From the Washington Post:
The conservative uprising against President Bush escalated yesterday as Republican activists angry over his nomination of White House counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court confronted the president’s envoys during a pair of tense closed-door meetings.
A day after Bush publicly beseeched skeptical supporters to trust his judgment on Miers, a succession of prominent conservative leaders told his representatives that they did not. Over the course of several hours of sometimes testy exchanges, the dissenters complained that Miers was an unknown quantity with a thin résumé and that her selection—Bush called her “the best person I could find”—was a betrayal of years of struggle to move the court to the right.
At one point in the first of the two off-the-record sessions, according to several people in the room, White House adviser Ed Gillespie suggested that some of the unease about Miers “has a whiff of sexism and a whiff of elitism.” Irate participants erupted and demanded that he take it back. Gillespie later said he did not mean to accuse anyone in the room but “was talking more broadly” about criticism of Miers.
The tenor of the two meetings suggested that Bush has yet to rally his own party behind Miers and underscores that he risks the biggest rupture with the Republican base of his presidency. While conservatives at times have assailed some Bush policy decisions, rarely have they been so openly distrustful of the president himself.
First, let me address the issue of snobbery, which somehow—crazily—has begun to take root on the right and is being wielded like a claw hammer against Miers’ critcs by some of the President’s staunchest defenders, who have suddenly shed their conservative masks and assumed the role of preening, indignant neopopulists of the kind that Ed Gillespie just proved himself to be. Which is not to say Gillespie isn’t in some ways correct—certainly, “elitism” has something to do with the opposition Miers is receiving from many on the right, though not in the way he imagines or intimates—but his attempt to suggest that elitism is a bad thing, particularly when it comes to selecting a Supreme Court justice, is quite bizarre in precisely the same way it would be bizarre to charge the New York Yankees with elitism for signing Alex Rodriguez to play third base, even if Harriet Miers can, like most of the rest of us, manage to slip on a glove and throw her body in front of a ground ball.
And that’s because Supreme Court openings are rare; and while it is certainly the President’s choice to select a nominee—and I obviously defer to him on that—the question is not so much about what he has the right to do as about what he should have done. And frankly, I find many of the attempts to demonize the critics of Bush’s selection—who are making just this case—remarkably unpersuasive.
In a piece reprinted at the Volokh Conspiracy in reply to George Will’s widely discussed criticism of the Miers nomination, for instance, Reginald Brown, a lawyer at Wilmer Cutler who served in the White House Counsel’s Office under Bush, argues that
Judging takes work, but the folks who think “constitutional reasoning” is a talent requiring divination, intense effort and years of monastic study are the same folks who will inevitably give you “Lemon tests,” balancing formulas, “penumbras” and concurrences that make your head spin. The President sees through that mumbo jumbo and recognizes that good Justices are the ones who focus on the Constitution’s text, structure and history and who call balls and strikes. Bush is in favor of demystifying the Court and the Miers choice is part of that effort.
Fair enough. But then, if this is truly Bush’s agenda, what of John Roberts, who was sold to us on his “brilliance” and as having the “greatest legal mind of his generation”? Are those attributes suddenly unnecessary in a Supreme Court Justice?
Listen: I believe the President is correct in his assertion that the Court is in need of a degree of demystification—but at the same time, the question then becomes is Harriet Miers the best choice to make that case. If anything, the President has left himself open to attacks of cronyism (which is not likely to disabuse anyone of the idea that Washington is an incestuous town, and so as a choice to “demystify” is an odd one on its face); and though I believe Miers IS PRECISELY in line with the President’s political philosophies and would likely proceed as the kind of strict Constitutionalist Bush says he favors, what I believe we’re seeing here is that conservatives—and the conservative movement—is about more than simply power and the kind of soft judicial activism that comes with vote stacking on the High Court.
Instead, conservatives—particularly legal conservatives—who are invested in the righteousness and rigorousness of their ideas, want those ideas represented by the best minds available who support and defend them. Which is NOT the same as saying that Bush should have selected a member of the judicial establishment, necessarily—hell, a skilled (coughcough) English Professor can interpret the Constitution quite rigorously, I’m sure—but rather, that the person he selects should have a demonstrable track record of supporting conservative ideals.
