Like me, Jonah Goldberg is unhappy with the way critics of the Harriet Miers nomination have been treated by fellow conservatives. From the Corner:
Fed by what are to me very cheap arguments by RNC spokesmen and independent stalwarts of the administration—chiefly, it seems, Hugh Hewitt—there is now this permanently established belief in some quarters that people around here and elsewhere oppose Miers based purely on bad motives—elitism, cowardice, sexism etc. I find this horribly disappointing and the sort of thing I normally expect from leftwingers.
It is one of the cheapest forms of argumentation to assert bad motives, particularly to your friends, when you disagree with them […]
[…] But I do not understand why they have to argue like leftists and immediately assume bad faith (what next? We’re “greedy” for opposing Miers? Selfish?). I also don’t understand how they can shout charges like “sexism” without feeling very foolish indeed.
[…] whoever started the name-calling, all of it is beneath a movement and a philosophy which is supposed to pride itself on dealing with uncomfortable facts. I don’t mind arguments within the conservative camp. I relish them, as should be obvious. They are a sign of intellectual health and integrity. “Unity above all” may at times be a political imperative but it is a philosophical cancer. Those of you who argue Miers’ rightwing opponents are hurting the cause have a fair political point to make, even if it shows evidence of a misunderstanding of conservative journalism’s role generally and National Review’s in particular (See for example, Ramesh’s “The Case Against Silence”). But they too are hurting the cause when they impugn the motives of those they will undoubtedly wish to fight alongside in some future battle.
I agree with most of what Jonah says here—though I’m less gracious than he is, because I’ll pull no punches in identifying the initial source of the name calling: Republican Party loyalists and Miers supporters—starting with Ed Gillespie and Lindsay Graham and trickling down to a few pundits and bloggers OUTRAGED! at the outrage.
From the get go, I’ve made the case that the best argument for supporting the nomination is that the process is working in precisely the way it should: the President makes the nomination, the Senate offers advice and consent, the nominee goes through committee, and then she is voted on. And the best argument for confirmation itself is that Miers, should she pass all the Senate tests, will have shown herself to be capable to the task, in the estimation of those charged with deciding such things.
But part of that process is that Senators need to be aware of the opinions of their consituencies, and we who are invested in the process—those of us who, as Radley Balko notes, were looking forward to “the fruit, the reward to President Bush’s supporters for biting down and bearing the spending, the entitlements, and the growth of government”—should do our own ideologicial vetting of the nominee by discussing her nomination openly and without fear of the kind of (quite feeble and transparent, in my estimation) bullying that many of Miers’ supporters have been engaging in.
Part of their reaction is of course understandable: it is quite likely that many of the President’s most stalwart supporters either know enough about certain of Miers positions that they are satisfied with the pick (and so are reacting out of frustration) or else they simply did not expect the backlash from other conservatives because they put too much faith in Party loyalty (and so are reacting defensively to what they perceive as an onslaught). But their tactics have, for the most part, been abhorent; after all, Janice Rogers Brown is no Ivy League blue blood, and as I’ve noted before, many of us looking for a small government conservative Justice with impeccable (albeit controversial), credentials would have cheered that pick—rendering both the elitism and sexism charges absurd on their face.
One of the major concerns critics of Miers’ detractors have voiced is that the divide on the right over the nomination is weakening the Party and undermining the President. The point seems to be that unity of Party is more important that purity of ideology, an argument that, as Jonah points out, has some merit, and is certainly worth discussing. But that discussion has been entirely forestalled by the bad faith many of Miers’ supporters heaped on those who dared question the nomination in the first place.
For what it’s worth, it’s just as easy to say that it is the Miers pick itself—and not the split reaction to it—that has caused the rift we’re seeing now; and it is my belief that had the President chosen a Garza or Luttig or Janice Rogers Brown, he may have in fact galvanized conservatives, forcing weak-kneed Senate Republicans to fight for the beliefs they were elected to represent. Had the Gang of 14 interceded, John McCain’s Presidential hopes would be dashed for good had he not followed such a fissure by supporting the nuclear option against a threatened filibuster.
