From The New Republic’s Ryan Lizza:
This pick reinforces several traits Bush doesn’t want reinforced right now. It’s a pro-business pick. In Texas Miers specialized in “commercial litigation, including antitrust and trade regulations and intellectual property disputes” according to this bio. It’s a pro-crony pick. She was Bush’s personal lawyer as far back as the 1980s, and obviously loyalty to Bush trumped intellectual firepower. Finally, the Miers pick cements the idea that Bush is politically weak and scared of a major fight with Democrats. As Bill Kristol just pointed out on Fox, this choice will be depressing to conservatives at exactly the moment when they were looking to be bucked up by the president.
For instance economic conservatives pleased by her corporate law background may find it distressing that in 1990 Miers voted for a 7 percent property tax increase during her short tenure on the Dallas City Council. And Miers’s long affiliation with the ABA will serve up lots of interesting tidbits that are unlikely to please social and legal conservatives. For instance, she apparently submitted the following report to the ABA’s House of Delegates. Here are two of the report’s recommendations:
Supports the enactment of laws and public policy which provide that sexual orientation shall not be a bar to adoption when the adoption is determined to be in the best interest of the child. ...
Recommends the development and establishment of an International Criminal Court.
[My emphasis]
Well, that bit about surrendering sovereignty cements it for me.* If this is true and if she’s not blocked in committee as a result, Republican leadership is moribund. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if she ends up withdrawing, so intense is the conservative pressure likely to become.
Writes Talk Left’s Jeralyn Merritt:
Don’t expect the Senate Democrats to put up a fight on Miers. On a blogger conference call last week with Sen. Harry Reid (I wrote about it here), he told us he asked the President to consider Harriet Miers.
My initial reaction to her nomination: Relief. I served with Ms. Miers on the Martindale Hubbell-Lexis Nexis Legal Advisory Board for a few years. She resigned in 2000.
[…]
I didn’t get to know her well, but we sat next to each other for several hours at the last meeting she attended and I liked her. We only talked law, not politics, but she won me over – and I was pre-disposed not to like her, that being the year that Bush was running for President and knowing she was his personal lawyer.
The other members of that Board at that time, at least four of whom are former ABA Presidents (including Martha Barnett who is quite progressive on women’s and social issues) know Ms. Miers from her ABA work and spoke very highly of her.
My opinion could change should additional information surface that she is a Thomas or Scalia, but I don’t think that will be the case. Compared to some of those under consideration he might have chosen, like the ultra-conservative 4th Circuit judges or Priscilla Owen or Janice Rogers Brown, Ms. Miers is a far better choice.
And here’s Daily Kos:
Several Democrats, including Reid, have already come out praising Miers, which ultimately will only fuel the right-wing meltdown on the decision.
I reserve the right to change my mind, but Miers’ biggest sin, at this early juncture, is her allegiance to Bush. That her appointment is an act of cronyism is without a doubt, but if that’s the price of admission to another Souter or moderate justice, I’m willing to pay it.
More immediately, this is the sort of pick that can have real-world repercussions in 2006, with a demoralized Republican Right refusing to do the heavy lifting needed to stem big losses. That Bush went this route rather than throwing his base the red meat they craved is nothing less than a sign of weakness. For whatever reason, Rove and Co. decided they weren’t in position to wage a filibuster fight with Democrats on a Supreme Court justice and instead sold out their base.
Sold out the base? Sounds to me like he sold out the country, if this ICC thing is true. Of course, there’s the chance she disagreed with the committee’s recommendations, but I’ll need reassurances. Here’s Harry Reid:
“I like Harriet Miers. As White House Counsel, she has worked with me in a courteous and professional manner. I am also impressed with the fact that she was a trailblazer for women as managing partner of a major Dallas law firm and as the first woman president of the Texas Bar Association. “In my view, the Supreme Court would benefit from the addition of a justice who has real experience as a practicing lawyer. The current justices have all been chosen from the lower federal courts. A nominee with relevant non-judicial experience would bring a different and useful perspective to the Court. “I look forward to the Judiciary Committee process which will help the American people learn more about Harriet Miers, and help the Senate determine whether she deserves a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court.