Miers might very well support and defend those ideas quite ably, but the fact remains that she is an unknown, and we are being asked to defer completely to the President’s judgment. And for many conservatives, that is a bridge too far.
And while most of us, I believe, trust that the President has nominated someone whom he believes will be precisely the kind of Justice he has promised, what underlies conservative anxiety is not so much Ms Miers’ pedigree (though Ann Coulter would take issue with me here) as it is that there are others whose commitment to conservative ideals are better articulated.
Conservatives don’t want a fight, necessarily. But they don’t want a stealth candidate, either—which sends the message that their judicial philosophies are something untoward and need to be disguised in order to get through the Senate.
The Democrats will oppose any nominee they believe will roll back activist legislation; so from where I’m standing, it’s about time we realized it and took the fight to them head on. This country should be having discussions about the nature of the judiciary. And what better way to have those discussions than to put forth, frankly, the kind of nominee that openly represents conservative judicial thinking.
Bill Kristol on FOXNews this morning noted, as I did earlier, that Miers might have difficulty making it through committee—and that she should consider stepping aside. Which, when coupled with the WaPo article, suggests to me that the President’s press conference seems not yet to have quelled concerns of Miers’ critics.
Personally, because I respect the process, I’m not willing to come out against Miers. But at the same time, I respect and understand and empathize with those who have.
****
More at Brutally Honest, Professor Bainbridge, Mister Snitch, Literal Barrage, and Patterico, who plays the David Hasselhoff card. Racist.
I think if Miers isn’t qualified, it will become quite clear during her confirmation hearing. Unless she has one of those bulges between her shoulder blades that the Left always accuses Bush of having. I’m just saying that no one knows about Miers but W. and WE ELECTED BUSH because we trusted him to make these judicial appointments – and he was VERY EXPLICIT about his preferences. Focusing solely on his record of nominating judges, I doubt that we need to worry about Miers. (If you focus on immigration, fiscal responsibility, etc, etc you might be concerned – but not if you focus solely on judges.)
However, I’m sure Leahy, Shumer, Specter, and the others on the Judiciary Committee will make it very clear as to whether Harriet is qualified for the position. Thus far, I have only two concerns with her:
1 – David Frum mentioned that a friend of his in the WH mentioned that Harriet was the main proponent of the Bush administration’s amicus brief in Lawrence (if true, troubling); and
2 – She’s a Southern Baptist…. and is probably TOO CONSERVATIVE FOR ME.
All I’m saying is we have to wait until she opens her mouth and comments on these matters before we can try and kill her nomination.
Regards,
St Wendeler
I am. The president is accountable to his constituents and his constituents are displeased. We deserve the best and she clearly ain’t it.
I think Frum was referring to Grutter, the Michigan affirmative action case.
The President is certainly accountable to his constituents, Allah, but many of them are supporting his pick. So which constituency is he beholden to?
I helped vote him in. I have to defer to his judgment, though I have my concerns. What I don’t like, though, is those who are attacking the critics of Miers dishonestly.
St. Wendler:
You clearly don’t know how the game is played. You must rush your loud opinion to the newspaper, tv show, radio show, magazine or blog (irrespective of the candidate’s actual abilities, and your ignorance of same). If you wait and see what she actually knows, you might not increase the circualation or audience of your newspaper, tv show, radio show, magazine or blog.
She may be great, she may suck but YOU HAVE TO PICK A SIDE AND START YELLING NOW!!!
DON’T IMPOSE YOUR THOUGHTFUL “WAIT AND SEE” APPROACH ON ME, YOU FACIST JUDICIOUS PIG!!!
I’m sorry, Stereg. Am I yelling?
The criticism we’re seeing here is about the process of selection, which—from what I gather—has already taken place.
What are we to “wait and see” about in that regard?
As to how good a Justice Miers might make, we clearly don’t know. But that’s not what my post is about.
I suppose that’s true, although it’s certainly not the impression one gets from the reports of Mehlman’s and Gillespie’s meetings with the advocacy groups. To the extent that people are supporting Miers, though, it seems to be for the same reason you give: not that she’s well qualified, but that Bush seems to like her and, after all, he’s the president and it’s his call. I find that logic underwhelming. Even Hewitt admits, between half-hearted waves of his pom-poms, “she’s not who I would have picked.” Speaks volumes.
