In a long and interesting comment thread to this pro-Miers post by Beldar, which itself excoriates NRO for abandoning a pretense of neutrality (an odd demand of an opinion journal), Hans Gruber sums up his disappointment with the Miers nomination this way:
[…] Now [the President] hands us another nominee, this time a former Democrat and supporter of racial preferences, who has never written or commented publicly about any issue of constitutional significance in her nearly forty years as a lawyer. Maybe she will dazzle us with her “strict constructionism,” and maybe she won’t. If I were a betting man…
Unfortunately, no one defending Miers in the Beldar thread responded to Gruber’s point about racial preferences, a point I continue to insist is on the most telling indicators of Miers’ legal philosophy—particularly in lieu of any clear articulation of such by Miers herself.
So I’ll repost here what I posted in the comments there: Will someone who supports Miers please address the racial preferences point for those of us who wish to give the President the benefit of the doubt but are having trouble finding reasons—beyond the obvious political arguments for “Party fidelity” or fear of losing power (which, incidentally, I should note that I find dubious; my dismay over the behavior of certain conservatives is not likely to convince me Hillary is the better choice)—to do so in this case? After all, the WH supported affirmative action in Grutter, Miers was supposedly one of the forces pushing that support, and yet the two judges Bush claims best reflect his judicial thinking—Thomas and Scalia—dissented (in Thomas’ case, quite forcefully).
How does Grutter square with a constitutionalist judicial philosophy?
I will add here that the criticism I’m seeing of Miers critics is, I’m sad to say, becoming increasingly unhinged—in the Beldar thread, accusations against those concerned with the Miers nomination range from the (by now) well worn elitist charge to charges that critics are acting like liberals, are engaged in a pitiful, judgmental conspiracy akin to the Jew/Romans cabal that led to Christ’s crucifixion, are pinheads (or something worse), or are “mutineers” pissing on the house of conservatism that William Buckley built.
In very specific (and, let me add, fringe and isolated) instances, these charges my well carry weight. But in general, I find them to be tedious straw man arguments dressed up in tawdry clothing.
To repeat what I think is the actual gripe of many of Miers detractors: why her? Why not someone with a more clearcut and open conservative judicial philosophy? Why not someone who Republicans and conservatives could rally around? Why—with the White House, the Senate, and the House firmly under GOP control—would the President put forth a stealth candidate, one who may be pressured to recuse herself from important cases that touch upon the office of the Presidency?
As I’ve noted on several occasions, I believe Bush simply misread his base and assumed they would be happy with someone whom, with a wink and a nod, he could convince them was likely to vote his way on certain social issues important to what he believed to be the conservative base; and this, I suspect, accounts for the hamfisted attempt recently to reassure conservatives by referencing Miers’ religious affiliation, and by providing James Dobson with the kind of intimated information that the WH was certain would garner his support.
But again, it is my opinion that the real force behind the questioning of the Miers pick—and so the real conservative base, when it comes to judicial philosophy (as opposed to judicial outcome)—are the kinds of legal conservatives whose constitutionalist beliefs eschew outcome-oriented vetting in favor of the kind of ideological purity they believe will lead, inevitably and inexorably, to the “right” SCOTUS decisions (even if those decisions don’t always please them politically).
At heart, the split we are seeing now is between political pragmatists (those who support Miers either for what they feel is the good of the Party, or out of respect for the process) and strict judicial idealists (some who support Miers, believing she should be allowed to appear before the committee in advance of criticism, and who trust the President’s judgment; others who oppose Miers because they can’t trust her to follow an apolitical constitutionalism—a conclusion they’ve been forced to draw, in lieu of having access to a judicial paper trail, from both her political positions and those of the President).
Related: Ride Side Redux has charts Miers Pro / Con; also, another interesting (and heated) thread here.
****
update: Still no answer from anyone in the Beldar thread, and still no answer here. One possibility that I can think of (which doesn’t square w/ David Frum’s suggestion that Miers was instrumental in setting the Administration’s position, but does allow for her involvement) is that Ms Miers was merely acting as an advocate for the Administration’s political position as was previously decided, rather than exerting her influence on the WH to take that particular position. Some of her past statements and actions would seem to suggest that she was in agreement with the WH here, but unless she helped push the position, I suppose she cannot be held responsible for it simply by association.
****
update 2: Beldar writes:
I added the word “race-neutral” to my fisk above after re-reading the actual amicus brief, which effort I strongly, strongly recommend to anyone who is ready to condemn Harriet Miers’ nomination based on doubts about her position on affirmative action. (See also the contemporaneous White House statement about the brief.) I’d forgotten that the Administration’s amicus brief in fact asked the Supreme Court to strike down the University of Michigan Law School’s program on grounds that it (like the undergraduate program striken down in the companion Gratz case) was really a disguised racial quota. What drew fire from serious conservatives at the time was the Administration’s failure to condemn outright Justice Powell’s separate opinion in Bakke with its “race as a plus-factor” analysis  i.e., to go all the way to a true color-blind Constitution that takes the Fourteenth Amendment to mean exactly what it says  and Bob Novak and others attributed that “failure” at the time not to Ms. Miers, but to then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales. But this amicus brief was still far to the right of where Justice O’Connor’s opinion ultimately came out; and indeed, even to a committed considervative [sic], it is actually defensible on tactical grounds (a la the Thurgood Marshall “nibble strategy” used effectively in Sweatt v. Painter, for instance) in that it would have overturned the Michigan Law program without asking the Court to directly overrule any of its prior precedents. Before you use it to argue that Ms. Miers supports racial preferences, read the brief!
For me, taking the 14th Amendment to mean what it says is precisely the issue; that the White House decided it could massage that wording for “tactical” reasons fuels my concern (notably, Ted Olsen disagreed with the position).
I don’t know if I can concisely (or even precisely lol) explain this, but my beef is more with W than with Miers. I think this is how you and most of the others feel also. I don’t think Miers is unqualified, I do think she should be confirmed based on what we know now. I also don’t think she was the best pick, and I am pissed at Bush for doing so whatever his reason’s were.
It has nothing to do with sexism, elitism or anyisms. The problem for me is she seems most of her career to have been a political hack or
beaurocrat/admin type and that kind of temperament is not what I look for in a Supreme Court Justice. I have nothing personal against Miers, I just think Bush should have picked better. He really pissed me off with that trust me bullshit. I felt like he was selling me a used car.
tw: believe, lmfao!
Well, my own personal support of Miers stems from the fact that, in the here and now, successfully opposing will only lead to a “consensus” pick by a substantially weakened Bush, who will REALLY end up being a Souter.
I was just as pissed about Miers as anyone (and I roll my eyes every time I listen to Hewitt defend every single thing she’s ever said/done), but I have to say, I find a lot of the opposition to her shortsighted or immature, in as much as it seems to stem from an emotional need to express how betrayed they feel, rather do something that will advance the cause of originalist jurisprudence.
