Via Raw Story:
Washington, D.C. – Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid released the following statement on Harriet Miers’ withdrawal of her nomination to the United States Supreme Court.
“The radical right wing of the Republican Party killed the Harriet Miers nomination. Apparently, Ms. Miers did not satisfy those who want to pack the Supreme Court with rigid ideologues.
“I had recommended that the President consider nominating Ms. Miers because I was impressed with her record of achievement as the managing partner of a major Texas law firm and the first woman president of the Texas Bar Association. In those roles she was a strong supporter of law firm diversity policies and a leader in promoting legal services for the poor. But these credentials are not good enough for the right wing: they want a nominee with a proven record of supporting their skewed goals.
“In choosing a replacement for Ms. Miers, President Bush should not reward the bad behavior of his right wing base. He should reject the demands of a few extremists and choose a justice who will protect the constitutional rights of all Americans.”
Bad behavior, Senator? And what would that be, exactly—using what’s left of our First Amendment rights to voice public concern over a stealth nominee? Asking for a SCOTUS nominee with an overt and coherent judicial philosophy respectful of the Constitution?
President Bush and Harriet Miers have done the right thing. Politically, this will energize conservatives and have Democrats making the kind of missteps Harry Reid just made—branding those who are objectively serious about the integrity of the judiciary as “extremists.”
This is a fight the country needs and deserves to have. Conservatives don’t want an ideologue, regardless of what Chuck Schumer or Eleanor Clift say today. And the Miers critics have, for the most part, done themselves proud, I believe, by taking a principled stand—one that is available for review by those who now wish to demonize them.
But shott, that WAS my right-wing radical agenda.
Shoot, not shott.
SW= not hunting Season
I’m happy with the decision, although I feel a bit for Ms. Meirs for getting that close to history and being rejected by the folks.
Damnit! If all Miers’s critics are now members of the Radical Right Wing we’ll never have enough olives to go around. The horrorâ€â€we’ll have to start drinking Gibsons!
Someone just posted a comment at Feministe blaming “far right” constituents for Miers’s defeat. You, me, and Pat Buchanan, Jeff: one big happy far-right family.
To honor Hugh Hewitt’s loss, I propose a one-day moratorium on pie.
He refers to one group as both the ‘rightwing base’ and ‘a few extremists.’ So sir, who’s fault is it; the few extremists or the base? I’m confused.
And as for protecting the constitutional rights of ‘all’ Americans; are you referring to ‘all’ in the real sense or ‘all’ in the affirmative action sense where some of us may need more protection than others, depending on our pigmentation?
Anybody seen Hugh lately?
Hugh seems a bit irritated at the news. If this battle continues, I think it will be Hewitt who keeps it going.
Another commenter at Feministe says “the flat earth society” killed her candidacy. I’m afraid to go see what John Cole’s commenters are saying.
Re: Hugh, I’m sure he’s off preparing for this afternoon’s inevitable harangue about “the death of conservatism” on his radio show, replete with reference to Reagan’s 11th Commandment.
You know, the one that says thou shalt meekly swallow whatever mediocre bullshit a Republican leader shovels at you.
If you look at today’s first entry on Hugh’s site (“I gave them a sword…”), it’s clear the guy was girding himself for battle. Just read some of the shit he was saying about anti-Miers conservatives. And that guy had the audacity to accuse the other side of being nasty?
Does anyone know why he invested so much emotional energy into this fight?
Because he didn’t want Bush to be weakened by a fight with a rebellious conservative base, not with the ‘06 elections coming on. Remember, if Democrats ever control Congress and the Presidency again, it’ll be a race between everyone being taxed into oblivion or everyone being murdered by PC-protected jihadis. Unless by some miracle of bipartisanship we can swing both.
But this was a lost cause from the beginning. Bush has an excellent record of appointing judges, so knowledgeable people tell me. But this time he let his heart do his thinking for him. He mis-stepped, like with that steel tariffs thing a few years ago. No one makes all the right moves especially in his job, simple as that.
Turing = job, as in Geez, Jeff; this thing is so lifelike it’s startin’ to creep me out. It’s like a g.d. Ouija board, some days.
Jeff, the media doesn’t handle it much better. This from a story at MSNBC:
I commented on that here.
Does anyone know why he invested so much emotional energy into this fight?
Because he is the self-anointed “righteous one” of the Republican/conservative bloggers…not understanding, of course, that these 2 might just be mutually exclusive when one has principles.
Tell him to add a chapter on Harriet Miers to his book (you know, the one where he brags about all of the people “he” has taken down).