I don’t see why we have to defer to Bush’s judgment. His judgment of late when it comes to political appointees does not inspire confidence, and this is no routine political appointment. We’ve waited ten years for this opportunity. We deserve the strongest possible candidate he can find. The whole thing, frankly, stinks.
Great comment Stereg. There is plenty of that going around these days. But not you Jeff.
The Democrats will oppose any nominee they believe will roll back activist legislation; so from where I’m standing, it’s about time we realized it and took the fight to them head on. This country should be having discussions about the nature of the judiciary.
Is it really possible that the Dems are not going to oppose this nominee with everything they got? Seems to me her positions on at least some issues (abortion anyone) are quite obvious and will generate much debate. At the very least we should get a “discussion” about whether a judge holding a personal belief that abortion is immoral and should be outlawed (I think I accurately represent Ms. Miers position) can “impartially” hear cases about Roe vs. Wade. Frankly I think we are going to see a fight during confirmation that will bring back visions of the Bork hearings. Either that or the Dems are playing some bizarre mental jujitsu strategy.
And what better way to have those discussions than to put forth, frankly, the kind of nominee that openly represents conservative judicial thinking.
If she doesn’t display that type of thinking when she is under fire she won’t get the vote.
“First, let me address the issue of snobbery, which somehowâ€â€crazilyâ€â€has begun to take root on the right and is being wielded like a claw hammer against Miers’ critcs by some of the President’s staunchest defenders, who have suddenly shed their conservative masks and assumed the role of preening, indignant neopopulists…”
It’s not crazy and it’s not about populism. It’s about not going back to the same tiny labor pool that has produced so many disappointments in the past. There are some professions, or parts of them, that operate like academia—what’s the conservative-liberal breakdown at your university, sir? Constitutional law is one of those professions.
To oppose the condescending and hostile response of elitist conservatives is hardly the same thing as blindly defending the President. Since uou singled me out for scorn, I will point out that I am entirely undecided about Harriet Miers. I’m waiting for the hearings. I do not trust that she is a good choice because the president picked her. I also do not hate her because she went to SMU and actually worked for a living.
You say: “Conservatives don’t want a fight, necessarily.” You’re dead wrong about that. A fight is precisely what they want. They want somebody to stand up and spit eloquently into the face of Schumer, Biden, Kennedy, et al. I don’t blame them. But it’s not exactly the same objective as fixing what’s wrong with the Supreme Court.
By the way, Allah, if you still have your powers, can’t you send Harriet Miers along on Karen Hughes’s Fast-Talk Bus Tour in the Middle East? Miers could tell the Saudi chicks about opening up Riyadh law firms to women. And while she’s gone, we could get a real nominee.
The Anchoress found a piece by Robert Novak which suggests that the president wanted to pick Patricia Owen, but the senate Republicans weren’t will to fight for her (again), so GWB picked Miers just to tweak that spineless lot.
If so, it sound characteristic of both the president and the senate GOP.
You site is evil. There is not one thing wrong with my html!
Yeah. Which is why we should’ve rejected John Roberts. Because, you know, he went to HARVARD.
And you know who else went there?
DAVID SOUTER.
Do I need to paint a PICTURE!?!?!
Hmmm.
The schadenfreude is imminent!
Ben, you probably know this, but Scalia went to Harvard, too, and Thomas went to Yale. The school is irrelevant as either a pro or a con. It’s the lack of anything indicating that she’s ever thought about the role of judges in deciding cases or about their role in our constitutional system, let alone about important legal issues.
No, it’s about looking more carefully within that pool.
Scalia: Harvard Law, Class of ‘60
Thomas: Yale Law, Class of ‘74
Rehnquist: Stanford Law, Class of ‘51
Posner: Harvard Law, Class of ‘62
Too snooty? Then how about Michael Luttig, UVA, Class of ‘81? Or Michael McConnell, U of Chicago, Class of ‘79?
You’re reaching.
Actually, I think conservatives expect they’ll get a fight no matter what, and so, while they don’t want one, they certainly welcome oneâ€â€particularly if they can have it out in the open. The conservative-liberal breakdown in Constitutional law is meaningless to me; because we’re not dealing with percentages. We’re dealing with finding qualified individuals. And if anything, the conservative-liberal breakdown in my English Dept made me think through and ultimately defend my (conservative linguistic) beliefs more thoroughly then had I been, say, an apprentice to a conservative linguist, and was surrounded constantly by other conservative linguists.