Russell —
How would Bush be substantially weakened to the point where he is forced to put up a consensus pick? After all, it is conservatives who are forcing the issue here; what do you make of my argument that Roberts was a perfect stalking horse for a more openly conservative constitutionalist?
I’m not asking to be snide; I’m asking because I don’t know and because I’m curious how that political calculus works. After all, the Dem base is likely to oppose Miers if they believe her to be pro-life and likely to frustrate Roe (Paul Deignan sees her as pro-choice, but he’s anomalous; personally, I don’t think knowing either way is a particularly useful calculus).
So what if he is weakened? A SCOTUS pick is worth fighting for. Or should be worth fighting for. Bush chose a more controversial candidate for ambassador to the UN for Christsakes.
And the party loyalists are worried about the ‘06 elections? A lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land is more important than the possibility of losing seats in the House? Do the words “Kelo” or “McCain” or “Feingold” mean anything to them? This most recent court has had a worse effect on civil liberties than anything the Bush administration has done in a Kossack’s nightmares, and they’re worried about midterms?
B Moe speaks for me as well. I have nothing against her personally (how could I? I don’t know a damn thing about her, yet!) but if she was truly the best and most experienced candidate for this job, that says something extremely unflattering about our judicial system.
The charges of cronyism and inexperience are out there not because we’re being mean or subversive but because they’re so obvious a blind man could see them at night in a blizzard with his eyes closed. Those two things are incontravertable.
She may make a great jurist; at this point chances are at least 50/50 we’ll get to find out over the next 20 years. But for Bush to put her out there as THE BEST candidate for this job at this time doesn’t fly with me.
I’ll also say that I agree with Beldar’s assessment of NROs poll: it’s unnecessarily harsh. I read National Review’s dead tree edition but usually find myself a bit to the left of them. However, they’re clearly seeking to torpedo Miers as a candidate in hopes of getting someone else, so while I don’t like the means, I’d not shed a tear if it worked.
There are certain people whose moral compass is “What will I feel comfortable chatting about at the next cocktail party?” I suggest that Miers is one of those and that she now parties with a different crowd. Not a good person for a judge, but could make a great mouthpiece for a client.
Mr Wardlow,
It’s interesting how people with so many of the same goals want different things to happen with Miers.
I agree that Miers has weakened the President. The problem is, that is a sunk cost. It’s happened. Now we have to minimize the damage. The only thing that makes sense, in my view, is to pull her now and as soon as possible.
A very large portion of the base is angry. Some of the base, even the solidly conservative base, is defending Miers because they think that Bush is vulnerable on this one, so they’re covering his flanks. This gives the impression that the base is divided, but they’re really not. The base is universally disappointed in the President’s choice, but some defend it because they think Bush will not cave and pull her nomination–so they cover his back.
Wardlow and others think that in pulling Miers we will get someone worse. Maybe someone more “qualified” but someone more stealthy. I disagree. If he gives us another blank slate, the base will be furious. Further, from what I can tell, Miers may be to the left of O’Connor. Is it really possible the President picks someone worse?
To minimize the damage, I think the President has to pull her. If not, many conservatives will abandon this president. Sticking with Miers entails many costs and no benefits for the President. If he dumps her, then the base will be perturbed but appeased.
Miers is only the tip of the iceberg. The real issue is the fact that 55 Senators currently do not a true majority make. Luttig, Brown, McConnell will not get confirmed with this Senate. The RINOs forced the Pres to go Stealth.
You want ideal? Start with the people who make the decisions, from the bottom up and the top down.
That means no McCain or Giuliani for nominee. That means getting rid of the SSS (Senate Spineless Seven) for good. That means ditching the House Rep that has been there for 20 years and is good at bringing home the pork. That means we may lose a seat in one house or the other due to getting rid of a strong incumbent (R) that is wobbly, ineffective, or NOT-IDEAL. It may even mean a stint in the White House for the Lizard Queen. It may take just that to galvanize our side.
It is most important we have conservatives in place in the Senate and President in 2008. Justice Stevens will retire during the next president’s term, if not before. Ginsburg most likely will as well, and by that time Scalia will be 82. In addition, Kennedy will be 82, Breyer 80, and Souter 79. Thomas will be 70. The 2008 and 2012 president(s) will have a MAJOR opportunity to shift the Court.
For people like me who believe there isn’t enough information to tell whether or not Miers will make a good Supreme Court Justice, ALL of you folks who have decided to support or complain about her look nuts.
There are two ways of looking at the Miers nomination. First, we can say something about her capacity to serve. Second, we can say something about the politics of the president’s choice. Many of the people talking about Miers seem to have confused these two issues.
For example, I see a lot of people who are criticizing the nomination because it was a bad move politically (I’m not saying this is true, but for the sake of argument…) and thereby opposing Miers confirmation. This position needs more. Even if it was a bad political move, she may still be an excellent justice. We just don’t know yet. So shouldn’t people just reserve judgment?
We’ve got folks running around saying the nomination should be withdrawn. If these folks are upset about the political choice, how is withdrawing the nomination going to help? If these folks are upset about Miers as a justice, what do they know that I don’t?
I don’t believe that Luttig would be rejected. Brown said some crazy things about Lochner that probably dooms her, though. Even if a solid conservative was rejected, so what??? It’s happened before. It makes us stronger. We would turn out in droves in 06 to build our majority!!!!
Is the President afraid to fight for his beliefs and his party? I’d give him the benefit of the doubt on this had he TRIED to put in Luttig or Owens or Brown. But he didn’t. Sorry, this isn’t a fight you run from. This is the heart and soul of the Republican Party.
“For people like me who believe there isn’t enough information to tell whether or not Miers will make a good Supreme Court Justice.”
Unfortunately, I think this is a no-brainer. Have you seen her writing? Yeah, yeah, how elitist of me to desire a Supreme Court Justice that writes well.
Who knows if she is conservative but her past, and even some recent actions (David Frum’s take on her involvement in Grutter, for example) seem to suggest she is not very conservative.
Jeff,
As I see it (and I’m open to being wrong on this, but I haven’t seen the point discussed much), it goes something like this:
1) Miers gets withdrawn or defeated because of Repubs opposing or refusing to support her.
2) From this result, the Dems become more emboldened to oppose anyone with even hints of originalism in their record, simply because they are now able to (it’s my belief, for instance, that they would have happily opposed Roberts had his credentials and personality not been likely to make them look like retarded ogres in doing so).
3) The handful of moderate repubs, on the other hand (the type who largely agree with the “living Constitution” concept), feel more free to break with the party in not supporting an originalist, since the prior show of disunity portends much less of a backlash. After all, they wouldn’t be the first ones to do it. They would have the rhetorical cover of saying, “The hyperconservative base got to block someone they considered unacceptable. We should have the same rights to have our voices heard…” etc
4)In addition, with each rejected nomination, there is more political pressure on Bush to nominate a “consensus” choice, since it will be percieved that his intemperate nominations are causing division and gridlock.