Oh, Jeff…would you mind if I called Hugh a dick?
I suspect that Hugh will embrace hypocrisy with his commentary today. Instead of joining conservatives in unity he will tear conservatives apart by not unifying with the president and Miers on this withdrawl. For the good of all conservatives obviously Hugh should embrace this turn of events with enthusiasm. As should the Miers critics during her nomination.
There is a reason the Democrats are the minority party and that’s because there’s no room for argument. As a center to right Republican there’s room for different opinions on the issues. In the Democrat party you embrace the party line, there’s little room for center or moderate representation. So Hugh might see this break in unity as a weakness, I consider it a strength.
My theory: This was planned from the beginning. I’ve been saying all along that I thought she was a sacrificial lamb. (Actually, I expect that Bush thought that she’d be fillibustered. I think this was probably Plan B.)
The next nominee will have the enthusiastic support of all the Republicans, and the obstructionists will have spent too much energy on Meirs to be credible.
Stratergery, folks.
Re: Harriet Miers’ dropping out
This is a sad moment for the Supreme Court.
Ms. Miers was an excellent pick. She could have been an even better justice than John Roberts.
President Bush didn’t misoverestimate Ms. Miers. He misoverestimated the smarts and the decency of some of his conservative supporters. He didn’t lose this one in my bookâ€â€the anti-Miers gang did.
I respect the right and the duty of everyone to express their opinions and dissent. But the attacks on Ms. Miers quickly turned into a feeding frenzy that had a tenuous grip on the facts.
Hopefully the anti-Miers crowd will shoot straighter on the next controversy, but I can’t say I’m very confident about that right now.
[ The above comment is a re-post from this comment thread. ]
Bush has been misunderestimated before.
He’s chimpy all right, chimpy like a fox.
Yup. Next one’s a guaranteed doozy. Reid and Schumer sure to go apoplectic.
Dems filibuster. Repubs nuke ‘em. Senate approves.
Nominee Ann Coulter grins widely as she is sworn in.
SB: floor
I’ll be on the
†He should reject the demands of a few extremists and choose a justice who will protect the constitutional rights of all Americans.”
Well said, Senator. Bring on Janice Rogers Brown!
Heh, heh. It won’t be Brown, unfortunately, but right now I’m feeling relieved that it won’t be Miersâ€â€who deserves some sympathy and respect for pulling the plug on this whole mess. With any luck, after Hewitt has had a few hours to cool off, he’ll be a little more conciliatory on air. Maybe I’m projecting, but I suspect most conservatives want to mend fences and put this matter behind us, although a little discreet celebration might not be out of line. Fresh Air can have my olivesâ€â€I’ve always been partial to Gibsons.
T/W: “big,” as in big news. Good big news, for a change.
Nice one, Matthew. After calling those of us who opposed Miers dumb and indecent, you go on to decry the “name calling.”
Lord Hewitt has taught you well.
I am relieved. I think that Senator Reid genuinely liked Harriet Miers. The interesting thing is that doesn’t this force Democrats to concede that Bush did something to the displeasure of his “right-wing” base? Will some ever see him as a bit more moderate than before?
I am pulling for JRB. I doubt that it will happen though.
The horrorâ€â€we’ll have to start drinking Gibsons!
Ugh! Why don’t you just vomit in my glass?
JANICE JANICE JANICE!!!
Of course, this whole withdrawl was merely a plot to take away attention from the Plame probe. Bush will likely nominate Ann Coulter to SCOTUS just so the ensuing Congressional catfight will distract the press monkies like a shiney object. KKKarl will walk, Scootie will Scoot, and eventually Zarqawi and Cindy will fall in love and everyone will be happy–and then die.
I gotta get more St. John’s Wort.
I thought Meirs was a compromise, a vanilla coated centrist with no paper trail. Bush knows where the big conservatives are. Now, I hope he has the guts to pick one and prepare for battle. And that poor excuse that he wanted a woman….then why did he nominate Roberts for the slot ? It’s time to drop the nice guy crap and forge a lasting impact on America. Republicans are all such ‘gentlemen’ and democrats are all such criminals. For Pete’s sake can we have a real man with balls running things for a change ?
Lord Hewitt has taught you well.
Gooood, Slublog. Let the hate flow through you.
Gooood, Slublog. Let the hate flow through you.
NOOOOOOOooooooooooo!!!!!
Excellent point.
Here’s what I’m wondering. The next time Hewitt links to Powerline discussing typefaces or Captain Ed opining on Canadian election law, should I pause to note that they don’t have any professional expertise in the subject at hand? Or is the expertise requirement limited to bloggers who want to talk about law?