I suppose you’re going to have to define “elitist conservatives†better, then. Because as it stands, Gillespie and Brown (whom I “singled out†moreso than you) seem to suggest that by virtue of disagreeing with the selection and arguing that there there are more qualified people available, critics are by default “elitists.†Which, if that’s the case, on what grounds CAN we criticize the selection?
Jeff:
I am sorry I was not clear. My satire was not directed at you. You expressly stated:
My point was that notwithstanding the lack of information regarding the nominee’s skills, loud braying for and against the nominee is occurring. They are selling soap, of one type or another.
To express regret that the nominee is not (fill in famous judicial conservative here), or qualms that the nominee’s positions are not known, are both legitimate reactions to the nomination. As is faith that the President has done well on nominations to date.
Challenging or supporting the nominee’s competence on the known facts is injudicious. The record is incomplete, and it would be wise (as you have suggested) to wait until more is known.
Hmmmm.
“I suppose you’re going to have to define “elist conservatives†better, then.”
Frankly I’m a conservative and I never finished High School, so pretty much anybody is more elite than I am.
Personally I’m opposed to Miers for many of the reasons outlined by Jeff. It’s a little disturbing that Jeff, who is not a conservative, and define the issues conservatives face so completely. I’d like to think I’m not that predictable, but there you go.
I don’t necessarily want a fight. But if a fight is going to come, then let it come. I’m not ashamed to be a conservative and I’m frankly unhappy the Republican party has seen fit to reduce my personal ideology to that of a radical fringe unworthy of deliberation.
*shrug* but since I’ve stopped being a Republican, I suppose that’s not my fight anymore.
Still. The schadenfreude is imminent!
At least for someone. Probably the Democrats.
This is America.
All Harriet Miers needs to do to is say something both Texan and pithy in the first ten minutes of her confirmation hearing and her approval ratings will climb through the roof.
Something like ‘Stuck on stupid’ or ‘In Texas, we call that walking’ is all it takes. Some possibilities:
“Senator Biden,in Texas we call that a dumb-ass question.”
Excuse me, Senator Kennedy, can we move that little doggie of a question of yours along into the answer corral
Senator Specter, I checked … this ain’t Scotland
There you go again Jeff being the voice of reason. Thanks!
That’s quite an idea Jeff. You contemplating a career move? I would rather you be on the court than Harriet. Your opinions would certainly be more readable than the law-clerk-drafted word-porridge regularly served up there.
Bush is either smarter than I ever thought he was or he has made a mistake. Flip a coin. With the information available to make such a determination, a coin flip works about as well as anything else.
I can certainly appreciate the arguments against this nomination, I share many of them. I would hope that if I were ever in Bush’s position, I would choose the best person for the job. What does that mean? The brightest sitting conservative judge? I don’t know specifically what he was looking for. I don’t know who declined the nomination, if anyone. I don’t know what kind of resistance was shown to “other names” or by whom.
She has been nominated. She will have a hearing. We will have some insight into her intellect and reasoning during that process. The President will not withdraw her nomination – she will either shine or flop at the hearing. If she does not flop she will be confirmed. If she flops, I think she will withdraw.
Reasonable people on both sides of this issue are passionate. Too bad they are on the same side of the political spectrum. Remember the 11th Commandment. Be civil.
Hmmm.
“Remember the 11th Commandment.”
And never forget the 13th Commandment.
If you’re in a fight, don’t ever leave the other bastard breathing.
Yet it still happens in every single movie I watch. Amazing. You’d think it would get around.
I understand the criticism. I just think the screaming is too much. I prefer victory over a fight as I do not trust enough of the GOP Senators to fight. They will look back at their states and do what is needed for their political future, not the future of the judiciary
It maybe that this fight is going to occur, the popular forces in both parties may be too strong for the leadership to resist and they may be forced into an epic political war in an election year. The problem for the GOP is that the big megaphones are still in the Democrats’ corner, and any solid conservative with a stellar track record of scholastic or judicial writing will be savaged as an extremist and way out of step. It is a fight that could be lost and I don’t think it would be wise to fight.
Not that I don’t glory in a good fight myself, but I want to win.