And therein lies the problem: we don’t need—nor should we desire— somebody to “bring a different and useful perspective to the Court.” What we need and desire is somebody who looks at the Constitution and applies and interprets the law. The only perspective required for the job is a commitment to keeping personal perspective out of the equation altogether.
Sadly, the “diversity” argument—insofar as it advocates worth based on an appeal to “fresh perspectives”—has spread to the SCOTUS nomination process. To be clear, I don’t care that Bush appointed a woman; but had he appointed, say, Janice Rogers Brown, I doubt we be hearing such happy talk from Reid about “fresh perspectives.”
(h/t John Cole)
****
update: Appendix / clarification: The postitions we’re taking here depend on how much we trust Bush’s judicial judgment vs how much political calculation we believe is involved in his selection (witness the White House’s unprincipled decision to distance itself from Bill Bennett last week). Earlier today, you’ll note, I was ready to give Miers the benefit of the doubt—at least in terms of her conservative bona fides; but I’d feel a lot better if I knew she didn’t support the ICC.
I think most conservative outrage stems from the fact that we haven’t been given a distinguished thinker—at least, comparatively—and that there were so many truly fine legal thinkers available. Miers, on the other hand, is a blank slate—and not one who shares Roberts’ reputation as a brilliant legal scholar.
So we’ll see.
****
update 2: More, from the University of Chicago Law Blog.
What the hell? Bush is acting as if the Republicans are the minority party. Doesn’t he realize that the judge issue is what put him over the top in 2004? It’s not like he has to run for reelection, he should show some balls and steamroll the Dems by nominating a true constructionist.
Christ… well there goes my smidgen of hope about this gal.
ICC?!
t/w: “all.”
Is lost.
Reid wasn’t referring to sex when he said “fresh perspectives,” he was talking about being a practicing litigator instead of judge/academic. I don’t exactly agree that that is a good thing, but Janice Rogers Brown isn’t exactly a foil for the point he was making.
Of course, to find a foil for the point he was making, you would have to find someone as obscure as Miers.
I agree he wasn’t talking about sex. I’m just pointing out that Rogers Brown (the sharecropper thing) would bring a “fresh persepective” as well—though such a fresh perspective wouldn’t be so smiled upon by Reid.
I’m not a social con. I supported Roberts with no real paper trail, because he seemed eminently qualified. This woman has supported the ICC.
Hold your horses. You’ve made your decision based on the fact that she chaired a committee that recommended to the ABA that an ICC be formed?
A committee. In. A. Guild.
That little blurb tells us nothing about her. I’m not inclined to support her, but that link isn’t a data point. The full text of the recommendation might be, and data regarding her input on it certainly would be. Absent something substantive, let’s not waste any pixels staking out positions that we might come to regret later.
TW: ‘then’. “Wait until then.”
No. I said if it’s the case that she supported that bit (see later in the post).
Sorry, I missed that the first time around. I would guess, however, that she disagreed with any number of the committee’s recommendations. It’s a committee, after all. That’s how they work. And don’t forget my point about it being a guild—the ABA exists to create more work for lawyers.
Hmmmm.
“I would guess, however, that she disagreed with any number of the committee’s recommendations. It’s a committee, after all.”
Ok then prove it. Prove she opposed the creation of the ICC.
This comes down to how much we trust Bush’s judicial judgment. Earlier, you’ll note, I was ready to give her the benefit of the doubt; but I’d feel a lot better if I knew she didn’s support the ICC formation.
I think most of the outrage here comes because we haven’t been given a distinguished thinker—at least, comparatively. But she is a blank slate. So we’ll see.
Color me skeptical, but I don’t exactly use Kos as my political thermometer. Politically, the guy is as astute as a turnip.
What we have (on the surface at least) is a candidate who may be very difficult to stop… especially if Bush can get his party on line for her nomination. And there are few people that Bush knows better personally that are simultaneously as unknown to the rest of the public, so she is the ultimate stealth candidate.