A voting public we know is strongly in favor of changing the judicial culture has voted Republicans into power in both Houses of Congress and the White House. And so if Republicans really are in favor of changing that culture—which includes the devolution of the confirmation process to partisan political puppet theater being run by special interest lobbying groups that are behind the scenes pulling the strings—now is precisely the time and circumstance to make that point clearly and without fear of Democratic reprisal.
Bush’s poll numbers show him at 42-44% approval; but where he has taken his hit is among Republicans, who are giving the President a 76% approval rating. Were that number to return to earlier figures, Bush’s overall approval rating would likely move back into the 52-53% range—quite in keeping with what one would expect in the current political climate.
And the way to do that is to rally conservatives by actually—publically, openly, and without fear—nominating conservative Justices and then standing behind both them and the judicial philosophy they represent.
Choosing instead a stealth nominee—though possibly quite a pragmatic political decision—suggests that the minority controls the power, and that there is something untoward about pushing for the kind of openly conservative Justice that a Republican President should be nominating to the Supreme Court.
John Roberts was, in my estimation, the perfect stalking horse. He was clearly legally conservative, and those who voted against him did so under the pretense that he didn’t give them enough to go on. So why not nominate someone every bit as conservative who has a track record? Force Schumer and Feinstein and Kennedy to reject conservatism on the record, rather than allowing them to deliver dissents on pretenses that are laughably disingenuous.
If not now, when?
(h/t Allah)
****
More: Althouse mellows; Polipundit queries; Bainbridge stands pat
(h/t Glenn)
****
update: The Sins questions the intellectual honesty of Miers’ critics, including yours truly: “how can you oppose someone because they are not conservative enough when you argued ideology should not matter for Roberts?
And the answer is, judicial philosophy matters. And clearly having a conservative ideology shouldn’t be exclusionary—particularly whent that “ideology” calls for an approach to the Constitution that demands fealty to the text and discourages activism.
I argued that Roberts was clearly qualified, and that he approached the law the way a conservative justice should—even though I had several local concerns. That is, I don’t need to know (and indeed, I shouldn’t know) how he will vote on, say, abortion—because I am comfortable that he is approaching the law in good faith.
How am I to extrapolate the from what Miers has offered?
Because she has no judicial track record, I’m forced to look at her political feints. Personally, I don’t care how she votes on any particular issue. I just need convincing that her judicial decisions will be grounded in a viable and coherent judicial philosophy. And her political positions seem to suggest to me otherwise, which is why I’d be more comfortable with a candidate who has a strong reputation for professing the kind of conservative ideals that are consistent with strict constructionism.
The problem might be on my end, but I can’t get through on the Bainbridge link.
Yeah, his site seems to be down at the moment.
All of Typepad seems to be down at the moment … you too Charles.
Can we call the opponents of Miers on intellectual honesty grounds?
http://thesins.blogspot.com/2005/10/anger-miers.html
In short, how can you oppose someone because they are not conservative enough when you argued ideology should not matter for Roberts?
Judicial philosophy matters. And clearly having a conservative ideology shouldn’t be exclusionary.
I argued that Roberts was clearly qualified, and that he approached the law the way a conservative justice should.
How am I to extrapolate the from what Miers has offered?
Yes, all of Typepad is down (grrrr!!!)
As much as I want to approve of Meirs, I just need one person to tell me
WHAT THE FUCK WAS BUSH THINKING?
I still hope that there is some rational reason for all this hoo-ha, but I have flipped back to the “no” side (as of today, anyway).
I am trying to give Bush the benefit of the doubt, but after hanging in through McCain-Feingold, outrageous spending, and his refusal to ever defend himself, I am only left with one finger hanging onto the ledge.
And I am especially pissed off at Meirs’ defenders. If I want to hear that kind of crap, I can turn on Reid or Pelosi. Did someone hit the President and his supporters with a moonbat ray?