Word: among. “Among other things, I’m tired.”
If I could throw a different tact onto this, SCOTUS is more than the sum of its parts, it is also the interaction of those parts. What do you get with 9 eggheads? Too often, you get the results of the U.S. academy, hopelessly removed from the realities of daily life (ie, the ivory tower syndrome).
While not an ‘egghead’, Miers is an intelligent and hardworking lawyer. She brings a background of experience unlike the other 8 justices that she will interact with. It is this interaction, 8 scholarly judges with 1 southern lawyer/politico, that I see making a difference. If nothing else, to interfere with the ivory tower notion of SCOTUS.
However, the 2 cases I’d like to ask her about are Kelo and McCain/Feingold. IF she would have voted against the prevailing court on those cases, then I’m happier already.
TW – White, as in Wizard
Hi Jeff, thanks for the link. We just had an incident here in Jersey involving the Supreme Court’s eminent domain decision – basically it involves unethical politicians in bed with developers – just the sort of thing most people feared the minute the Court handed that one down. (Details here) Point being: This is the kind of decision the court is making with the kinds of judicial picks who have not sirred the pot quite like Miers. Those of us who are standing up for her right now (few in number, stout of heart and all that) believe she brings a pragmatic, real-world hand to the Court. We believe one question that’s not being asked, that should be asked, is: Would she have gone along with this bone-headed decision? We think not, we think she is the kind of woman who would have stood her ground (along with O’Connor, who we understand wrote a strong dissenting opinion) and said, essentially, “Are you people Insane??”
And the intellectual, right-credentials Court must surely have lost its mind on eminent domain. The Jersey case I’ve linked, or some other case like it, is going to make its way right back to the Court very soon. When the Court is making decisions of this poor quality, some of us are saying we need to change the way we think about who to appoint to it.
All ya’ll that are expecting to learn a lot about Harriet Miers judicial philosophy during her Senate Judiciary Committee? That dog won’t hunt.
Peep the tapes from the most recent hearings. We really don’t learn that much. Not as much as what we know right now about someone like Judge Luttig or Judge McConnell or Judge Owens.
Anyone expecting Senator Biden or Senator Specter to elicit revealing answers to penetrating legal questions is bound to have their expectations remain unfulfilled.
The problem with Owen wasn’t just the squishy RINOs. There wasn’t enough evidence of a conservative judicial philosophy for conservatives in the Senate and elsewhere to go to bat for her again.
So, of course, Bush picked someone even LESS visibly conservative. Smart.
What we will learn is an indication of her intellect, her “backbone”, how she handles adversity and some knowledge of her handle on the law. There will be things we will learn about her.
For years, conservatives, such as myself, have complained about activist judges. Bush promised that if he had the chance to nominate SCOTUS justices he would ensure that he did not nominate activst judges. To me that means a judge who may be an activist for the left OR for the right.
I believe that an originialist justice – and an originialist court – will, simply by definition, overturn activist decisions once before the court. I believe this to be a principle to which Bush adheres and see no reason to assume he will not continue following through with his promise after nominating Roberts to the SCOTUS. What evidence do we have that he is not a man of his word?
I reject activism on the court from either side and believe that an originialist court IS a conservative court. I thought conservatives were interested in interpreting the constitution based on what it says and not treating it as a “living document” to pervert so as to support outcomes desirable to fringe groups. If Harriet Miers respects this philosophy as stridently as Roberts does (and we will soon have a better idea), I don’t see a problem. Both she and President Bush have my full support.
I’m pleased that Bush seems interested in moving the court and our country back to a place where the rule of law supercedes the rule of emotion or elitism.
It is troubling to see so many conservatives be so reactionary and not realize that if we are to continue moving the country to the right, we will need to add seats in 2006 and elect another conservative to the presidency in 2008. We simply can’t untangle what the left has woven by nominating A justice. We need to see the overall battle and position fair-minded conservatives to positions of power so as not to sully our reputation in 20 years. Not that I dislike McConnell, but if he’s seen as an activist in a few years, we will begin to lose ground with the center – just as the left did during the Clinton administration. We should view this nomination as another small step toward a large victory. And that large victory depends on an apolitical court and a strongly Republican leaning house and senate…not to mention another 8 year republican presidential run. This is not a game of homeruns.