There has been quite a few people who have been calling for somebody outside of the constitutional law area. Harriet Miers appears to fit that bill.
In terms of the Republican Right doing heavy lifting… that would be a first. The best thing that I can say about the Republican Right as of late is that they now have that cannibalism problem relatively under control.
TW: blood
Not my point, ed. I’ll prove it just as soon as you prove that you don’t beat up women—which is to say, the burden of proof is on those asserting the affirmative, and not the other way around.
My point is that it’s a probability asymptotically approaching 1 that she disagreed with some of the recommendations. None of us know which ones. That linked blurb tells us exactly nothing about her jurisprudential philosophy. We should keep out powder dry until we do know something.
Most of you probably know this but the ABA is primarily a left leaning institution. As someone very familiar with the ABA and its leanings, I continue to be concerned.
Has Miers ever appeared in front of the Supreme Court to argue a constitutional question?
Has Miers ever appreared before a State Supreme Court to argue a case?
She reviewed all documents before they went on Bush’s desk. Ok, does that mean she has specialized in contract law with her practice? What’s her forte? Civil arguements, criminal, what? My guess is the only reason you have a lawyer in the trusted position of seeing all paperwork that floats before the president is to preserve plausable deniability or in other words to keep things politically clean.
Roberts is a totally different canidate. He was a lawyer who served under a previous Supreme Court Justice. A man who argued cases of constitutional questions in front of the Supreme Court on many, many occasions and just happened to have an incredible history of success in doing so.
There is absolutely no measuring stick for this nominee. For that reason it is horrid even if the woman is brilliant beyond compare in her views of constitutional questions. There’s simply no way to tell her from any other civil lawyer that’s followed the path of political council.
So what happens now if a liberal president nominates a radical appointee in the future? The Dems voted through both of the Republican nominees so what’s the fuss? Also, Bush is using this “stealth” canidate with little to no thought of unintended consequences for future nominees. Will it be de facto for Presidents to nominate politically connected question marks that have had successfull private sector careers? I mean, what kind of Pandora’s Box is he trying to open?
I hate this move.
You conservatives are worried that Miers might support the establishment of international law, and international law makes it harder for the U.S. to arrogantly do whatever it pleases. But we on the left are worried about what appears to be a history of religious fundamentalism in her background. She could well be a vote to overturn Roe, returning us all to the back-alley coathanger abortion days.
The quick answer is she’s never stepped foot in the Supreme Court.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Miers
Can’t tell if she’s ever done any State Supreme Court arguments.
Geez – is nobody going to point out her sterling work looking after Master Bruce and his youthful ward Dick Grayson? Balanced, admittedly, by the troubling hints of something-that-dare-not-speak-its-name with Alfred?
I nominate “back-alley coathanger abortion days” as the most ridiculous, hoariest phrase still uttered in what passes for political discourse.
Turing word: past
Considering what the Supreme Court is for, the correct response to those people is, at best, to ignore them.
What is the likelihood that this is a stealth candidate meant to draw the Democrats out? If they want to filibuster, get it over with against a “crony” and save the real candidate for a second attempt?
Is there any chance the Republican senators could vote Miers down as well? Gives everyone a chance to look important…
Just wondering – Dubya went for the jugular with Roberts and the vacant Chief Justice slot; I don’t think these guys are stupid. Blind and overly loyal, perhaps, but then again what administration didn’t have it’s cronies?
DC
Do I see a Katrina reaction here?
I see the Poker Player doing another headfake, thats what I see.
Anyone want to give the President some credit? You know, ‘cause he’s such a dummyhead? He knows her, after all.
Look at what the left is saying…Reid is acting like a puppy thats been told he’s a good dog, fer crying out loud.
Remember, the President is going to probably two nominations in the next three years.
Oh, and that ICC thing? I think Meiers was a democrat then.
Just saying…
Durand
TW:mans, as in the Mans not insane, you know…
I’m confused – Reid likes it, so that’s a good thing? Why does this guarantee that Reid will do anything in the future? Reid sees she is an intellectual zero so of course he won’t oppose her – she’s not a threat to anyone, unless you cross her – then your parking pass at the White House may be revoked!