Well, the ball is in motion, and all I can do is hope that someday I can look back at my utter confusion and be embarrassed by it. If not, I am back with the disinterested masses. I don’t think I would feel more dis-spirited if Bush had personally knocked me in the teeth with a baseball bat. It really IS personal when a man I have backed all the way pulls some cheap political crap like this…
The selection of Harriet Miers as a nominee for the Supreme Court was a terrible decision no matter how good an associate justice she may turn out to be. All one needs for evidence in support of this hypothesis is the dissension it has caused amongst the president’s supporters. But if one wants more evidence, the simple facts are that Bush has opened himself up to charges of cronyism with this nomination and, worse, he has bowed before the alter of identity politics while sacrificing any claim to have picked the best candidate, however you want to measure “best.”
On the other hand hand, it seems quite clear that many folks on the Right have less objection to the nomination of Harriet Miers per se than that President Bush chose to avoid a knock down, drag out fight with the Left over this nomination. What is particularly ironic is that the most vociferous calls for a fight are coming from those least likely to ever actually be in a fistfight, e.g., the intellegentsia of the Right. Admittedly, I too would welcome such a partisan fight, though I am less certain of the outcome than so many of my brethren on the Right. If we win great, if we lose then at least we know where we stand and we fall knowing we took our best shot.
But, perhaps, winning is underrated at this juncture in time. Unfortunately, many on the Right now remind me of Conan the Barbarian’s “correct” answer to what is important in life: To crush your enemies and to hear the lamentation of their women. That’s all well and good, but only if you win.
Turing word: suddenly, as in I’m not half the man I used to be.
Over at FreeRepublic (yeah, I read it. What of it?) there’s a guy saying that he’s hearing from “sources” that Specter and the “Gang of 14” had Bush over a barrell and had told him in so many words that all the rest of the originalist rock stars on the short list would be “borked”.
The theory (and it’s sort of the only one that I’ve seen so far that makes any sense, and even so, I’m not convinced) is that this pick is Bush being a political pragmatist and selecting the most conservative nominee he can and still expect a confirmation.
I’m not a huge fan of that theory, but it’s better than “I trust Bush, you sexist elitist party wrecker”.
If we can’t win with both Houses of Congress and the White House—and I’m not sure we can, to be clear—then let’s just surrender to soft European-lite socialism now. Because that’s where we’re heading.
Nobody wants a fight, necessarily; but we shouldn’t run from one out of some sense of “rising above it.”
Elections need to have consequences. Turning the Surpreme Court into a seat of identity politics—which is what is happening if we are trying to replace O’Connor’s ideological bent with an exact match—is a horrific mistake, and a sure sign of the kind of consensus-building behavior that defines European agreements.
I am repulsed by that kind of thing. Our system has served us well; we shouldn’t back down from defending it from a slide into rote ceremonialism.
Fred —
Can you find the link for that Freeper thing?
Personally, though, I think the gang of 14 (and yes, I was vociferously AGAINST that agreement) would bear the brunt. Bush should call their bluff. It would rally conservatives. It would perk up the Party again. And it would destroy McCain once and for all as a viable Republican candidate.
Clue for Jonah: “elitism” is the name of an ideology, not a motive.
Good post, Jeff. The rhetoric from some on this issue, whether they be pro Miers or against, has been disappointing. I’ve seen some questioning of conservative credentials between the camps that I find in most instances has been uncalled for. For example, some on both sides are engaging in the “you’re not a real conservative/Christian/Republican/American if you oppose/don’t oppose this nominee!”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1499585/posts
Don’t know how much weight I’d give to it. The guy who posted it has been a bit irrational lately.
“If we can’t win with both Houses of Congress and the White Houseâ€â€and I’m not sure we can, to be clearâ€â€then let’s just surrender to soft European-lite socialism now. Because that’s where we’re heading.”
Seeing supposed Conservatives taking up charges of sexism and diversity to justify this, I’m afraid I agree. Noone’s willing to make the argument that we should be making and will retake the playing feel, just eek through aping our opponents.
feel = field
More embarassing than what is happening now? I would prefer they take the chance to let the Democrats make asses of themselves and go down fighting than this appeasement bullshit. Politically this is a disaster for the Republicans (and Judicial purists) no matter which side you are on regarding Miers.