Well, OK. I guess if your expectations are set that low, you might not be disappointed. But her “backbone” isn’t an issue so much for me. Her judicial philosophy is. And I expect to learn nada about that during the hearings.
ARC: St Wendeler- Then you really have one concern, which is concern #1. She is not a Southern Baptist, though we’d be proud to have her attend our church.
Sunday morning services are at 8:00, 9:15, and 10:45. Ya’ll be there, y’hear!
By the way, until the Senate’s Judicial Committee begins their hearings on her nomination, all this is just idle chatter and a bunch of opinions with no basis in fact. Let W do his job and quit the whining. There is a good reason he doesn’t steer his administration according to the public opinion polls! That would be as train wreck worth watching from far, far away.
You are not going to learn the judicial philosophy of any nominee during the hearings. I understand where you are coming from – why have an “unknown” when a “known” is available.
The “unknown” is the one going into the hearings.
After my initial reaction of outrage to Meirs, the intervening days have given me time to reflect and soften my position. Although I am still feeling a little betrayed, Bush’s position is becoming clearer to me with the passager of some time. Basically, as his dumpiness said today, if Bush were to nominate ,say, Owens or Brown, he would be in for the fight of his life. He would also be entering this fight with McCain’s ass and Specter’s ass planted firmly in his way, and an “army” that gives no assurance of standing behind him.
There is really no way for him to win this battle, barring a miracle. Republican majority not withstanding, he doesn’t have the votes to even enact the “nukular option”.
I am thinking that the stealth candidate is the wave of the future, because, once again, the Democrats have stuck their thumb in the eye of tradition and civility, and destroyed ANY president’s ability to nominate who he wants to for the SCOTUS. The new rule is that without a super majority, you are screwed. The best choice left is to nominate a nobody that has no paper trail, and has never uttered a public opinion. I have no choice. I HAVE to trust Bush, but the situation is NOT of his own making.
So I am quietly backing off of my outrage, and am going to see what develops. In the meantime, I would like to thank McCain for once again putting his own interests before those the people he alleges to represent. It is looking more and more like my son will one day live in the USASR.
Sad to say, we’d need about 120 Republicans in the Senate to guarantee any result. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. When you don’t try, you show weakness, even more weakness than if you’d tried and lost. It’s called pre-emptive surrender, and it’s the Republicans’ usual strategy. Bush hasn’t just shown the base he’s weak. He hasn’t just shown the Dems he’s weak. He’s shown the whole world he’s weak, which is very dangerous.
Attila,
In one sense you are right. But in another – can he really afford to lose a battle over Owen? Or Brown? I think what he is doing is the best of all options. A loss to the Dems right now would have some very negative and far reaching psychological effects for the whole political balance of things.
I can’t believe I am writing this, because just last night I was still in a total rage. But I think we all have to work with the reality that we find ourselves in.
Like I said, I am pulling in my horns until I see what develops.
The problem has nothing at all to do with elitism. Several of the best candidates whose names have come up publicly did not attend Ivy League schools. If Priscilla Owen or Janice Rogers Brown had been nominated, you wouldn’t have heard a word. It’s just that, in comparison to them, Miers appears to be second-rate.
Thomas Lifson at the American Thinker has another take: Bush is trying to create a team that will work well together.
Who knows? Maybe he’s on to something. Maybe we don’t need a room full of prima donnas. It sure as hell beats me. My only hope is that the Golden Lobes of Rove will help Bush pull a rabbit out of a hat and we will all understand this choice some day.
Why not stealth?
Aren’t there people in the world that are being inserted into situations for the purpose of change who have no traceable background.
If I’m going to get someone on the inside, I’m not going to announce “Hey I’m putting someone in here that’s going to tear this court a new one. FYI.”
You’ve got some A1 Loonies on that court and there needs to be real change. Not trading activism for activism. More justices that apply the constitution, not bend it to their will.
Ayeeyah! The conservatives are revolting!
Whatta they gonna do? Deny him a third term, or cripple their own agenda for the next eight years by taking it out on the Republican Party?
After hearing and thinking about the question of which way our courts are going to go, and the apparent unwillingness of Senate Republicans or other GOP “leaders” to get into the kind of fight the other side has always been willing to start, it occurs to me that this isn’t 2005 after all.
It’s 1845.