That’s the way I see it, anyway.
Hmmmm.
@ skymuse
To affect the Supreme Court it is most important we have conservatives in place in the Senate and President in 2004.
To affect the Supreme Court it is most important we have conservatives in place in the Senate and President in 2000.
To affect the Supreme Court it is most important we have conservatives in place in the Senate and President in 1996.
To affect the Supreme Court it is most important we have conservatives in place in the Senate and President in 1992.
To affect the Supreme Court it is most important we have conservatives in place in the Senate and President in 1988.
To affect the Supreme Court it is most important we have conservatives in place in the Senate and President in 1984.
To affect the Supreme Court it is most important we have conservatives in place in the Senate and President in 1980.
etc etc etc
Sorry “skymuse” but this is an old refrain. When when 2008 rolls around and a Republican is in the White House and then *still* doesn’t appoint a solid conservative to the Supreme Court, what then?
Shall we all hold our breath and wait for the 2012 election? 2016? 2020?
I don’t think that withdrawing this nominee would hurt Bush–at least, not nearly as much as putting her on the bench and discovering that she rules in some wishy-washy, liberal-ish way that looks like a combination of O’Connor and Souter. Based on her all but invisible record, that’s what I would expect, and the fallout from that would be much worse for Bush and the Republicans than just putting this misbegotten nomination out of its misery.
And that’s my last word on the subject, at least until the hearings or more info becomes available. Jonah had a nice piece on Miers Mental Dementia Obsessive Hysteria (aka Mm’Doh!)over at NRO that pretty much sums up my feelings. It just seems like everything that can be said at this point, pro or con, has been said.
Wardlow, I agree Bush has hurt himself and his ability to fight for a strong conservative nominee.
It will be harder to confirm a solid conservative now because Democrats will feel, rightly, emboldened by the President’s weakness, and moderate Republicans will feel like the President pandered to “the base” and sent up a “radical” who will “turn back the clock.”
Yes, Bush fucked up big. But those are all sunk costs. Do you really think we will be unable to confirm a nominee better than Miers? Really?
Dorkafork,
You’re missing my point. It’s because that SCt nominations are so important that opposing Miers would weaken Bush in regards to his ability to choose potential justices, which would only lead to a MORE likely liberal pick getting on the Court.
What I think people don’t understand is that, at the present moment, we’re in a shitty situation with two not particularly good options:
If we support Miers and she gets confirmed, we gain a cipher that, chances are, would be an originalist on more matters than not.
If we oppose her and she gets withdrawn or defeated, we will (in my belief) almost certainly get a reliable “moderate” (read: liberal) forced on us.
A thought, Wardlow, though I agree he has weakend his ability to get a solid conservative through the Senate.
Bush can get some wiggle room with moderates by sending up a supremely qualified candidate, and admit his error was in nominating someone with less than stellar experience.
Hans,
I think you’re wrong as regards “sunk costs.” A sunk cost is something that doesn’t affect future outcomes. But my argument is that whether Miers is confirmed or not would indeed affect the future with regards to judicial nominations.
Like I said, I’m open to disagreement on the question of just how a Miers defeat will affect Bush’s political ability to pick justices, but I haven’t seen anybody really address that point yet.
I’m a huge George W. fan. Made a big sign and hung it out in front of my house because the yard signs were getting stolen during the election. I don’t consider myself a moron though some of you may, that’s your right.
I like him because he’s my kind of guy. Committed, tough, dependable, compassionate and real. Kerry seemed like a pretentious dooooosh bag as does Kennedy and the like. Again call me a dullard or a dipshit – free speech.
A black reporter asked George a question at the last press conference I saw: Why don’t you get more of the black vote? (the basic jist)
George answered that he didn’t know. He got more than he got the first time around and he’ll keep trying to win them over. He also didn’t know why placing blacks in high-powered, important positions didn’t help as much with the black vote.
I hear a lot of the conservative commentators complain about the lack of black votes in the face of placing so many blacks in those important positions. Will those same commentators point out Miers propensity to elevate blacks? Is it the same thing? If no, why not?
I think Condi’s great. I dig Colin. Why even point out that they’re black if not to emphasize that they were picked over someone else because of their race? What am I missing?
be gentle.
Also: Have HER withdraw her name, so it’s not Bush’s choice. Then, appoint a Senator, like Cornyn or something, which the Senate would have trouble opposing with the ferocity they would bring to bear on a Luttig or Brown.
Hmmm.
@ Rob Michael
“For people like me who believe there isn’t enough information to tell whether or not Miers will make a good Supreme Court Justice, ALL of you folks who have decided to support or complain about her look nuts.”
If we wait until more is known, it’ll be too late. There’s no guarantee, nor any reason btw, that she won’t get confirmed. The entire confirmation process is political, not necessarily a function of Constitutional knowledge. Additionally there are the examples of Ginsburg and Roberts. Anything potentially damaging about her political and Constitutional views could be avoided by refusing to answer.
We will not learn anything important or new in the confirmation hearings. Nobody ever does. So then what? Will you remain on the fence? And if she turns out to be another O’Connor, then what?
We’ve got another 30+ years of yet another O’Connor. If that happens, can we all agree to NEVER trust Republicans on judicial nominations ever again?
Hans,
I think that might be right.
However, I’m fairly skeptical how much “qualifications” will cure the opposition that moderates will feel towards a reliable originalist.
It may even mean a stint in the White House for the Lizard Queen. It may take just that to galvanize our side.
That’s exactly what it’s gonna take, and while we’re at it, we’d better accept that Stevens and Ginsberg, and possibly Breyer and Kennedy will all be replaced with liberals who are just as bad, or worse. Do you really think the present spineless Senate RINO’s would oppose that?
the Dems become more emboldened to oppose anyone with even hints of originalism in their record, simply because they are now able to
I’m not sure what you mean here, Russell. Most of the heartburn over Miers is her lack of this record – can you clarify?
I’d rather have a competent, learned, fair liberal than an incompetent conservative. And I say that as a conservative. Putting an incompetent conservative on the bench hurts conservatives.
Joe,
But the heartburn over the lack of a record is from the Repubs, not the Dems.
If Miers goes down because of Bush’s own party wanting a more reliable conservative, the Dems will feel more willing to unify in opposition against the very sort of reliable conservative that Repubs nuked Miers over.
Hmmm.
@ Russell
“You’re missing my point. It’s because that SCt nominations are so important that opposing Miers would weaken Bush in regards to his ability to choose potential justices, which would only lead to a MORE likely liberal pick getting on the Court.”