The sad thing is, had Bush simply been a more competent president, he wouldn’t have to be spinning – he could just nominate whomever (he IS replacing a Republican slot on the court, after all), and Specter and Reid could have sucked it.
I agree Charles Austin to that nomination. I am assuming Herman is male and has no idea that abortion is forced because SHE is to weak to stand up for herself and HE does not want to bother with the Fucking mess HE takes part in making.
Listen Herman, as a first generation female born in the dawn of the abortion culture I am today very much against abortion not because of the ‘religious fundamentalism’ you apparently are so very frightened by, but because of the social and cultural decay this practice has brought to the female. I abhor NOW for its fraudulent empowerment lies which have basically led females straight into Hugh Hefner’s paradise willingly eager to objectify themselves. Oh goody we get the power to choose that which is already taken anyway. Big Fucking Deal.
I take it that you of course don’t want to see those ‘backalley abortions’ because you prefer a nice vacumn cleaner to take care of your part in making such mess. Guilt-free sex?
Gloria Steinem may have burned our bras but she left a legacy of sagging siliconed breats worn by helpess screaming victims of everything including the plight of Eve Ensler’s vagina screwed by, metaphorically speaking, castrated limpid Dicks.
In my opinion, why bother with such a vicious and vile practice when male abortion supporters could simply be castrated and likewise, as a matter of choice, perhaps females should consider sterialization as choice. This would be the Liberal thing to do.
To riff off what McGehee said above about this quote:
Yeah, that makes sense. About as much sense as putting flight attendants in scrubs and having them perform open heart surgery or asking one of the local Starbucks barristas to jump behind the wheel of a cop car for some patrol duty.
Experience is fairly important to most jobs; for some absolutely imperative. There are exactly 9 Supreme Court slots and Bush has nominated someone who’s only experience with a robe is presumably after she gets out of her bathtub and dries off. The highest court in the land needs trainees? I’m not buying it, no matter what the political bent or level of professionalism Miers apparently possesses.
Herman, not too long ago, I read a piece written by a pro-choicer that considered what would happen if RVW was overturned and power for setting abortion statutes went back to the states. In his analysis, the country would lose less than 10% of the abortion clinics it currently has. Turns out that even though it is legal everywhere, there are still far fewer abortion clinics in states that would currently outlaw abortion. His point being that perhaps maybe way too much energy and political capital was spent trying to fight court nominations on this issue. In any case, this would also indicate that should RVW be overturned, dark days of backalleys would not follow.
Everyone hollering because this nominee is not a “distinguished judicial mind” and “has not Supreme Court experience” and “Isn’t a Constitutional law expert” are barking up the wrong tree. I want the Supremes stacking with people who can read the plain English that the Constitution is written in and compare that to cases that come before them. If the cases don’t stand up under the plain English language in the Constitution then take an axe to them.
It’s all these “Constitutional Specialists” that have contributed to the mess we find ourselves in. Give me someone that can just read and understand the language and doesn’t want to stretch the words into taffy to get what they want.
tw: evidence, Jeff–you put the tw’s in for each post don’t you. C’mon, fess up now.
I’d have to agree with Phil on this one. A reference to a list of recommendations generated by a committee of 14 people is hardly a strong condemnation of the women.
That being said, I would be intertested in knowing how she leaned on the issue however because I don’t know how anyone who has ever seen the UN in action could ever truely believe in the impartiality of an international court.
Uber-socialcon James Dobson was on Brit Hume’s show just a short time ago and he gave Miers the thumbs-up. FWIW
Re: Dobson. The social con establishment tends to want activist judges who will tease out from the Constitution penumbras that help their particular social agenda. And Dobson is probably thrilled that Mier tried to get the ABA to change its stance on Roe.
I want someone who will treat the Constitution with the reverence it deserves and who has the mind and will to do the right thing. I want to know more about her stance on the ICC, etc., because I want to know if she’s a conservative who, when surrounded by liberals, begins to look for their acceptance.