Sixteen years from now this battle over what the judiciary is, will still be unsolved, and the hard political fight our side’s politicians don’t want to risk, will have become a much tougher and bloodier fight.
Hmmm.
“She is not a Southern Baptist, though we’d be proud to have her attend our church.”
Completely off-topic.
Growing up in very very rural New Hampshire we had a gentle man move himself and his son from waaaay down South and start up a Sunshine Baptist Ministry.
When I asked why he moved all the way up here into Protestant country to start a Southern Baptist ministry he replied:
“To bring religion to the heathens”.
Hehe.
Miers is an experienced lawyer. I am sure she would have little difficulty being confirmed for a district judgeship or a circuit court. She has no compelling claim to a Supreme Court seat except her close association with the president. Always a handy thing to have!
What is interesting to me is watching the angst here nomination is inspiring within “The Base.” Many are apparently not inclined to trust him. I think, given his track record, they are right to think this.
I’m also amused by the implicit concession by the right that it is all about politics. All this rhetoric about originalism and strict construction and not legislating from the bench is all rubbish. The Rhenquist Court was very activist and legislated all the time. Anyone who had any doubts about this should review the holding in “Bush v. Gore” on of the most ill-advised, arrogant and unprincipled decisions ever issued by the Court.
Hmmm.
“Anyone who had any doubts about this should review the holding in “Bush v. Gore†on of the most ill-advised, arrogant and unprincipled decisions ever issued by the Court.”
Utter rubbish.
The gist of that decision is that if there’s going to be a recount then *every* recount must be done the same way. Not one way in favor Gore in Democrat-heavy areas and another way against Bush in Republican-heavy areas.
That was the nonsense being perpetrated. That and the fact that the Florida State Supreme Court completely violated the state Constitution by “re-interpreting” the seven day requirement and giving the Democrats seventeen days to play their silly games.
Hmmm.
“Whatta they gonna do? Deny him a third term, or cripple their own agenda for the next eight years by taking it out on the Republican Party?”
And what has either Bush or the GOP done in the past 5 years that has advanced any conservative issues?
If it’s a case of having my money taken and then being ignored, I can get that from the Democrats. Hell Ed Gillespie called a room full of conservatives “sexists” and “elitists”. I’m sure I could convince a Democrat to call me that.
It would be just like home.
/sarcasm
Hmmmm.
“Thomas Lifson at the American Thinker has another take: Bush is trying to create a team that will work well together.”
Sounds like people are starting to navel gaze and pull things out of their ass to cover for Bush. Frankly I’ve read some really odd theories about this, but that’s somewhat exceptional. Create a team that will work well together? With Souter? Kennedy? Stevens? Ginsburg?
Are we talking about the Supreme Court here or the Supreme Justice League of America?
“By day they are humble Supreme Court justices deciding the fate of an entire nation, but by night they become …. the Supreme Justice League of America!”
“You thought Batman was a Goth-wannabe.
You thought the Boy Robin was a little gay.
You wondered what the hell kind of superhero Aquaman is when all he does is talk to friggin fish.
You gasped at the size of Wonder Woman’s boobs.
You had serious late night discussions on what would happen to Lois Lane if she and Superman ever got it on.
Well grab your boots and hold onto your jockstraps because….
The Supreme Justice League of America is on the job!”
…
I’m sorry but the bottle of Polish vodka I’ve got on my desk is not nearly enough to buy that.
Excuse me, but aren’t guys always holding on to their jockstraps?
Hmmm.
Here’s a question.
I’m watching Brit Hume late at night and he’s discussing Miers with the guy who is supposed to “sherpa” her through the process.
Now during this discussion they cover the normal course of events for a candidate which includes being investigated and vetted by the investigative committee.
WTF?
Excuse me but wasn’t Miers ON the investigative committee? How could she be investigated and vetted if she’s on the damn committee? Did they investigate and vet [?] her? Did they remove her from the committee while they did so? Did they bother to investigate her at all or did they just do a “well we all know her” bit of nonsense?
What the hell is going on?
I’m unconvinced by the argument that Miers isn’t qualified to be on the SCOTUS. The idea that it takes Godlike abilities to be a justice is a misnomer. What is important is her judicial philosophy, and who would know that better than Bush? To the cynic, cronyism is synonymous with corruption, but it can also be the only effective means of determining something as elusive as a person’s philosophy, and advancing them to positions of power.
