First, here’s Rich Lowry:
Just talked to a very pro-Bush legal type who says he is ashamed and embarrassed this morning. Says Miers was with an undistinguished law firm; never practiced constitutional law; never argued any big cases; never was on law review; has never written on any of the important legal issues. Says she’s not even second rate, but is third rate. Dozens and dozens of women would have been better qualified. Says a crony at FEMA is one thing, but on the high court is something else entirely. Her long history of activity with ABA is not encouraging from a conservative perspective–few conservatives would spend their time that way. In short, he says the pick is “deplorable.†There may be an element of venting here, but thought I’d pass along for what it’s worth. It’s certainly indicative of the mood right now…
I’m sure that she is a capable lawyer and a loyal aide to President Bush. But the bottom line is that he had a number of great candidates to choose from, and instead of picking one of them–Luttig, McConnell, Brown, or a number of others–he nominated someone whose only obvious qualification is her relationship with him.
Miers is also 60 years old, which limits the number of years she will be able to serve on the Court. The great unknown is whether she is a conservative. I don’t know, but President Bush does; and I think he is committed to moving the Court in the right direction. So until we see something to the contrary, I’ll take it on faith that she will be a principled strict constructionist on the Court.
It’s an inspiring testament to the diversity of the president’s cronies. Wearing heels is not an impediment to being a presidential crony in this administration! I can only assume that the president felt that his support was slipping in this important bloc, and he had to do something to shore it up.
I’m appalled:
1. She’s 60. There were lots of highly qualified younger candidates out there who would have sat on the court for decades.
2. She has no judicial experience.
3. She has no public track record of proven conservative judicial values (what happened to Bush’s 2000 promise to appoint people in the old of Scalia and Thomas?). How do we know she won’t be another Souter? or Kennedy?
4. She’s a Bush crony, which is an unfortunate choice for an administration that has been fairly charged with excessive cronyism (anybody remember ex-FEMA head Mike Brown?).
5. Her resume pales in comparison to those of some of the other leading candidates.
6. Why is the leader of a party that supposedly about merit and against affirmative action making an appointment that can only be explained as an affirmative action choice?
7. And if Bush was bound and determined to make an affirmative action choice, why not go with a more experienced and qualified woman like Edith Jones or minority like Emilio Garza?This appointment reeks of cronyism, which along with prideful arrogance seems to be the besetting sin of the Bush presidency. At this point, I see no reason – none, nada, zilch – for conservatives who care about the courts to lift a finger to support this candidate.
It’s not just that Miers has zero judicial experience. It’s that she’s so transparently a crony/”diversity” pick while so many other vastly more qualified and impressive candidates went to waste.
Bill Kristol, “Disappointed, Depressed and Demoralized.”
And Glenn—not a traditional conseravative—says, “Perhaps they’ll change my mind, but so far I’m underwhelmed.”
But here’s Bench Memos’ Richard Garnett:
For starters, and with all due respect to Mark Levin, the claim that “[e]ven David Souter had a more compelling resume that Miers” strikes me as quite mistaken. So does the statement that “Miers was chosen for two reasons and two reasons alone: 1. she’s a she; 2. she’s a long-time Bush friend.” There is, at least, a (3), namely, that President Bush and his advisors  his advisors who are, it should be remembered, entirely committed to constitutionalism in the courts  believe that Ms. Miers is a judicial conservative.
I yield to no one in my respect for the “farm team”  McConnell, Alito, Luttig, etc.  but I am also surprised that some are so quick to assume that this President, who fought hard to get home-run judges Pryor, Owen, Colloton, Brown, McConnell, Sutton, Roberts, etc., confirmed to the courts, would suddenly drop the constitutionalism-ball just to be nice to an old friend or to satisfy those demanding another female justice. This is a White House  and, more particularly, this is a White House Counsel’s office  that is well stocked with very smart conservative lawyers, who understand that few things are as important to a President’s sucess, and few tasks are as central to his constitutional obligations, as judicial nominations. Whatever our complaints might be about some of this President’s decisions, I do not think he has ever given conservatives anything to complain about when it comes to judges and Justices.