Only someone as politically inept as the Democratic Party could think Karl Rove a fucking genius.
When Bush said he had political capital and he intended to spend it, I think he meant spend it on Funions or those balsa wood airplanes at the local gas station.
We should all trust Bush’s judgement on selecting a justice who has strong philisophical stances on constitutional issues yet he signed McCain-Feingold? I trust his intentions, but I can’t say I trust his pragmatism. He lost that with one signature. Or rather, 12 because the president signs the damn law a dozen times with 12 different pens because he’s either autistic or some practicle purpose I’m not aware of.
I know Hugh Hewitt and Lileks believe conservatives are “ripping their party apart” for no good reason. But what’s to save if not the principles of conservatives to being with?
Alot of us want a fight. I know I do. Personally, I’d like to see it before the 2006 elections- a fight would energize the base and get them out to the polls.
Right now, I see alot of folks dissatisfied with Bush and Co. As a lawyer, I very much care about the Court but believe firmly that Miers is somebody Bush can trust and thus, he’s gotta a handle on what kind of judge she’s going to be. I’d like a more qualified individual but to me, thats not the most important thing – the important thing is to frame the debate between the two parties, in public and let the country make up its mind which way it wants to go.
Repubs have been kicked around by the liberal media, the anti-war crowd, the press, etc, especially those of us who have supported W since his 2000 election. I’m tired of watching the administration tip toe around trying to get things done- elephants, especially those with a majority in the house and senate should be stomping, not tip toeing.
Is a fight good for the country ? Personally, I think so. We need to see the democrats actively obstructing a nominee, for no apparent reason. Janice Rogers Brown would have been perfect, for a number of reasons, but I wanted to watch Turbin Durbin give her a lecture on knowing her “place”.
AFAICR, it’s tradition to hand the pens out to the weasels who sponsored the legislation in the first place.
It’s simple: The proponents are attacking the opponents on a personal basis because there’s nothing of substance to say so far in support of the nominee. I really wish there were. I don’t see that changing, though.
password “total” as in “total disaster”
Mmmmm, Funyons. If those aren’t worth spending a little political capital on, then what is?
Cutler:
So nice to see someone else out themselves as a reader of the freepers.
Jeff:
Cutler linked up to the FreeRepublic thread.
As a corollary to the “Miers as the cold hard politically calculating pick”, however, note well that various sophisticates and insiders are now voicing concerns that Miers was inadequately vetted and that unpleasantness awaits us with great big shiny teeth…Or something:
A vetting problem?
Or Fund expects the “unexpected”?
I guess we should all just stay tuned.
Back OT: I personally didn’t care about having a fight over a nominee to ‘energize the base’ or whatever. I just wanted someone who had a proven track record (like Roberts) and was a known and respected justice.
Miers is an effective nobody, and however nice, isn’t a good choice in my book. She appears to have been selected for her close ties to Bush, however much various pundits claim to know otherwise. And without a decent judicial track record on which to base judgment, we’re forced either to back Bush’s decision based on the fact that he knows how she stands, or we’re seen as being divisive and obstructionist simply by asking that she pony up her views on the issues of the day.
I slam the left for blindly backing things in which they’ve simply been given talking points and repeat them without knowledge or review. Now we’re being asked to do effectively the same with Miers: back her, sight unseen, simply because the party says so.
No. Emphatically no.
Thanks for the link Jeff.
Wasn’t the argument that Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg was given a free pass by Repups on activism because she was “well qualified” so the Dems should do the same for Roberts?
If you are arguing that she is not qualified, that is a different argument from she is not conservative/constructionist enough.
Sure.
But we’re fighting over the nomination here, not over whether she should be approved by the Senate. I think she should, if she can muster the votes. There’s nothing that I see right now that excludes her per se—just many things that suggest she’s not the type of nominee many of us wanted.