I, for one, understand your point. What I don’t do is agree with it. The primary opposition to Miers, as was said before, is from the *Right*, not the Left. It largely doesn’t matter what the Democrats do as long as the conservative base is active, energised and not demoralised.
People like to point to the moderate Republicans as an excuse, but they are far from a suitable excuse. A lot of senators are ego-maniacal blowhards but even the worst of the lot would not wish to anger the entire conservative base. I point as an example (former) Senator Tom Daschle.
Do you really think these senators are unaware of what happened to Daschle? That he was sunk almost entirely because of conservative efforts? And only a very small fraction of conservatives at that. Now imagine a few moderate Republicans opposing a strict constitutionalist. What would be the result?
A massive firestorm. A hugely angry and energised base that would make every effort, utilise every resource to punish the offending senators.
Do you really think that there is one single member of the Senate that doesn’t keep what happened to Daschle uppermost in his/her mind?
Sorry but there’s a lot of nonsense arguments being made in defending Miers and that’s one of them.
Slartibartfast,
I disagree. Ginsburg is clearly very intelligent. And even fair minded, I would say.
But her judicial ideology is an abomination that causes atrocious results. I would much prefer a middling intellect with the proper philosophy of the role of the Court.
OK, I see your point, Russell. And if we had a Senate with an actual spine I’d say you were wrong on that count … but unfortunately you’re not.
All the more reason to sit out ‘06. Like I said in the last thread, it’s gonna get worse before it gets better. Let’s get the “worse” part over with.
TW: results, as in If the Repubs can’t produce any, why vote for ‘em?
Ed,
First of all, I don’t see how how you can use Daschle as an example. It just makes no sense. Opposition to a liberal Dem and opposition to moderate Repubs are completely different things. You can’t make that comparison.
Secondly, I think you’re simply 100% wrong about what moderate repub senators are willing to do.
Gang of Seven?
There was tons of anger about that, too. It didn’t amount to much. And I don’t see why people like Specter have to be THAT worried about angering conservatives across the country when it’s the moderate voters in Pennsylvania that put him in office.
“I think you’re wrong as regards “sunk costs.†A sunk cost is something that doesn’t affect future outcomes. But my argument is that whether Miers is confirmed or not would indeed affect the future with regards to judicial nominations.
Like I said, I’m open to disagreement on the question of just how a Miers defeat will affect Bush’s political ability to pick justices, but I haven’t seen anybody really address that point yet.”
Sunk costs are costs that shouldn’t affect decision-making, not outcomes. They do affect outcomes but their affect is not on-going. Anyway, let’s not get into that… LOL
I think we agree with the basis decision-making framework here. I agree that his decision has weakened his position to fight for strong conservatives. But it does not follow that we can’t get a candidate that is preferrable to Miers. I don’t believe that. You don’t think we could get a Cornyn or a Luttig? I think we could! Or I think there is good enough of a chance to make it worth our while to try. Am I an optimist?
Hmmm.
@ Russell
Here’s an example. There are, I think, about 40 million conservatives in America. Now imagine that a few senators decided to fight a Supreme Court nomination that was the culmination of 30 years of effort by the entire conservative movement? A cause that has been uppermost in the minds of most, if not all, conservatives of every kind.
Now imagine those 40 million conservatives were aggravated enough to contribute $50 each to a campaign to oust those senators involved?
That’s $2,000,000,000
And every single penny of it would be “hard” money, and could be used for any purpose in any election in any state.
This is one reason that, IMHO, the Republican party prefers to deal with conservatives as not one single group, but as a multitude of individual groups to avoid the issues that would arise from the aggregation of political and financial power.
Hmmmm.
@ Russell
“First of all, I don’t see how how you can use Daschle as an example. It just makes no sense. Opposition to a liberal Dem and opposition to moderate Repubs are completely different things. You can’t make that comparison.”
There’s no law that states conservatives cannot contribute to the defeat of moderate Republicans in either the House or the Senate.
Ed,
$2 billion dollars in funds raised because some senators didn’t support a conservative justice? That’s a fantasy, plain and simple.
Joe,
I think I agree with you that the only theoretically workable argument for opposing Miers is “We have to punish the Repubs now, and accept the fact that this will lead to a more liberal court, in order to make sure they are more responsive in the future.”
Of course, I don’t agree that that theory is right, since I think the present day costs vastly outweight the speculated future gains.
Hmmm.
And we come to the crux of the problem.
Not one single person has yet addressed Jeff Goldstein’s specific point raised in his original post:
And I completely and utterly reject any and all arguments about how this affects Bush. Bush is a grown man, it is not my job to cushion the results of a stupid decision. Either he’ll overcome any problems, or he won’t. If he can, then he’ll reinforce his reputation. If he cannot, then he never deserved that reputation in the first place.
Ed,
No, there isn’t any law that says so. But that’s just not how people behave politically.
Hmmm.
@ Russell
“$2 billion dollars in funds raised because some senators didn’t support a conservative justice? That’s a fantasy, plain and simple.”
Perhaps. But have you given any thought to how important this issue is for most, if not all, conservatives?
Hmmmm.
@ Russell
“No, there isn’t any law that says so. But that’s just not how people behave politically.”
I am a conservative that occasionally votes Republican because it is convenient to do so. I am most definitely NOT a Republican conservative.
What you seem to find impossible, I find perfectly logical.
Ed,
Look for mine. Is Condaleeza Rice an example of affirmative action?
If we’re going to look at how a Miers defeat will affect future Bush picks, we’ve got to consider that there are only two ways it’ll happen. Either Bush withdraws the nomination, or Miers “falls on her sword”. (If this gets to the Senate, she’ll be confirmed. The Democrats aren’t planning a fight, and if they aren’t looking to fight the Republicans won’t start one, they’ll toe the party line.) I don’t think that either of those two results will have a significant effect on future picks. Certainly not significant enough to gamble on Miers. Nor do I think it will have that big of an effect on ‘06 or ‘08.
Bush fought for Bolton for UN ambassador, it’s absurd that he should do less for a SCOTUS pick. This is something there should be a fight for.
Of course, I don’t agree that that theory is right, since I think the present day costs vastly outweight the speculated future gains.
What present day costs? An unacceptable Democrat SC nominee in ‘07, instead of an unacceptable Republican one? This very seat is supposed to be the fruit of our 30 years’ labor – so who’s speculating about future gains looks more plausible, mine or yours? We keep doing the same thing, and expecting a different result …
I would say no, Killer. While she may have gotten the nod over some folks just as qualified because she is a black woman, I don’t think you could find anyone significantly more qualified for the job.
I agree Ed,
But I do hear people complaining that she’s been put there and yet the blacks don’t appreciate it.
From that you could almost infer that she was put there in order to get more appreciation from the blacks and so on and so on…
You mean, she believes in things you don’t agree with? Well, join the country. Personally, I’d rather see someone with excellent knowledge and wisdom appointed irrespective of ideology, precisely because such a person would be less likely to reach a poor decision.