It would, we all agree, have been a horrible betrayal and an epic blunder for this President to think that by nominating a woman to the Court  a woman without, arguably, battle scars from the “culture wars” in the courts, he could please the Left or guarantee an easy nomination process. It seems to me, though, that there is no reason to think that this President thought or thinks this. President Bush clearly believes that Harriet Miers is a conservative, who does share the commitment of Justices Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist, and Roberts to a democracy-respecting understanding of the Constitution. This is not a case where those of us who believe strongly in the rule of law are being asked to rely on the vouching of Sununu and Rudman; this is a case where an Administration that has consistently  uniformly  picked solid judges is holding out a nominee who, the Administration reports, is every bit as solid. Frankly, I’m pleased by the fact that the White House Counsel who gave us Roberts, Pryor, Owen, and Brown has been nominated to join their ranks.
And Hugh Hewitt:
Harriet Miers isn’t a Justice Souter pick, so don’t be silly. It is a solid, B+ pick. The first President Bush didn’t know David Souter, but trusted Chief of Staff Sunnunu and Senator Rudman. The first President Bush got burned badly because he trusted the enthusiams of others.
The second President Bush knows Harriet Miers, and knows her well. The White House Counsel is an unknown to most SCOTUS observors, but not to the president, who has seen her at work for great lengths of years and in very different situations, including as an advisor in wartime. Leonard Leo is very happy with the choice, which ought to be enough for most conservatices.
Hubris, however, ain’t buying that last testimonial…
****
Whenever the Bush administration pisses in your pocket, you can count on Hugh Hewitt to tell you that it’s raining.
So there’s something about her that all the insiders “obviously” think is great about her? I’m sorry, but something about me won’t let me say, “Hey, she must be great, because so-and-so picked her.”
Ahhhhhh! Talk about Democrap opportunity. This move allows the Democrat’s to change their tune and approve of a Bush decision for once. Nothing could be more demoralizing. They can actually kill two birds with one stone, cry cronyism and still support the choice. This would be the strategy I would take; and it sucks.
What a frickin’ nightmare.
I have read Hugh and his links of support, but no. This is not good.
The problem isn’t that she may or may not turn out to be a good constructionist. The problem is that there is an unknown at a time when the party needed the Bush administration and the Republican Party to show some sign, ANY SIGN, that they were fully behind the base.
Don’t get me wrong though, I’m not saying she’s unfit either. I’m jsut saying don’t offer a nominee and say empty shit about her like “She’s talented” and that she gets to go to Camp David and she’s a “pitbull in size 6 heels”. I mean, so is Bea Arthur, but we don’t see her up there because we KNOW she’s unqualified. It would be nice if there was some proof of her qualifications or history, other than the opinions of some White House staffers.
This could be a nominee that Republicans can actually vote against. The administration is taking the Republican yay vote for granted here.
Who cares if she’s conservative, this is a position that deserves the very best the country has to offer. Nominating anything less than a brilliant legal mind because of gender or some twisted sense of loyalty is unresponsible. Ten years from now (hell three years or one day) she won’t give a rat’s butt who put her in the seat.
It’s like having the first pick in your Fantasy Football pool and choosing Ashely Lele because you’re a Bronco fan. The goal is to do what is best for the country, not what’s best for yourself. Horrible decision.
shank, you forgot about her long record of service with “Meals on Wheels”. I also understand that she has pitched in with the employee car pool and once gave a bum a spare quarter.
That plus the patented Bush “I’ve looked into her soul, and found it pleasing to me” qualification (past winners include Vladamir Putin and Norm Mineta) and she’s certain to please conservatives and others who prefer an originalist jurisprudence!
Is that a picture of Harriet in the blue bikini over there on the left side of Jeff’s page?
Uggh. It is still early but…
Far left radical loser blog:
Talk Left:
Should have looked ahead of time. Bummer.
dbn:
Yes, it’s an ad for the Nominate Anybody blog.
There’ve been quite a few sports metaphors flying around, too. Someone on morning radio was calling this a punt when the winning touchdown was within reach. Someone else online called it an unforced error. We’ll just have to hope it doesn’t turn out to be a safety. If this is the best he can come up with, then I think he’s become dangerously cloistered. Maybe if he got out into the blogs more, he wouldn’t feel that way. Mr. President: Technorati is your friend!
Turing = problems, as in No kiddin’, that’s the Turing word!
Maybe she won’t make it out of commitee.
One can hope.