I just want to know where the whole Blog! revolution stands, is all.
Slublog,
I’m not a disciple of Hugh Hewitt. That’s the kind of sloppy jumping to conclusions that contributed to sinking the Miers’ nomination.
I don’t think it was stupid and indecent to have opposed the Miers’ nomination.
What was dumb and unfair was the way a lot of very smart people got carried away in their criticisms. They held Ms. Miers in disdain for silly reasons, like putting commas in the wrong place on her Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire (see also here). There was an unseemly eagerness of the part of many people to jump on the anti-Miers bandwagon, and to actively, aggressively crush her nomination before there was enough information available to evaluate her properly.
If that isn’t dumb and indecent, then I’m not sure what is.
Doesn’t the anguish of Reid, feministe, et al say all that needs to be said about why conservatives were aghast at this nomination?
What was dumb and unfair was the way a lot of very smart people got carried away in their criticisms. They held Ms. Miers in disdain for silly reasons, like putting commas in the wrong place on her Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire (see also here).
While I agree that some Miers critics got carried away, I don’t think it’s too much to ask that a Supreme Court nominee double-check her grammar, puncutation and spelling in a document she’s giving the United States Senate.
There was an unseemly eagerness of the part of many people to jump on the anti-Miers bandwagon, and to actively, aggressively crush her nomination before there was enough information available to evaluate her properly.
And who’s at fault for not supplying that necessary information? The White House did a terrible job supporting this nomination and engaged in crude ad hominem attacks (’sexist,’ ‘elitist’
when people started questioning her qualifications.
Given that absence of information, we were forced to look for our own, and speeches and old writings seem like a good way to get an idea of someone’s thinking. It’s telling that the White House probably had those documents and didn’t release them.
Now, I’ve got to go to Home Depot and figure out just what the hell ‘molding’ is. Back later.
Eddie,
Even a broken clock is correct twice a day.
For the record, I really do feel badly for Ms Miers as a person, who I’m sure is lovely and principled and smart and etc. But she wasn’t the best available nominee.
Slubog,
They didn’t have the information ready because she was supposed to be a “stealth” nominee.
Harry Reid had recommended Ms. Miers to President Bush, but he didn’t know what the president knew: Ms. Miers had a conservative, contructionist judicial philosophy.
So President Bush was calling Senator’s Reid hand in the confirmation poker game—he didn’t anticipate that conservatives on his own team would force him to reveal his hand to everybody at the table!
This was a royal screw-up by the anti-Miers crowd, and President Bush cannot be reasonably faulted for being surprised by this turn of events.
If that was the only criticism of Meirs, I would agree with you. However if you look at the context of that criticism and how it was simply another brick in the boat, so to say, I do not consider it “dumb and unfair”. There were many people (I for one) who were tremendously disappointed in her nomination. Yet many of us initially supported her because it was the President’s call and we knew nothing about her.
As it became apparent to many of us that she was not an “originalist” she lost our support and we openly opposed her nomination. I thought for the most part that the debate centered on her track record (however limited) and her qualifications. I can’t recall many, if any, personal attacks against her – certainly not by principled opponents.
When there is a dearth of a paper trail, those papers available will certainly be magnified, resulting in the criticism that you deride as “dumb and unfair”.
I never thought I’d say this but Reid is exactly right.
Hmmmm.
@ Jeff
Very true. It’s not the “ends”, it’s the “means”.
Alright, alright, guys! What’s done is done. Can we all just take a minute and have a big, conservative group hug (nothing too gay, of course)? Let’s all get out our last little bits of internecine bile, and get ready for a long awaited return to what really matters, what we really live for: bitchslapping American hating, closet fascist, liberal bitches.
I don’t agree with Hugh, but it serves no purpose to villify him. He’s on our team. His argument today stresses the principle of the up-or-down vote and his concern that the Miers withdrawal will have made the Democrat obstructionists stronger. As an argument, it’s got its points. Time will tell. But let’s cool off, okay?
Oh, and save me any extra olives you may have, especially if they’re stuffed with blue cheese; I like a well-balanced meal.
tw: Armageddon
Well, Matthew, we see it as a royal screw-up by Pres. Bush, not by us. If he wants conservatives backing his choices, then he’d better start making more conservative choices. How could he “fail to anticipate” that reneging on his promise to “appoint Justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas” would piss us off?
And your attempt to tar all opposition to Miers as dumb, unfair, indecent, etc. shows you haven’t followed the arguments made here at pw very well, if at all.