Is it just me or are the battle lines in this brou-ha-ha the same as those in the Schiavo dust-up?
I’m not sure what that says, but I’m getting deja vu all over again.
Hmmmm.
@ charles austin
“What is particularly ironic is that the most vociferous calls for a fight are coming from those least likely to ever actually be in a fistfight, e.g., the intellegentsia of the Right.”
Why on earth would anyone want a fistfight when the debate is over a Supreme Court nominee?
You had an interesting comment there right up until you drove the rhetorical truck off the cliff.
Hmmm.
@ fred
“Or Fund expects the “unexpectedâ€Â?”
Miers was the head of the vetting committee that had the task of vetting the various candidates. This same committee had vetted John Roberts.
The problem a lot of people are seeing, like Fund, is that the person most likely to have vetted Miers is her #2 person on the committee. Is there anything more uncomfortable than investigating your boss for her promotion while also working with her during the day?
A lack of suitable vetting probably explains why the White House has been so completely inept in defending/promoting Miers.
A lack of suitable vetting also shoves a goddamn big knife in the whole idea we should “trust” Bush because he knows her. This whole thing has been half-assed.
I think ultimately Bush’s biggest problem is that he has relied upon close friends and those he personally trusts, rather than those that are talented, exceptional or just plain extremely good. You can see a reflection of this in his choices for various plum assignments and in how completely oblivious the White House tends to be on so many issues. Another indication of this is the total inability, even after 5 years, to handle the media.
A highly experienced and talented media teams shouldn’t have the trouble that the White House staff seems to stumble into almost continually.
spamword: “well”. As in well, I’m off to the sauna. Grab some crab bisque, a spicy sausage stir-fry and a nice evening smoking cigars and drinking Polish vodka.
BTW if anyone cares. I just got a box of JR Cigars Conterfeit Cubans. At about $2 a cigar they’re not the cheapest, but they do seem the best value. Excellent smokes. Good leaf, very good construction with significant heft to them for a long lasting smoke. Too many cheap cigars are rolled very loosely so they smoke very fast.
*shrug* in case anyone cares.
I’m not sure if you have linked or read this Jeff, but it might be interesting.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_10_09_corner-archive.asp#079185
I agree with whoever said Karl Rove was the most overrated evil genius I’ve ever seen. But, hey, the Democrats are so incompetent that they need an excuse for why they lose.
NP Fred, it’s a good place to find under-reported news. There’s also some smart people on there, even if many are over the deepend.
As I mentioned in this post on my blog:
Ann Althouse has mellowed on Harriet Miers, but part of her reasoning worries me a little:
… Why is it not a good thing to have one person on the Court who approaches constitutional decisionmaking the way a lawyer would deal with the next legal problem that comes across the desk? Perhaps the Court is harmed by an excess of interest in the theoretical. A solid, experienced lawyer like Miers, with no real background in constitutional law, might look at the text, the precedents, the briefs, and use the standard lawyer’s methods to resolve the problem at hand …
OK, I’m not a lawyer and maybe I just misunderstand the lawyerly thought process, but I think it goes something like this:
— A) Identify desired conclusion (e.g. “client is innocent,” “client has money coming”, etc.)
— B) Examine appropriate Codes, Case Law, precedents etc.
— C) Construct best possible argument to support conclusion identified in step A)
My concern is that a Justice Miers, lacking solid familiarity with the Constitution, might substitute her personal beliefs, based on nothing more than “I feel sorry for these people” or “What would GWB say?” for step A), and then proceed with steps B) and C). I hope I’m wrong, but I’d feel a lot more comfortable with a nominee with firmly established judicial, not lawyerly, habits.
Jeff,
I agree that she should not have been nominated, at least from my point of view.
Many pundits have advocated pressuring Miers to back off or pressuring the President to withdraw, others have suggested that the Senate should not confirm. One third in this poll have voted to not confirm and another third is “not sure”.
Are those that voted against confirmation being honest?