I don’t get the people poohpoohing the Souter comparisons. Was Sununu an insufficiently conservative advisor for Bush? I remember hating that guy, so it would surprise me if he was.
Well, at least it isn’t Alberto Gonzales.
I dissagree with those who think this is a time to reassure the base. I think it’s a good move. Let’s face it guys, the base doesn’t win elections; the center wins elections. This is no time to be cramming a conservative with a track record that the Dems can run against next year through the process. I’ll take a stealth conservative any day. Look at the plusses: Some Dems are already supporting her, nearly guaranteeing her success. The angry left is already suggesting that she is gay or bi because she’s unmarried, ensuring that they are going to embarass themselves no matter what. And if she doesn’t get confirmed, the President can easily demonstrate obstructionism for no good reason other than he nominated her.
I trust this president. He is a lot smarter than the media makes him look, and he has never lied to us. This candidate is only going to divide the Republicans if we let her. She has already split the Dems and nullified their ability to successfully block her, or use her nomination as a club next September. A known conservative would have forced the Dems to rally against him or her, even if they didn’t believe that way about the candidate, and if the Dems could make the case that the President had nominated a divisive candidate, it would seriously hurt all Republican legislators, Governors, and State government officials who are defending their seats or trying to oust dems next fall.
The bottom line is that she’s an improvement over O’Connor.
The folks who are wailing and gnashing their teeth over thiswere doing the same over Roberts when he was nominated. They’ve shot their credibility. Yep, he’s another Souter all right.
Further proof that W is a pragmatist and not an ideologue.
W is also a poker player. Here’s his bet as I see it. W knows that Mier has second class credentials. He also knows that she’s solidly conservative, she’s female, and she’s confirmable without a bloodbath. My guess is that he’s looking for cover for the ‘06 elections. Miers gives the hard right a chance to preen and kvetch a little, but at the end of the day, come home. The hard left will continue to look ridiculous, and they’ve got a modestly tough political problem. It’s harder to beat up a woman.
Personally, I’d have much preferred a hard liner. I think it’s time to draw a line in the sand.
Jim- I don’t think anybody knows who she is. Additionally, I think many conservatives understood why Roberts was nominated, despite his lack of so called “conservative bonafides” but to nominate two relative unknowns to the Supreme Court, including one who’s never been a judge ?
Its puzzling. For me, I’ll wait and see how it pans out.
Hmmmm.
“I dissagree with those who think this is a time to reassure the base. I think it’s a good move. Let’s face it guys, the base doesn’t win elections; the center wins elections.”
America is about 35% conservative. Bush won in 2004 with 51%. That means about 16% of moderates voted for Bush in 2004, assuming of course that all of those 35% conservatives voted for him.
So. You go on ahead and try winning elections with that 16%. People keep repeating that “the center wins elections”. Yeah that’s true. But it’s ONLY true if the base is there to begin with. If Bush and the GOP loses the conservative voters and financial supporters, that 16% is going to have to stretch a long damn way.
I’ve written this many times here that the GOP is no friend to conservatives. This absolutely proves my point.
Oops. Math error. 16% of the moderates is not the same as 16% of the electorate. Unless, you know, we’re all moderates.
Hmmmm.
“A known conservative would have forced the Dems to rally against him or her”
Wish I had read this part. So your opinion is that no conservative should ever be nominated to the Supreme Court because the Democrats would object?
That’s a frankly ridiculous opinion. And if that is echoed by the Republican party, as it seems to be, then Fuck the GOP.
Hmmmm.
“Oops. Math error. 16% of the moderates is not the same as 16% of the electorate. Unless, you know, we’re all moderates.”
Jesus Christ. 51% – 35% = 16%.
Did I really have to write “16% of the electorate that are not conservative nor liberal and therefore can be called either centrist or moderate”?
*My guess is that he’s looking for cover for the ‘06 elections. *
I dunno, I think a SCOTUS nomination is entirely too important to decide on a nominee based on the need to “cover” the republican party for 06. From my perspective, if many of the conservatives running for re-election had done their jobs (small government, cut spending, PICK A FIGHT WITH LIBERALS), they wouldn’t need cover.
I want W to pick a fight with the left’s pompous windbags. Make them break their promise not to fillbuster. Put them on the hot seat. Unfortunately, it looks to me like he’s putting up a “safe” nominee, dipped in cronyism. And this, coming from a staunch bush supporter. /shrug
No, you just had to NOT write “16% of the moderates” when it was just over half. But as long as you knew what you were talking about, never mind.