Matthew
How much do you charge for psychic readings like that? You seem to have a lot of inside information, or bluster.
Rls,
If the commas had been the only weak link in the chain of evidence against Harriet Miers, then I would agree with you. But the strong links were the exception, not the rule.
Show some spine and leadership Mr. President. Do what I say! Now!
A great day. Oh, and I do love how the Democrats are actively defended Miers, once they got the suspicion she was soft on abortion. Or was she? It would be funny if it could be shown that she actually wasn’t – I’d love to see Reid backpedal or sidestep or whatever it is that he is doing at this point.
Defense guy,
Probably more than you can afford.
I was watching CSPAN2 this morning, and Sen. Reid was acting all righteous-like:
“History will show that the far right wing drove this woman from the nomination”…blah blah blah … “I don’t think this is a good day for our country.”
Hence, it’s looking like a good day to me!
Or almonds. I like almonds, too.
tw: nucular
Long live the Red Herring!!!!!!!!
Joe,
And your attempt to tar all opposition to Miers as dumb, unfair, indecent, etc. shows you haven’t followed the arguments made here at pw very well, if at all.
Re-read my comments—it’s not the opposition that was dumb, unfair, indecent, it was the bloodlust among some of those in the opposition.
Principled opposition based on the merits is fine with me. Your misrepresentation of my views doesn’t lend a lot of credence to your position, though.
Hmmm.
Could you perhaps expound on this? I don’t want to post a response without fully understanding the point being made and I’m not entirely certain what you’re communicating.
Thanks.
I guess, if by royal screw up you mean demanding that a nominee be competent. Let’s say you are right about Miers. One of the things that always bothered me about the Roe decision was how truly shitty the reasoning was. It’s a paper thin decision thought up by a hack of a lawyer. Okay, so let’s say Miers then votes to overturn Roe. We’d have another paper thin hackwork decision. If we’re dealing with questions that big, then dammit I want someone who can make the important arguments. And yes commas in the right place would be nice also.
A few questions from the peanut gallery —
— are there other available nominees like Roberts, brilliant conservatives without much of a paper trail?
— and if there are no more Roberts, are we confident enough Republicans in the senate have the cohones to approve a controversial nominee?
Because I’ve been wondering if Miers was not so much a crony nomination as the best Bush thought he could do after Rove told him “I’m going to get indicted and it’s going to really weaken you.”
SP,
I don’t think there will ever be a wholesale repudiation of Roe vs. Wade by the Supreme Court. The high court likes to pretend it is above politics, but the reality is that Roe vs. Wade is such a political minefield that there is no way a majority of the bench would ever vote to knock it down.
More importantly, your premise that Ms. Miers would have issued poorly rendered opinions is not only unjustified, but just plain false. She is an successful and accomplished litigator. She knows how to get a legal point across clearly and effectively.
Matthew, we will simply have to disagree about Miers’ talents. She is “competent” which is to say average. If Bush wants to create a lasting impression, I’d hope he would aim for John Marshall, so if he doesn’t get that he still gets a Joseph Story. There are so many names out there of people who have dealt with and written about these matters, that it is simply not worth risking to nominate a giant question mark for these cases.
And, if Roe can’t be overturned, what can be? Kelo? Grutter? It seems like Miers was soft on those cases, too – basically another O’Connor. Is that really what we need?
I think if Rove thought that the indictment was going to bite him, he’d at least have the dignity to resign a long time ago, after the 2004 election. It would mean he would go to less parties, but it would have done the country a service. That is, if he really felt he was in a dangerous position.
Ed,
President Bush had received assurances from Senator Harry Reid that he would support Harriet Miers’ nomination. Senator Reid had actually spontaneously suggested Ms. Miers to the president during discussions about potential nominees!
President Bush knew that Ms. Miers didn’t have a paper trail, but he was intimately familiar with the workings of her legal mind due to their long and close association. He knew that Ms. Miers was conservative and constructionist, and he also knew that Senator Reid would be surprised by this.
So President Bush chose Ms. Miers thinking that he would keep her real views as secret as possible so that the Democratic Senators wouldn’t know how to attack her until it was too late. The unexpected (and undeserved) conservative revolt against Ms. Miers pretty much destroyed this strategy right out of the gate, and it was all downhill from there.
“Principled opposition based on the merits is fine with me.”
I didn’t see a whole lot of opposition that wasn’t principled or based on the merits (or lack of evidence of merit). We didn’t see many personal attacks, certainly nothing to the level that Bork, Ginsburg, and Thomas went through.