Besides, I like the idea of having a justice with real world knowledge. I also am encouraged by the fact that she was in contract law, where the inherent meaning of text is primary.
I really like that the right can have substantive debates. Lord knows I don’t see that too often on the left. But so far it seems that this debate has become too intense and cynical in this early stage.
Now, I’m going to go drop a flexural and drink an Arrogant Bastard Ale. I think everybody else should join me.
Yes, Scalia and Thomas are Ivy League and products of the Con Law establishment. And how effective have they been in changing the direction of their own court, let alone the legal culture. Cultures like academia and the Con Law establishment are characterized not only by soft-left dominance, but also by the impotence of any dissenting group.
I think its a good idea to try another talent pool than that one…
Bush chose Miers because:
A. Choosing the chooser worked with Cheney
B. She’s had a conversion experience, like Bush, to a life of faith. Such a life gets bad press, but it beats a life paralyzed by letting the perfect be the enermy of the good.
Bush is an intuitive kinda guy, and the combination of A and B pushed his buttons.
If this pick avoids a fight, then Stevens and Ginsburg may feel it is safe to step down in a Republican’s tenure. These justices are old. Bush may have several more picks.
Bush has accopmplished quite a bit, the alliance with India being one of them. Everyone rails against the Prescription drug bill, but it got HSAs passed and they are the hottest thing going in the insurance industry.
Hmmm.
1. “Besides, I like the idea of having a justice with real world knowledge. I also am encouraged by the fact that she was in contract law, where the inherent meaning of text is primary.”
Wasn’t that one of the arguments for Roberts? With Roberts on the court doesn’t it already have “real world knowledge”?
And frankly I don’t think the whole “real world knowledge” argument works. SCOTUS works in an environment where detailed knowledge of obscure details is important.
2. “If this pick avoids a fight, then Stevens and Ginsburg may feel it is safe to step down in a Republican’s tenure. These justices are old. Bush may have several more picks.”
You must be joking.
ed,
It’s not really the argument. I just like it. But these “obscure details” you speak of are important to all lawyers. That’s what they do.
Hmmm.
“It’s not really the argument. I just like it. But these “obscure details†you speak of are important to all lawyers. That’s what they do.”
Except for one small problem. Most lawyers specialise in certain areas. They need to do so because of the vast volume of information. Many specialise by staying within a single state or region. More specialise by remaining within a relatively strict subset of the law such as real estate law, civil, criminal, etc etc etc.
Constitutional law is also a specific and highly specialised subset. Roberts, I’m told, is example of a Constitutional scholar having spent decades studying and litigating Constitutional law. So how does Miers civil and contract law experience help her here?
Civil and contract law will generally reference other similar civil and contract litigation. Constitutional law references other similar Constitutional litigation.
How do these intersect?
How is it not possible that Miers entire body of experience is nearly worthless and, to be effective, she would either have to rely entirely upon her law clerks or retrain herself from scratch.
Can you answer this? Can anyone?
I can’t seem to get your trackbacks to work. I linked to this post from Some thoughts on the Harriet Miers kerfuffle
Sure, ed. I can answer it for you. First of all, most of the cases the SCOTUS hears do not have constitutional ramifications. They indeed involve many obscure subfields of law including tax codes, regulations, and yes, contract law. In fact the function of the SCOTUS is to, in a sense, enforce contracts. The Court rules over cases in which there are differing interpretations of law and the Constitution at the appellate level. It is the job of the Justices to determine the legal meaning of these “contracts†when deciding a case. And in those cases where Constitutional interpretation is required, the Justices look to the Constitution, which is a contract, to find the original intent, and then they examine the precedent case law to make their determination of whether that original intent is being supported or subverted.
And it isn’t as if these precedents are hard to find. The problem with undue influence of law clerks stems not so much from a selective set of precedents but from lazy or indecisive Justices adopting the perspective of their staff.
I’m not so concerned over the charge of elitism because I think it’s good to have Ivy League con law judges on the Court as well. But that doesn’t mean that they are the only people who are capable of excelling on the Court.
We should have a rigorous debate over how we think Miers will come down on certain issues, but if we scream that she is unqualified right out of the box the nomination won’t last long enough to get to the real debate.