That you’d be inclined to accept any willing idiot simply to get your way, judicially, is just baffling.
TW: later, dude.
I claim there’s a difference between racial preferences in theory and diversity in practice.
Just watched “The Longest Yard” this week on DVD. A conservative might say “Lets reach out to minorities because diverse teams have a better running game”. The liberal says “Bigoted rednecks don’t believe blacks can play quarterback so lets get us a black quarterback and prove how wrong they all are”.
I don’t think you have to condemn both to be a “good” conservative.
Drat. Rephrase: I’d rather see good decisions that I wouldn’t normally agree with but are arrived at intelligently and explained compellingly, than to have a justice that makes decisions that I could predict years in advance because her co-justices want her to.
Or something like that. I’ve never been accused of having an overabundance of clarity.
…normally disagree with…
I really need a beer. Fortunately, we’re going to a German place after work, and it’s Oktoberfest.
Hmmm.
@ The Thread Killer
1. “Look for mine. Is Condaleeza Rice an example of affirmative action?”
Not a clue. But is Affirmative Action something I’m looking for as a positive? No I am not.
I utterly oppose Affirmative Action because it’s unconstitutional, wrong and absurd. Race based benefits is an absolute violation of the Constitution and should never be supported at any level by anyone. If people want to provide opportunities to those disadvantaged in life, they should support *economic* tests, not race based tests.
A poor white and a poor black have far more in common than a rich black and a poor black. They’ll live within the same set of circumstances. They’ll have the same set of experiences. They will shop in the same set of stores. They will pawn their possessions at the same set of pawnbrokers. And they’ll have the same set of concerns and hopes. An economic test for further benefits is something I, and many other conservatives, can support. But a race based test that involves nothing more significant than a tablespoon of flesh.
That is abhorrent, absurd and an abomination.
2. “Will those same commentators point out Miers propensity to elevate blacks?”
This is not a bonus. If Miers is pushing to “elevate” more blacks, then she is also pushing to *prevent* the elevation of more non-blacks. That is the case isn’t it? If there are a finite set of opportunities, then if you allocate the available finite set of opportunities according to race and weight the results so that one group gets a disproportionate share, then doesn’t that detract from the others?
How is this fair? How is this conservative? How is this a positive?
3. As for Condi Rice or Colin Powell. I can’t say I really care for either all that much.
A lot of people don’t realise that is was Colin Powell who was directly responsible for the post-Gulf War I problems. Colin Powell was the one who pressured HW Bush to stop the war at 100 hours. It was Colin Powell who was responsible for not disarming or crippling the Republican Guard and allowing them to retain control over armed helicopter gunships. The very same helicopter gunships used to suppress the Shia’a uprising.
As for Condi Rice, *shrug* she hasn’t struck me as all that good at her job. Sure she is accomplished. Sure she’s intelligent. But I haven’t been bowled over by her performance.
As for any Condi in 2008. She’s never held elected office for any position. Going from zero to President is a rather huge stretch.
Good comment here.
Okay Ed,
“Look for mine” refers to my first post in this thread which mentions first that even George himself thinks it’s a plus that Condi is black. I too am against affirmative action. I was just trying to get my brain around the question: Condi’s black, why don’t the blacks like us.
So to clarify – I don’t know for sure what Miers stance on AA is. I was clumsily pointing out the irony of very conservative commentators whining about not getting props for Condi and at the same time saying how terrible AA is.
But Hans,
You still consider Roberts being confirmed as a negative. Maybe you should publish your confidential list of ‘the only people in the whole wide world that can ever, ever, ever be on the supreme court’. According to me.
Jeff,
btw..that was also in the same post you included
As many on the anti-Mier side are quick to point out, do not confuse the GOP with conservatives. I wonder who would have more conservativein 1985, a Dixie Democrat or a New England Republican.
My point has always been that Roberts himself was a stealth candidate, hinting that the obvious ‘strict constructionist’ favorites would have had trouble being confirmed in the Senate.
Now pricipled conservatives can argue both sides of the merit on having a Battle Royale, the bruising but losing confirmation battle. You think it would be good for the long term conservative cause, bringing the importance of judicial philosophy to the general public.
I disagree, because I think the possible short term damage is too risky to the conservative issues I think are important.
I am, however, disappointed that you would consider voting for Hillary if you do not get your way.
From my post:
I wouldn’t consider it. Which is why I have to bend over and take it when I get a Harriet Miers.
Retake reading comprehension 101. Check.
As for your original question on affirmative action, I do not have an answer. Although the basic principle is wrong (white and black should be treated different), my heart is softer to my head.
I come from a Texas family that still considers ‘fucking nigger’ as acceptable dinner conversation. I have actually cleared my house at Thanksgiving when this was said in front of my children.
This last year the subject of segregation was discussed with my super super smart 14 year old daughter. You want to talk about tasting vomit in your throat, try explaining why black men were lynched for dating white girls. Why black people could not legally drink at the same water fountain as grandpa. Or sit next to on the bus. Or eat next to at the lunch counter. Or have thier 5 year olds go to the same school.
This was not that long ago, and I guess I have turned a blind eye to the fact that affirmitive action created the same racial divide.
Truly, I prefer to argue not that AA was wrong, but it has gone on to long. I know I am avoiding the real issue, but hope to get to the same result.
Principled vs Squishy I guess
TW: believe, I believe that this is probably TMI for most
I’m amazed by how much people “know” about someone they complain they know nothing about. But that’s just me. :D
Anyone who calls the Senate “a solid majority” is either deluded or blind. When it comes to strong, obvious conservative candidates (Luttig, Brown, etc.), you cannot count on Snowe, Chafee, McCain, Graham, DeWine, Specter (do I need to go on – you’re already below a majority), and you certainly have no hope of overcoming a filibuster.
“Good” judicial nominees were lost when the Republican senators caved in and allowed Specter to be Judiciary Committee Chairman. They should have told Specter to take a hike. It would have sent a strong signal that the Republicans were serious about the court. Instead, they sent a signal that they weren’t willing to fight.
And Bush was supposed to do what?
I’ve written on all those things in previous posts, but let me repeat: I’m for exposing moderate Republicans for the frauds they are. I was adamantly opposed to the gang of 14 deal for the same reasons I’m opposed to putting up stealth candidates like Miers.
Listen. If moderate Republicans are unwilling to support a judicial conservative, then force them to say why. Let the voters know that these moderates believe interpreting the Constitution and adhering to a philosophy of judicial restraint is an untenable position worthy of defeat.
Let’s have the debate.
I don’t support or oppose Miers. I’m withholding judgment until the confirmation hearings. However, I’m inclined to think she will make an excellent Justice based upon anecdotal evidence from people who know her. But I’ll try to address your question about affirmative action.