I don’t think any of this was bad for the conservative movement or the Republican Party. In fact, I think all conservatives (well, except Harriet Miers herself) should be happy with this outcome, whether they supported the Miers nomination or not. Bush made a bad choice, conservatives across the country let him know about it, he decided to change course.
They didn’t have the information ready because she was supposed to be a “stealth†nominee.
Harry Reid had recommended Ms. Miers to President Bush, but he didn’t know what the president knew: Ms. Miers had a conservative, contructionist judicial philosophy.
Only problem was, they didn’t provide any evidence, other than Bush’s “trust me” rhetoric and Miers own assurances, that she had such a philosophy. When her own writings started coming out, they showed the thinking of…well, it’s hard to say exactly what Miers believed. And that was the major problem.
SP,
I respect your opinion. It’s just a shame Ms. Miers never got a chance to change your mind.
That is your opinion, which you are entitled to. There was strong objection based on her (written) views on affirmative action, proportional representation, legislating from the court and (I’m not making this up!) her view that the Pledge of Allegiance was a governing document.
Why not oppose her? Why not work for someone that is a more qualified jurist? Why not work for an originalist? Why not try to get a “brilliant legal mind” like Roberts? For those of us who think that the Constitution limits the power of the Government and are dismayed at the erosion of that document by the cours, it would be intellectual suicide to sit idly by and “hope for the best”.
You mean this comment? The one I reponded to?
“This was a royal screw-up by the anti-Miers crowd, and President Bush cannot be reasonably faulted for being surprised by this turn of events.”
Yeah, I can see how you distinguished between our principled opposition, and the general blood-lust of “the anti-Miers crowd”.
“Your misrepresentation of my views doesn’t lend a lot of credence to your position, though”
I think it’s pretty clear who’s misrepresenting things here.
Rls,
Ms. Miers didn’t think the Pledge of Allegiance was a governing document. She merely made a reference to it during a speech to a civic organization, a reference that a was cogent and heart-felt call for improving access to the criminal justice system for low-income defendants.
Why not oppose her? Because she was a brilliant choice, both tacticallly and on the merits.
Harry Reid had recommended Ms. Miers to President Bush, but he didn’t know what the president knew: Ms. Miers had a conservative, contructionist judicial philosophy.
Matthew, just how the hell do you KNOW this? Do you have a Batman red-phone line to the White House? Is there some insight which you can share with us that would make us all change our minds? Or are we required to just accept the president’s choice without question (like we did with Souter – look where that got us).
On this site, along with an overwhelming majority of conservative sites, there has been no name-calling, no character assasinations, and no dirty politics. The posters here (and elsewhere) were just loud about their feelings.
Some people are offended by strong opinions – are you one of those, Matthew? Just because they feel strongly about something, it doesn’t mean they’re guilty of ad-hominems.
TV (Harry)
tw: good, as in good thing this debacle is over. For now.
As provided by denotes, in my opinion, reliance.
it was the bloodlust among some of those in the opposition.
What bloodlust? Would you kindly give me an example? Even a hearsay example would be sufficient.
You’ve bloviated about some people going over the top, and the only example you can come up with is
“Commagate”.
Weak, to say the least.
TV (Harry)
tw: speak, as in some people get their panties in a bunch when someone speaks strongly.
Joe,
You still think I’ve been painting with too broad a brush?
How about this then:
I respect the right and the duty of everyone to express their opinions and dissent.
Or this:
I don’t think it was stupid and indecent to have opposed the Miers’ nomination.
What was dumb and unfair was the way a lot of very smart people got carried away in their criticisms.
I admit that I am taking a firm stance, but I am also trying to make a distinction between principled opposition and unfair, premature overreaction.
I am also trying to make a distinction between principled opposition and unfair, premature overreaction.
And the goalposts then get up and walk back 50 feet. We go from “attacks on Ms. Miers quickly turned into a feeding frenzy” to “premature overreaction”. That sounds like a more PC version, to me.
Why make the distinction, when there hasn’t been ANY of the latter?
TV (Harry)
tw: plane, as in I don’t think we’re all on the same thinking plane. (Lame, I know).
Inspector Callahan,
I know it because President Bush has an excellent track record of appointing judges with a conservative judicial philosophy to the federal courts.
Moreover, he was ably assisted in the selection and vetting of many of those judges by his counsel, Harriet Miers.
Of course, President Bush could be mistaken. But he would have had a much greater chance of being mistaken with someone he wasn’t so familiar with.