Apparently, Miers is a pretty big evangelical so I guess that’s why Dobson is getting a hard-on about her.
Jeff,
You just managed to create a great and loyal supporter of Miers. I absolutely love it! Thanks for the great info…
And, I had grave reservations about Mier before!
N-
Gee, when you put it like that, it’s so simple! Clearly words and phrases like “unreasonable” and “due process” are capable of application with mathematical exactitude.
If this ICC thing is true, I am suddenly VERY pissed off. Any American who supports an ICC should immediately be stripped of all Constitutional protections. If you are pro ICC, why wait? You don’t believe in American soviergnty anyway, so you obviously have no use for the Constitution.
I hope with all my heart that this isn’t true…
Josh,
Yeah it is about that simple. This country got along pretty well until FDR (okay Wilson) pushed the Feds do everything, own everything and everyone idea. The creation of unconstitutional laws has steadily accelerated since then. It’s the lawyers straining at gnats and camels that can squint and find new content in a document over 200 years old.
Jeff,
I don’t see what you see.
Ms. Miers submitted a report to the ABA. Presumably it was not written by her, but by a committee. Since the ABA is dominated by Democratic-leaning liberals, any committee is going to be weighted in that direction.
So how is the report going to reflect about Ms. Miers’ views about anything? It is not her report, it is the report of some committee of the ABA.
Morevover, Ms. Miers has a track record of working from within the ABA in order to moderate some of its more moonbat tendencies. She insisted that the ABA put the question of abortion rights to a vote of the ABA membership before issuing a pro-abortion policy statement.
I think you have totally flubbed your interpretation of this report’s significance.
Matthew —
Here’s what I wrote:
What I want to know here is how influenced Ms Miers is/was by the progressive political culture in the ABA, because it will give us some idea about how she might react to the political culture in DC when (if) she’s a Supreme Court Justice—some of whom tend to drift left.
Jeff,
One point and a one question.
First, President Bush is very smart, just as smart as you. He has plainly stated, even in the middle of a very hotly contested re-election campaign last year, that he will insist that any supreme court nominee be a constitutional constructionist conservative.
President Bush has closely worked with Harriet Myers since he was governor of Texas. If President Bush is convinced that Ms. Miers is a conservative constructionist, then that is all the reassurance I need. Period.
The beauty of all this is that Harry Reid thought he could slip a moderate or a liberal past Bush. He apparently believes his own propaganda about Bush being chimply McHitler idiot-boy.
Jeff, take a step back and think about this. President Bush has every reason to pick exactly who he wants to go to the supreme court. He has told us what he wants, and that’s what he’s giving us.
And here’s the question:
Why did you highlight the following from the ABA report:
Supports the enactment of laws and public policy which provide that sexual orientation shall not be a bar to adoption when the adoption is determined to be in the best interest of the child.
Are you against homosexual adoption, or do you think it is just more evidence of the allegedly liberal/moderate mindset of Harriet Miers?
Uh, I didn’t hightlight that part of the report. Ryan Lizza of TNR did.
Oops, I need a preview button for reading comprehension. Sorry!
Jeff,
If conservative meant what you wish it meant, you would be right about conservative pressure being too much for Miers. But it doesn’t. Not to most people left, right, and center. To them it means folks like James Dobson, and those conservatives will support their fellow evangelical. See:
http://www.worldmagblog.com/blog/archives/018817.html
“Hecht says about Miers’ judicial philosophy: ‘She’s an orginalist—that’s the way she takes the Bible,’ and that’s her approach to the Constitution as well—‘Originalist—it means what it says.’”
The source of your confusion is the fact that Meathead has become Archie Bunker, but being Archie Bunker, he’s too stubborn to quit calling himself a “liberal”. Leaving true liberals like yourself nowhere to go…
This thread’s probably dead, but, RC, if you really thinkg lawyerly hairsplitting is a recent phenomenon, you should probably go take a gander at Marbury v. Madison and disabuse yourself of that notion.