Part of the problem is that she is a Texan and her entire career has been in Texas until Bush went to the White House. If you haven’t lived in Dallas, then you can’t understand the climate here. Dallas was a Democratic city when Miers served on the council. After the Republicans “took over”, all the judges changed parties so they could continue to serve on the bench (even the black ones.) So don’t put too much weight in party affiliation at the local level. It means less than it might in other places.
There was a great deal of pressure from blacks in the city for more representation and a greater voice in politics. (Dallas had long been run by the “good ol’ boys” network of white, conservative businessmen, and there was a simmering level of racial prejudice.)
In light of that, Miers voted for “affirmative action” that “revised minimum height, weight and vision requirements” for firefighters can hardly be seen as “quota politics”.
Note what it does not say. They did not lower standards, other than physical dimensions. Women who want to be firefighters are required to pass the same rigorous training that men do. (In fact, at the time, local tv channels did stories about how the women had to work just as hard as the men and how it took time for them to be accepted.) If you want to call that “affirmative action”, then go ahead, but it’s Texas AA not Massachusetts AA. And frankly, I think it’s defensible. (But then I’m not a “conservative” as some would define it.)
If anyone, as a conservative, thinks it’s wrong to allow women to compete for jobs simply by setting height and weight requirements that allow them to apply for the first time, then that person is a sexist, plain and simple. (Obviously the change in vision requirements doesn’t benefit women any more than it does men.)
So I would say that Miers’ “affirmative action” vote was perfectly reasonable, under the circumstances and given the details.
But then this “controversy” is nothing if not overblown.
“Listen. If moderate Republicans are unwilling to support a judicial conservative, then force them to say why. Let the voters know that these moderates believe interpreting the Constitution and adhering to a philosophy of judicial restraint is an untenable position worthy of defeat.”
I take it then that you believe voters, in general, don’t understand this already? I find that difficult to believe, but I’m perhaps too close to the fire to realize that others don’t see smoke.
And what if the voters aren’t convinced Jeff? Or understand? Or care?
It’s a gamble. It does not mean that a person is unprincipled or not a conservative if they do not think the gamble is worth the risk.
Even if the public moves more toward conservatism, what if it takes several years for this to be felt in the political arena. It would be too late for this nomination (under the theory that the ‘strict constructionist’ was not confirmed), and we very well could end up with a long paper trailed moderate.
OT: I was actually considering the ramifications of Miers being confirmed and voting exactly as O’conner, EXCEPT, for voting against RvW. With RvW tossed back to the states, is it possible that the National discourse on National issues would be less poisened?
TW: together…..no kidding
DON’T YOU QUESTION MY PATRIOTISM!
Listen, I’m not interested in the pragmatics of how such a fight would affect electiosn. Judicial philosophy should consist of judicial restraint as a rule. It’s not even something that we should have to talk about. But we do, so let’s do it and let the chips fall where they may.
Re: affirmative action. They revised the standards but they didn’t “lower” them? Well, if they didn’t lower them, why would they need to be revised? Why were the standards set the way they were set in the first place? Were they arbitrary?
Are physical dimensions not important for firefighting?
And how do you account for her stance on Grutter? Or the idea that blacks need more proportional representation? Should we be legislating by proportion based on color or sex organ? How does that speak to her potential stance on Title IX?
And your example of Dallas is PRECISELY the reason we need a principled judicial conservative who will follow the Constitution and not someone trying to right perceived societal wrongs by pretending the document doesnt say what it says.
Sorry, but if you’re reserving judgment until the hearings, you are going into them completely unprepared. You aren’t likely to learn much from the hearings unless you have some background to go on.
Once Miers makes it to the hearings, there’s a good chance she’s going to be confirmed. So the time to voice your concerns and look at the available evidence, such as it is, is now.
No, I don’t think physical dimensions are important for firefighting. In fact, I can envision a scenario where a midget would be more effective than an average-height person.
When I say they didn’t lower standards, I’m referring to performance standards, not entrance requirements. Height, weight and vision requirements are entirely arbitrary and should be based on research that proves that they matter. (But we’re straying from the subject.)
I don’t account from her stance on Grutter, because it’s innuendo. I don’t base judgments on innuendo. There’s been lots of opinion about Miers and precious little factual information. What factual information I have seen has inclined me to think she would be better than many of the “cerebral” judges that everyone seems to love so much.
I’m not following you wrt Dallas -> principled originalist. Don’t see it – sorry.
As for waiting for the hearings is too late – that assumes my opinion matters. It doesn’t.
It’s Friday night and I’m going to watch a couple movies and relax, so this is it for me.
If you don’t think physical dimensions are important for firefighting, then get rid of standards altogether, particularly if they are arbitrary. But I suspect the firefighters had those standards set for a reason that has little to do with excluding women. Personally, I don’t care what gender the firefighter who pulls me out of a building happens to be, just so long as s/he can throw 180 lbs over his or her shoulder and carry that along with the tank, the clothes, and whatever other equipment in necessary.
Re: Grutter. If you don’t base provisional judgment on widely-reported hypotheticals (and we DO know that she was Bush’s council, and that the Bush Admnistration supported Grutter), then again, you aren’t preparing yourself.
I reserve judgment too, but that’s a different thing entirely than thinking it all through beforehand based on the best (and sadly, the only) information available.
I can understand your fire on this issue, as the originalist vs living constitution debate echo’s your whole point on words and intent.
Not to mention that if we conservatives had not ceded the battle on language and intent, we would not be left using stealth candidates, code words, trust me’s and such. We could argue all our ideas on merit.
The issue is so important and you do such a good job argueing it. It is probably the most important thing you could imprint from your spot in the blogosphere.
I strongly, strongly urge you to develop it further using a static HTML website. One of the big failings of blog software is the ‘newest first’ layout. Even the most important writings are quickly down the blog memory hole. Your (and others maybe) ideas and writings on this need a logical and thematic layout. The arguement is hard for most laymen to make, a one line refute.catchphrase by a lefty takes two paragraphs to refute. All the while being called a rascist/fascist.
Conservatives need a point of referance, where they can find, read, and understand how to push back.
I know it is OT…but…
Jeff: Thanks, as always, for the link. I’d have responded here more directly had I come upon this post sooner, but as it happens, I’ve made my point about Grutter and what it does and doesn’t tell us in a new post on my own shop, so I’ll just link to that.
Hmmmm.
It’ll be interesting to see just how many fence-sitters and pro-Miers people here will be outraged and angry when she produces a terribly flawed opinion a la O’Connor.
I look forward to telling “I told you so” every day for the next 30 years.
And, of course, if she turns out to be a great Justice who upholds the Constitution you’ll come back here with your tail between your legs and apologize for having thought badly of her, right?
I like the mature attitude, by the way. It speaks of high standards. (So high, in fact, that one of the top 100 lawyers in the US isn’t good enough to serve on the court.)