Republican strategist Terry Holt just now: Harry Reid knew his support would get the conservatives howling. He defeated her by suggesting her.
Clever.
Huh?
Inspector Callahan,
There wasn’t a feeding frenzy—where have you been the past three and a half weeks?
That’s not to say people participated in the feeding frenzy in bad faith. People were genuinely opposed to her for what they considered to be excellent reasons. It’s just that I, and many others, saw a rush to judgement that didn’t reflect well on the most aggressive rushers.
Does anyone believe that, had Miers been given an “up or down vote,” and then not approved by the Senate, the pro-Miers crowd would be any less critical of the anti-Miers side than they are today? I’d bet dollars to donuts (I find “doughnuts” too elitist) that we would be hearing the same charges – “hysterical, unfair, unqualified, disloyal, royally screwed up sword givers” – that we’re hearing today.
TW – bring – Nominate McConnell or Luttig or Brown and BRING it on.
I’m a bit saddened that everyone on the conservative side both pro and anti Miers aren’t praising her for her decision. That showed character. I believe she did have a better than 50% chance of being confirmed. A majority of Republicans would have voted for her, after expressing reservations, because she was the President’s pick and they had no documented evidence she would be a bad justice. The Reid crowd of Democrats would have to vote for her, with reservations, because she was the best they could hope for and would keep a more hard-core originalist off the court. This was her big chance to get the big prize. She could have fought it out to the bitter end. But, she showed character, saw what it was doing to the party, and bowed out gracefully.
As to who won/ who lost. The only guaranteed losers are the Dems., if, and I believe it will happen, the next nominee is a hard-core originalist, confirmed, along party lines, after the nuclear option stops the filibuster. Bush wins, not loses, his base has slapped him on the hands and will be satisfied with the right nominee. I don’t even think Hewitt or the other most strident pro-Miers crowd lose in the long term. He/they will fall behind the right nominee with the same vengeance they were behind Miers and all will be forgiven.
Rls,
You are correct that strictly speaking, “as provided for” is poor diction. But Ms. Miers’ meaning is clear, even if her choice of words is a little clumsy or clunky.
I read the whole speech, and was impressed both by Ms. Miers’ intelligence and her willingness to take a stand on several controversial issues. To focus on a minor style gaffe and claim it is evidence that she thought the Pledge of Allegiance was a “governing document” is both silly and mistaken.
Unfortunately, it was all too easy for fair-minded people like yourself to get hung-up on trivialities because of the widely-disseminated assumption that Ms. Miers is a dim bulb. It’s not really your fault, but feeding frenzies assume a logic and momentum that sweep up otherwise reasonable people who really should know better.
I focused on the intimations of a judicial philosophy I saw in that speech, Matthew. It’s quite possible Miers positions have changed, but I’ve seen nothing to indicate that. I was basing my concerns on available evidence.
I’ve been arguing all along that her political leanings with regard to affirmative action and proportional representation, which I’ve tried to document, are the most potentially problematic portions of her record, and give us some idea of her judicial philosophy. And we saw that the Administration—with Miers as counsel—was unwilling to forcefully combat Grutter. Why?
One more thought on this. I don’t really believe that the ultimate objection to the Miers nomination had to do with her philosophy or credentials. What really frosted us conservatives is that Miers either represented either compromise, retreat, or trickery. We don’t want any of those.
With hardly a moment’s pause for years we’ve been maligned and abused by a fundamentally dishonest and depraved foe and its friends in the media. Quite frankly we’re sick of it, and we’re ready to give them their own heads on pikes for Christmas. We want a war–no more compassion, no more reaching out, no more comprimising, no more shrinking from the lies and demagoguery of our enemies. Like the Sunnis in Iraq, it’s high time to show the Democrats who is right and who’s in control. Likewise, it’s time to find among our representatives those whose fortitude suffices to enact our agenda, and those without whom we’d be better off.
If you are reluctant to trust Bush and Miers over Grutter. that’s certainly a reasonable position.
And there were signs in her very, very limited paper trail that she was a politically liberal person many years ago.
So I can’t hold your opposition against you.
But I look at the same evidence and reach very different conclusions.
A lot of the fear over her judicial philosophy was necessarily based on speculation, and its very hard to get a good read on somebody that way. That’s why so many people were reserving judgement until Ms. Miers’ appearance at the Judiciary Committee hearings.
And perhaps the most important point is that her political leanings are not very important if she has a strong philosophical commitment against judicial activism. It is a very bad precedent for conservatives to start demanding some kind of orthodoxy on policy positions as opposed to constitutional philosophy.