Tangential: the administration’s failure to intelligibly explain to the country the need for the war against terrorists, etc, manifests itself in a new light in the current debate over Miers. Were this administration at all competent, they’d have Miers standing in front of every camera should could find explaining that she’s a die-hard constitutional constructionist, that the bedrock of her personal belief system is judicial restraint, and that the Houston Astros really kick ass. The inability of anyone in the White House to do a better job of selling Miers after all the time they’ve had (so they were surprised at the initial response; you’ve had time to adjust and adapt) shows just how out of touch (or is it just inept?) the Message Machine has become.
I heart protein wisdom!
Beck–the think I most fear is that we’re not seeing ineptitude but arrogance. And that means Andrew Sullivan is right…at least about this point. And that is a horrifying thought indeed.
…that the bedrock of her personal belief system is judicial restraint, and that the Houston Astros really kick ass.
Beck, I grew up watching the Astros between home and first, first row second tier, and I can vouch for the fact that even when they didn’t ‘kick ass’, they were cute and destined for being a touchstone in the American judicial system.
I have no problem with people opposing the Miers nomination. What disgusts me is the absolutely scurrilous things that have been said about her. Stuff I wouldn’t expect to find anywhere but Kos, but I’m ashamed to say I can find in a number of places that claim to be conservative.
It comes down to this for me. If you want Luttig on the bench, then elect some Senators with a spine. Right now you couldn’t win a fight in the Senate if you had to.
I’ll wait to make my judgments about Miers until after she has testified before the Senate. ‘Til then, everything is just hot air.
I pretty much in agreement with the Dog (Lost).
I more detail here.
Other than the war I have been gritting my teeth at almost every Bush domestic move.
As a friend said in an e-mail – this move officially makes Bush a lame duck. A significant number of Republicans have gone into opposition.
Good. Political screw ups have political costs. The screw ups have been going on for some time. This was the last straw.
JR Brown seems to be the consensus among thebomb throwers.
She is in the Thomas mold. She has already been stamped “not a radical” by the Senate. The gang of 14 gave her a seal of approval.
A black woman. Her outlook is more libertarian than conservative. In the Thomas tradition rather than Scalia.
How could Bush be so inept as to pass up such a perfect opportunity?
My guess. Miers is merely a place holder until we get further along in the election season where a Brown nomination would raise more $$$$.
Am I being cynical? Political? Stupid?
Yep.
Well, I have never posted to a blog before…and, I am a leftist, I guess.
What I don’t understand is that neither the conservatives or the media seem to be discussing the most obvious reason Bush picked Miers —
The LAST THING that Bush (or, more accurately, Rove-Cheney-Rice) wants is for Roe v. Wade to be overturned.
If that happens, the Republicans will lose politically for years thereafter because 1) They will lose some of the most rabid base, whose motivating issue will be no longer so much on the table at the federal level and 2) They will lose the moderates.
Don’t y’all get it at all, even when the evidence is right in front of you: the real Republican power structure doesn’t care one whit about abortion. Their agenda is almost exclusively to make the world and the U.S. safer for the extremely wealthy (Americans and is some cases also Arabs). Look at where Bush spent all of his political capital. Tax cuts for the extremely rich and a war in Iraq that mostly serves the interests of the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, and the other Arab royal oil elite. That’s about it. Abortion is a good rallying issue for these people because it motivates a lot of Americans whose net worth is not over $100 million and it is an issue that the super-rich don’t really care about one way or another. If Bush should mess up and actually get abortion outlawed or not have abortion rights protected, America’s wealtiest individuals and biggest corporations really don’t care and won’t be bothered.
However, the smart political operatives, like Karl Rove, chiefly, know that “winning” the abortion issue would be a disaster for the Bush Republicans – again, if they did so, they will alienate the vast majority of Americans who don’t want to see Roe overturned, while at the same time freeing up the ardent anti-abortionists to wonder if the Republican party is doing anything else that is at all in their interest.
Peace,
Steve
Actually, Richard Bennett talks about that here.
And for my part, I don’t care much about Roe; and I don’t think knowing Ms Miers position on it is all that useful, for reasons I’ve outlined in other posts.