Hmmmm.
“And, of course, if she turns out to be a great Justice who upholds the Constitution you’ll come back here with your tail between your legs and apologize for having thought badly of her, right?”
And what *exactly* in Miers’s record makes you think that’s even a possibility?
What exactly is it in Miers’ record that makes you think it’s not even a possibility? I mean seriously! This woman has been savaged by conservatives, savaged in a way that not even the left savages people. She has a sterling record as a lawyer, yet she’s been called “mediocre” and “not extraordinary at all”. She was voted one of the “top 100 influential lawyers” in America! Can you even imagine someone saying that about a man with that kind of record? The attack has been relentless and unceasing and unreasonable.
Yet any attempt to point that out is met with “righteous” anger, as if the only correct position could be to oppose her.
You ask me what exactly in her record do I think makes it a possibility? Why bring her record up now when it hasn’t mattered before? When innuendo and anonymous sources have been used to “prove” she is not qualified? When any attempt to be reasonable has been met with derision? When her record has been ignored? Do you even know that she presented Bush in a 12th Amendment case that, if it had been lost, would have cost him the Presidency (and you’d be complaining about President Gore right now?)
How many people in the history of this country have accomplished what Harriet Miers has accomplished? Not more than 100 lawyers have achieved her status, and it could easily be less than that since we don’t know where in that 100 she was.
You’re prepared to go Nyah, nyah, nyah for 30 years if you don’t get your way. Do you consider that reasonable? Mature? Useful?
I’m disgusted by the attitudes of many conservatives and by the inexcusable rhetoric.
Not only do I think it’s a possibility that Miers will be a great Justice, I think it’s a likelihood. 1) She’s detailed oriented and likes to study carefully before making a decision – this is an ideal quality for a Justice. 2) She has lengthy successful experience as a trial lawyer – this is a quality that is lacking in the Court – she understands the impact of the decisions the Court makes 3) She is a consistent winner in court – lawyers who win cases are persuasive. While Roberts, Scalia and Thomas can make the intellectual arguments for the originalist position, Miers can make the persuasive argument that could win the case 4) She stands up for her principles and doesn’t back down – she took a stand against the ABA when many conservatives simply ran away and started their own society – and she got the Texas Bar to vote unanimously against the ABA’s decision to support Roe v. Wade. If you don’t think that’s an accomplishment, then there’s no point in even continuing this discussion.
Uh, if anyone’s criticism is over the top, Antimedia, it’s yours.
If any of the rhetoric I’ve used here—in the many posts I’ve put up about Miers—is “inexcusable”, cite it, or else stop making the charge here.
Because your suggestion—made for the second or third time now—that sexism underlies the criticism of Miers, is really starting to rankle.
The fact is, Bush could have chosen any number of candidates with track records. Instead, he chose a stealth candidate that he wants all of us to accept on blind faith.
It’s his choice. If she performs well at the hearings, I’ll support her. But I’m not going to shut up for the good of any “party”, because parties are supposed to represent our interests, and we have every reason, in a free country, to debate just what those interests are.
You can bold any number of keywords, but the fact remains that Miers is an unknown, and many legal conservatives have been waiting years for an open judicial conservative to be nominated and take the Court—and if the Dems didn’t like it, the burden should fall on them to explain why someone who reads and interprets the Constitution the way judges are supposed to is unacceptable.
I supported Roberts; I could be convinced to support Miers, if I was given some reason to. But the fact that she is an evangelical, gets to work early, is loyal to Bush, and shares M&Ms just doesn’t do it for me.
In fact, my biggest concern about her is that she shares Bush’s views. Bush is a politician. His policy stances are complicated by the give and take of politics. This is a taint, but it’s part of the system.
I don’t want that taint finding its way into the judiciary. The system, in fact, depends upon it not doing so. O’Connor punted on many controversial issues. She let conservatives down. Gonzales would have been worse. Miers? Who knows.
And therein lies the problem.
I don’t believe I’ve ever accused you of sexism. But I can assure you that sexism underlies some of the criticism of Miers by others – not you.
My complaint is with some bloggers and with some commenters whose rhetoric has been inexcusable, such as the one I responded to who cannot imagine a single scenario under which Miers could turn out well. If you don’t think that is “over the top”, then you’ve lost perspective. The woman deserves at least civility, for pete’s sake.
But I didn’t come here to defend her or to argue with you.
Who? I’m not trying to be difficult, but that’s a serious charge. And given that’s it’s being used to throw into question the motives behind the Miers criticism in general, I’d like to see a few examples, and decide for myself just how much they represent the bulk of the criticism I’ve seen.
As for showing civility to Miers, Ed is speaking about her as a judge. He said the same thing about Roberts, and routinely says the same thing about Bush. So I haven’t lost perspective with regard to Ed’s political views; I have perspective. And though I don’t always agree with Ed, I don’t suspect he intends his criticisms to be personal. I think he intends them to be political critiques.
Michael Graham, for example, who said
Not only is this statement false (Miers is licensed to practice in DC and has submitted a case to the SC which she obviously would have defended before the Court were cert not denied), but it is also sexist (not to mention outrageous.) The clear implication is, the dear is above her pretty little head, out of her league. If you don’t think it’s sexist, then name one male lawyer about whom that sort of statement would be made.
I’ve seen statements much worse than that as well (not by you) that I have found appalling. In fact, reading some of the conservative blogs lately has been as repulsive to me as reading Kos.
I am not trying to “throw the Miers criticism into question” but to stem the tide of outrageous claims that have no basis in fact.
As far as ed goes, I don’t know who he is, so I take what he says at face value. He says he cannot imagine a single scenario under which Miers would turn out to be a good judge. That seems a rather odd statement since we don’t know what kind of judge she will be for certain. Is there really no room for doubt? I could imagine that of Ginsburg, whose record was very clear, but of Miers? Of whom we know so very little? That seems unjust criticism to me.
The fact is, Bush could have chosen any number of candidates with track records.
Jeff, what would be the point of choosing an originalist nominee who would not win confirmation? I’ve asked various people this and haven’t yet gotten an answer that satisfies me. Is it the joy of ignonimously losing a nice, drag-out, very public political battle? (I can believe ed might think that but I doubt you do.) Or do you think one of the commonly-named names might actually have had a chance?
I mean, Jesus, Roberts should have been a 98-1 slam dunk – obviously brilliant, obviously well-qualified, and no one could be found to say a bad word about the man personally. The most “controversial” thing he’d said was some joking reference to “our amigos”. Yet he had twenty-odd senators voting against him.
Can you honestly tell me that, say, Janice Rogers Brown might have any chance to get sixty votes? And if not, what is the point of naming such a nominee?
Well, as I’ve said many times, what good is it to train them in your farm team, they have them on the bench if you’re too afraid they’ll strike out to put them in to bat?