Do you really want to hand Democratic Senators the right to object to a nominee due to the nominee’s alleged views on affirmative action or abortion?
Oops, that last comment was addressed to Jeff. I left the name out, sorry.
I suppose that means I won’t ever get nominated to the Supreme Court now!
I have an idea why Hugh was so energized by this fight. If you read all of his posts defending Miers, you’ll notice common words/phrases running through them all, such as:
“pro-life candidateâ€Â
“overturn Roeâ€Â
“evangelical pro-lifeâ€Â
My guess is that Hewitt has a blind spot about abortion and Roe v. Wade. In his opinion, the likelihood that Miers would overturn Roe was high, meaning that all other considerations were rendered moot, although he did a pretty decent job phrasing his defense of her to look more robust. I’m anti-abortion myself and would like to see Roe overturned, but I’d like to see the sound legal arguments(there are many) for such a decision, not simply “abortion’s bad so I’ll vote against itâ€Â.
And here’s what I find weird, even assuming that I’m right about Hewitt: were Roe to be overturned, abortion wouldn’t become illegal in this country. Rather, the issue would be returned to the states. Probably around 40 states or so would still have legal abortion, albeit with some reasonable restrictions in most places. The states that currently have the most abortions would continue to do so, at more or less the same rate as today. So even if Miers did vote that way, things wouldn’t change all that much, other than the issue would now rightfully be under the purview of each state’s legislature.
I dunno why Hugh has such a blind spot Miers. He sure did get annoyingly condescending once in a while.
No. But she has no paper trail, and it is my assertion that, as White House counsel, she evidently favored something that, if you believe the 14th Amendment, is on its face unconstitutional. That to me makes her conservative judicial philosophy suspect.
I supported the John Roberts nomination; I support the Ginsberg rule. But we need something to go on before we can support a candidate. And frankly, Bush is not politically conservative on a lot of issues, so I’m not interested in someone he says mirrors his political views.
It is the means, not the end that I’m interested in. And I don’t see how a lawyer with fealty to the Constitution can come to the conclusion that affirmative action based on race is anything other than an abomination.
News that the Democrats are upset today, and the fact that they were pleased the day Miers was announced, is enough reason to know this was the right decision.
Not easy, of course, but correct.
I, like Jeff and I imagine most folks on the right who were opposed to her nomination, feel for Harriet Miers as a person, and wish her no personal ill. I’m glad she’ll stay on as WH counsel, a job that I have no doubts she’s immeniently suited for and does really well. There’s just no way she was the right pick for the Supreme Court.
I am excited for President Bush’s next nominee, trusting him to make a really good, in the vein of a John Roberts, pick. If the Left thinks that kind of choice will split the party, then they really don’t know their opponents very well.
The best part of this for me? Principles matter.
TW: efforts
I’m sure all efforts will be made to ensure the next nominee is thoroughly vetted.
Lot of buzz right now around Mahoney, JG. Brilliant, stellar, superbly qualified—and argued the Grutter case on behalf of UMich.
Things could get rocky.
I’ve heard that buzz too, Allah. Her arguing Grutter can’t really be held against her, though. She’s representing a client. Miers seemed to be driving the White House position.
Incidentally, Orin Hatch just called us all buffoons who, because we aren’t one of top 100 lawyers in the country—and Miers is—we’re not fit to judge her.
Fuck him.
Alas, the truth is a bit more complicated.
I see. Well, then it will come down to whether or not I believe she has the judicial philosophy and termperament required to look at the 14th Amendment and say that her policy beliefs notwithstanding, affirmative action is Constitutional problematic.
Considering that she’s willing to argue on behalf of affirmative action and, evidently, approves of it as a policy matter, it’s unlikely she’d find it unconstitutional. Not impossible. But unlikely.
The dilemma we’re facing is this. What if Bush nominates someone whose qualifications are exemplary, who appears to take a solid conservative approach to interpretation, but who, for whatever reason, seems to have come to a bad result on some issue that’s very important to conservatives? In other words, how important is the means relative to the ends? And how many bad ends would we need to decide that the means aren’t good enough to compensate?
what he said.
Hmmmm.
@ Matthew Goggins
First comment:
Followup explanation:
I’m sorry but I don’t quite understand how your followup fully explains that first comment.
The first comment explicitly states that the White House didn’t bother to acquire documentation because she was a “stealth” nominee, which is patently absurd. Each nominee, for any position, is required to be vetted completely and the process of vetting is one where such documentation is acquired.