In other words, assuming right/left symmetry, moderates comprise 30% of the electorate. If the assumption that the 16% of non-conservatives who voted for Bush are moderates is a true one, then the correct percentage of moderates is 16/30 = ~53%.
I know, I’m anal that way.
Dang. And here I thought he meant MIKE Meyers…
Not quite. I’m pleased with the Roberts nom—this one is inexplicable. At this rate I could be the next SCOTUS nominee.
And by anal, I most emphatically did NOT mean…oh, forget it.
Hmmmm.
“In other words, assuming right/left symmetry, moderates comprise 30% of the electorate.”
No that’s not correct. The ratios are supposed to be:
25% Liberal
35% Conservative
40% Moderate/Centrist
“No, you just had to NOT write “16% of the moderates†when it was just over half.”
No I did not write that. If you’re going to quote, then do it right. The actual quote is: “That means about 16% of moderates”. What you quote, and attributed to me, was your own quote.
And no it’s not “just over half” as it’s far under half.
*shrug* you want to be anal, so can I. It’s a waste of time when the meaning is clear but what the hell.
this President, who fought hard to get home-run judges Pryor, Owen, Colloton, Brown, McConnell, Sutton, Roberts, etc., confirmed to the courts, would suddenly drop the constitutionalism-ball just to be nice to an old friend or to satisfy those demanding another female justice.
Scuse me? How hard did he fight to get these folks appointed? He could have pushed them through several times, instead leaving them to twist in the wind for an interminable period and allow 14 senators to hijack the entire chamber.
Let’s not rewrite history, shall we?
Hmmmm.
“Let’s not rewrite history, shall we?”
Yeah. Anybody remember Estrada?
And just how many conservatives has Bush appointed anyways? I know he’s appointed about 214 judges. But what percentage are conservative? What number are conservative?
Is it really as low a number as it seems?
Which is pretty much what I said. Gosh, that “the” added a whole different flavor, didn’t it? No, it didn’t.
Still incorrect, ed, even with your new percentages. Sixteen percent of moderates would be sixteen percent of (assuming your numbers are correct) forty percent of the electorate, or 6.4 percent of the electorate. Which would, indeed, be a fairly small bagging of non-conservatives. What did in fact happen was that Bush captured a share of moderates that was sixteen percent of the electorate, which means he captured (using your numbers, here) forty percent of moderates.
IOW, It’s a waste of time when the meaning is clear is kind of irrelevant, here. What you said was not just unclear, but false. That you’re continuing to argue about whether it’s false is just baffling. You may as well be arguing that pi=3/2.
I really don’t know enough about her to have an intelligent opinion (I do have a lot of other opinions, though). Perhaps that’s the reason she was picked – stealth again.
Word: yet. I really don’t know anything about her yet.
Hmmmm.
“Gosh, that “the†added a whole different flavor, didn’t it? No, it didn’t.”
You were the one being anal, not I.
What I had intended, which should have been really fucking apparent to anyone reading that post, is that 16% of those voting for Bush were moderates.
And since I went through and redid that stupid line, it’s frankly amazing that you still can’t understand that.
When people make a small mistake most other people can puzzle the meaning out. Sorry you can’t seem to do that.
ed, it’s really fucking apparent to me that you’re still confused. If 16% of the people voting for Bush were moderates, what were the other 84%? Conservatives? Let’s do the math: if Bush got 51% of the popular vote, that’s 0.51*N, where N are the actual number of people who got off their lazy asses and voted (plus the dead people who voted through whatever means, but that’s a side trip destined to end in a bad accident). 84% of those would be 0.84*0.51*N or 42.8% of the electorate. Oops, almost eight percent of the electorate more than the conservative faction. So either you’ve accounted for too few moderates, or nearly eight percent of the 25% of the electorate that are liberals crossed over.
So, again, if you have an idea of what you want to say, you haven’t yet managed to say it in a way that makes any sense to those of us who graduated grade-school math. I guess there’s an alternative interpretation here, just to be fair: that you know exactly what you want to say, but what you want to say is incorrect. Which, come to think of it, would explain a lot.
TW: few, as in all too few people possess basic math skills.