I’m not convinced they wouldn’t get confirmed. But and even if they didn’t, let Schumer and Feinstein and the gang of 14 filibuster and explain to the American people why a conservative in “out of the mainstream,” or how a philosophical committment to reading and interpreting the Constitution as it’s written—the very job of a judge—somehow makes one unfit to be a judge on the Supreme Court.
What I don’t understand is why we’re afraid to have a conservative shot down. At least that way, we have the discussion. And to my way of thinking, it makes much more sense to put through a stealth candidate AFTER a conservative has been shot down, if need be.
Schumer and Feinstein aren’t going to explain philosophical committment. They’re going to sling their usual bull about “rights” and “committment to equality” and “a woman’s freedom to choose”. And the press will lap it up and magnify it to the nth degree. Then the press will trumpet how Bush lost and he’s a lame duck and he’s no longer viable, and you still won’t have a new Justice on the court. Then process is even more poisoned and the Senate less cooperative.
Then what do you do?
I have to agree, more or less. I’m not sure it would happen like that but it does seem likely. Remember too that most people won’t get their information from the hearings themselves but from press summaries and analysis, Senatorial soundbites, etc.
What I don’t understand is why we’re afraid to have a conservative shot down.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but basically I’m afraid to have Bush weakened any more politically than he already is. It’s hard enough for him to deal with Congress from any kind of position of strength now. And we’re still at war.
Hmmmm.
@ antimedia
“Then what do you do?”
*shrug* what are the options? Fight for your principles or not fight and run away from your principles.
If anyone is unwilling to fight for his principles, then what possible victory can there be? At best it’s a continuation of the status quo. At worst it’s a severe setback.
Hmmmm.
@ jaed
“I can’t speak for anyone else, but basically I’m afraid to have Bush weakened any more politically than he already is. It’s hard enough for him to deal with Congress from any kind of position of strength now. And we’re still at war.”
You mean the *Republican* Congress?
The House of Representatives with a *Republican* majority?
And the Senate with a *Republican* majority?
Bush has always had a strong position. His problem is that he has fled every single domestic confrontation. And in doing so has frittered away almost all of his domestic political capital.
If Bush is too “weak” to deal with a Congress dominated by his own party, then he’s an idiot.
Hmmmm.
@ jaed
And I’m reminded that people who flee a battle before the battle has even begun, have no basis to ever hope for any victory.
Hmmmm.
@ antimedia
I’ve written enough comments here that you don’t need to put words in my mouth. If you want to quote, then quote away. But my specific comment to you was this:
You are putting words in my mouth that I have *never* stated. I never stated at all that I could not “imagine” a “scenario”. I asked you for specific proof, any proof, that would give some basis to your comment. You speculated on my behavior if Miers turned out well. I asked you to provide something to base that speculation on.
And so far you haven’t been forthcoming on that. Was there any basis for your speculation? Or is this a pie-in-the-sky sort of thing?
It is entirely possible that Miers will turn out well for the short term. She might do Bush’s bidding for the rest of Bush’s 2nd term. However O’Connor followed this same track and didn’t go off the rails until about 8 years after her confirmation. I see absolutely nothing whatsoever to show that Miers won’t do the same thing. If you have *evidence* to the contrary, then share it. I personally would welcome any evidence at all that Miers won’t follow the O’Connor lead.
But I am extremely doubious that Miers will turn out well. She may turn out fine, but there is nothing whatsoever to support that. The best evidence so far is that she is a nice person.
Is that good enough? Not for me. People have a tendency to forget it seems that Supreme Court nominations are for generations. When Miers is confirmed, and yes I think she will, then it’s unlikely that we will get a chance to fill her seat with someone more conservative. If we’re lucky our children will get a chance. But until then, that position will be filled by someone almost completely unknown, and unknowable, who could literally head off into any direction.
Here’s a question for you: Is there *anything* in Miers’s background or history that would give any evidence to prove or disprove any that she has any specific interpretion of Constitutional law?
Is there any evidence to show that she has any beliefs in Constitutional jurisprudence whatsoever?
ed, I’m not trying to put words in your mouth. Here’s what you said, (and you just quoted yourself again to “prove” that I was putting words in your mouth.) “And what *exactly* in Miers’s record makes you think that’s even a possibility?”
When I read the word “even” in that sentence, what it says to me that you don’t believe it’s “even” a possibility. In other words, it’s NOT a possibility. If that’s not what you mean then say so, but I don’t see how you can expect a reader to understand something differently than the way that you wrote it.
I’m not here to defend or promote Miers but to refute some of the over-the-top rhetoric that’s been used against her. Words like “mediocre” used of a person who has achieved a lofty status in the profession should not be used, but they are. (And no, I’m not accusing you or Jeff of using them, so please don’t hyperventilate.)
On a side note, I find the idea that Bush has had majorities in the House and Senate laughable. Some majorities. They’ve been completely undependable. Even members of his own party have expressed doubts about the war and said publicly that we should get our troops out. John McCain has stabbed Bush in the back numerous times. Lindsey Graham is a joke. Specter is pro-abortion and obstreperous. The northeastern Senators are completely unreliable. Yet you want Bush to start a fight? You’ll forgive me, I hope, if I point out that you aren’t being realistic.
You asked, “If anyone is unwilling to fight for his principles, then what possible victory can there be? At best it’s a continuation of the status quo. At worst it’s a severe setback.”
Have you never heard of “live to fight another day”? “Discretion is the better part of valor”? Sometimes, the best way to get your principles to prevail is to back off and wait for a better opportunity. You cannot depend on the votes of at least eight Republican senators, and the Democrats have already proven that they will vote in a solid bloc when they see the opportunity to do so. What do you gain by confrontation?
Another point that people seem to miss is, we don’t just need originalist judges (for lack of a better term) at the Supreme Court level, we need them at every level. Look at the Ninth Circuit. Everyone seems to ignore it, so it continues to be a cesspool of emotional, muddled “reasoning”. I’m tickled pink to have a Rodgers Brown on ANY federal court. Same for all the others. Yes, we have a deep bench, but they’re not just sitting on the bench. They’re ruling on cases and moving the law back toward Constitutional interpretation. Is that a bad thing?
I can’t give you proof of what Miers will do, because anything I would say would be pooh-poohed. Read Beldar. He’s given tons of solid evidence of Miers’ leanings, but every bit of it has been laughed off. The critics of Miers don’t want to hear it any more. They simply want her gone. And the insults and scurrilous comments keep showing up more and more as the rhetoric gets more heated.
Frankly, I’m tired of this. I don’t want to argue about Miers. The only reason I got involved at all is because I was appalled by what I was reading on conservative blogs and I thought someone had to speak up. (Again, this is not directed at your or Jeff, so please don’t get your panties in a wad. But I think you do need to think about what effect continued harping on this has on those who are less restrained in their rhetoric.)