What’s more it is simply not at all true that Miers “didn’t have a paper trail”, she did have one but it wasn’t lengthy, with any depth and offered a very shallow viewpoint. But even with those reservations in mind; she still had a paper trail however translucent and as such the White House should have assembled such documentation early on.
I realise you’re trying to absolve the White House of this episode of shamblistic ineptitude, but I don’t think it’s possible.
Allah —
That’s why I don’t like to know how they’d rule. I think it has to remain about means; in the long run, its the only way the process can work.
And that’s difficult for me to say, so intellectually misguided do I find the core assumptions of Powell’s opinion in Bakke and those who would lend support to it. If I had to have a litmus test, that would be it.
Hmmm.
</blockquote>That’s why I don’t like to know how they’d rule. <blockquote>
Well there’s another reason why you don’t want to select justices based on “ends” vs. “means”. And that is the compelling and competing visions of what the proper “ends” are. I think we can all agree on how to improve the process, i.e. the “means”. But there’s nothing to convince me that any substantial group of conservatives, let alone anyone else, could agree on what exactly the proper “ends” would be. In effect it would end up a battle between rival groups with opposing agendas all bickering over judicial appointments without any hope that any single appointee could possibly fit any requirements.
Then we’d be in a position whereby further chaos would be created due to judges having ruled as desired on a specific issue, but then deviating on others. Which would then cause yet another round of chaos as new justices are then filtered by their potential rulings on reversing that new issue.
It is only by concentrating on the “means” that we can have a coherent, logical and above all reasonable process for reforming the SCOTUS. Particularly one where a concensus could actually be achieved.
Hmmm.
Blockquote madness. Arrrrghh!
It’s an extremely sad day when a web developer screws up using blockquotes.
Mac is upset with the latest turn of events.
I’m happy to see Miers go (I think that’s the first time I spelled it right. Or wrong). Like Jeff, I have never questioned her qualifications to the court, only her unknown philosophy. If I am an extremist for insisting on a person who can read what the Constitution says, as opposed to what lawyers say it says, then so be it. I learned to read many years ago, and as far as I can tell, the Constitution is written in English.
It’s time for JRB, but I don’t hold out much hope that Bush will nominate her because of her statements (no matter how true) about SS. She is the only nominee who has the charisma to make the Dems look like idiots – and never misunderestimate the power of charisma in a battle like this. It is a s least important as The Dems would look like they were beating on a defenseless little girl when they go into their attack mode.
Whatever. As I said, nothing personal, but good bye to a horrible nomination.
. It is a s least important as The Dems would look like they were beating on a defenseless little girl when they go into their attack mode.
My,my.
It is as least as important as the meat and potatoes (Quail style), as the Dems blah blah blah.
There. I think it makes more sense this way.
mr. fun,
And three more words.
JANICE. ROGERS. BROWN!
I basically supported Miers (albeit weakly) because she was Bush’s hand-picked nominee and I trust that he would nominate someone with a philosophy in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. I’m sure Miers possessed such a philosophy, though probably a bit more “compassionately” pragmatic than I’d like (a bit like O’Conner and Bush himself). I figured the lack of paper trail would ensure her confirmation.
But the fact that Republicans were underwhelmed and expressed disappointment in her pedestrian credentials is a credit to the Republican party. They showed a real preference for substance, quality, and meritocracy over pragmatism and mediocrity. It also speaks well of these Republicans that they didn’t confuse internal dissent with party loyalty. The defeat of Miers prior to nomination was part of the democratic process. That’s fine–laudatory even.
The only concern I have is that the conservative push for the perfect judge may be the enemy of the good. Now Bush must nominate another candidate under tense circumstances and with lots of political consequences.
Does he do better by conservatives’ standards this time? We’ll see.
Can the conservatives’ ideal candidate get through the Senate? Ehhhh, not sure.
Will there be political fallout in the ‘06 elections and beyond? Probably.
Confirming Miers would have been the safe choice. Anti-Miers people perhaps made life harder for Republicans in the mid to long term. I think that’s why Hugh’s steamed.
More on Mahoney. This time on Title IX.
Jeff is my true blogfather!
></a><a href=”http://www.gimmeabreakdvd.com/ “>Gimme a Break DVD</a> – In this classic 80’s sitcom, the ‘Gimme a Break season one DVD’ stars a hefty black housekeeper (Nell Carter) who maintained order in the home of a portly white police chief in this old-fashioned comedy. Get your <a href=http://www.gimmeabreakdvd.com/ >Gimme a Break DVD</a> at http://www.gimmeabreakdvd.com/