Everybody will soon be talking about this George Will piece, which echoes many of the arguments Miers critics have been making for several weeks now—but which does so in so forceful a manner that it can fairly be said that all the cards are finally on the table, and that the President (and other Miers defenders) are going to have to call or fold. From “Defending the Indefensible” (Wapo):
Such is the perfect perversity of the nomination of Harriet Miers that it discredits, and even degrades, all who toil at justifying it. Many of their justifications cannot be dignified as arguments. Of those that can be, some reveal a deficit of constitutional understanding commensurate with that which it is, unfortunately, reasonable to impute to Miers. Other arguments betray a gross misunderstanding of conservatism on the part of persons masquerading as its defenders.
Miers’s advocates, sensing the poverty of other possibilities, began by cynically calling her critics sexist snobs who disdain women with less than Ivy League degrees. Her advocates certainly know that her critics revere Margaret Thatcher almost as much as they revere the memory of the president who was educated at Eureka College.
Next, Miers’s advocates managed, remarkably, to organize injurious testimonials. Sensible people cringed when one of the former Texas Supreme Court justices summoned to the White House offered this reason for putting her on the nation’s highest tribunal: “I can vouch for her ability to analyze and to strategize” […]
Miers’s advocates tried the incense defense: Miers is pious. But that is irrelevant to her aptitude for constitutional reasoning. The crude people who crudely invoked it probably were sending a crude signal to conservatives who, the invokers evidently believe, are so crudely obsessed with abortion that they have an anti-constitutional willingness to overturn Roe v. Wade with an unreasoned act of judicial willfulness as raw as the 1973 decision itself.
In their unseemly eagerness to assure Miers’s conservative detractors that she will reach the “right” results, her advocates betray complete incomprehension of this: Thoughtful conservatives’ highest aim is not to achieve this or that particular outcome concerning this or that controversy. Rather, their aim for the Supreme Court is to replace semi-legislative reasoning with genuine constitutional reasoning about the Constitution’s meaning as derived from close consideration of its text and structure. Such conservatives understand that how you get to a result is as important as the result. Indeed, in an important sense, the path that the Supreme Court takes to the result often is the result.
[…]
Can Miers’s confirmation be blocked? It is easy to get a senatorial majority to take a stand in defense of this or that concrete interest, but it is surpassingly difficult to get a majority anywhere to rise in defense of mere excellence.
Still, Miers must begin with 22 Democratic votes against her. Surely no Democrat can retain a shred of self-respect if, having voted against John Roberts, he or she then declares Miers fit for the court. All Democrats who so declare will forfeit a right and an issue—their right to criticize the administration’s cronyism.
And Democrats, with their zest for gender politics, need this reminder: To give a woman a seat on a crowded bus because she is a woman is gallantry. To give a woman a seat on the Supreme Court because she is a woman is a dereliction of senatorial duty. It also is an affront to mature feminism, which may bridle at gallantry but should recoil from condescension.
As for Republicans, any who vote for Miers will thereafter be ineligible to argue that it is important to elect Republicans because they are conscientious conservers of the judicial branch’s invaluable dignity. Finally, any Republican senator who supinely acquiesces in President Bush’s reckless abuse of presidential discretion—or who does not recognize the Miers nomination as such—can never be considered presidential material.
As I’ve argued all along, this entire controversy is, in an important respect (and judging from the information available about Miers’ political leanings, which stand in lieu of a judicial track record, and which Bush has assured us mirror his own), a battle between pragmatism and idealism—or better, a battle between a results-oriented approach to jurisprudence, which tends to be political, vs a procedural approach, which relies for its force on consistency of ideology and fidelity to certain immutable legal principles.
All this began, I submit, when Bush misjudged his base and put forth as a SCOTUS nominee a friend whom he respects, appreciates, and trusts—confident that, in addition to being sufficiently stealthy to make it through the confirmation hearings without triggering a filibuster, she adequately fit the criteria he believed would be most important to vocal conservative activists—namely that she be hostile to abortion, that she be a woman of strong faith, and that she be friendly to business interests.
But what legal conservatives wanted—and continue to insist upon—is a a Supreme Court Justice who will decide cases based on a rigorous and coherent judicial philosophy, not on the kind of political pragmatism that proceeds from reasoning backward from a position one has forged in the foundry of political compromise and social consensus. Miers may be this candidate, but her political positions continue to suggest otherwise—and frankly, this nomination is too important to legal conservatives to take any chances.
On the day Miers was nominated, I made the soft prediction that legal conservatives would force her to withdraw her nomination. We shall soon see precisely the kind of pull they have with this White House, as the Miers charm offensive, I think it safe to say, has failed miserably…
****
update: N.Z. Bear is asking bloggers to take a position.
So. Unless and until I can be convinced of her judicial conservatism (and that will require more than bromides about how she “won’t legislate from the bench”) I oppose the Miers nomination.
You can see the results here.
Additional thoughts from Ann Althouse and John Cole.
****
update: Grenfell Hunt rebuts Will here; Hugh Hewitt does so here (and adds some interesting bits about Miers and affirmative action). Hunt’s argument seems to be that Will’s tone was inappropriate and that Will misses the important point that Miers’ evangelicalism is code for judicial originalism, which she herself professes an adherence to—in the view of some, in fact, in a way more articulate than does John Roberts.
Antimedia is convinced; I remain unpersuaded—wary of her politics and simply not content to trust on blind faith (and let’s face it—all we have, really, is the word of her supporters, some of whom I do trust, but others whose opinions I find suspect) the purported constitutionalism of a stealth nominee who has come out in support of affirmative action and, potentially at least, proportional representation of the kind championed by diversophiles.
Antimedia says that people like me have fallen for the media lies; but that misses entirely the point that rankles many of Miers fiercest critics, namely, that Ms Miers has no ostensible history of judicial conservatism, and so is a wild card who is being pushed at a time when Republicans control the White House and Congress, and are replacing a (purportedly) conservative justice. If ever there was a time to stand up for overt judicial conservatism, this is that time.
****
The American Spectator‘s Jed Babbin also disapproves of Will’s tone, suggesting that “though his points are compelling, they are stated before conclusions that are, in turn, petulant, condescending and threatening. And the solution Will proposes—though theoretically sound—is stated in terms that can be used by the Dems to destroy one of the most important limits on the confirmation process.”
On that final point I agree with Babbin, who—in response to Will’s dubiousness over the Ginsberg Rule—replies, quite correctly:
Miers can, and should, be opposed on many grounds, not the least of which is her unproven and almost certainly malleable judicial philosophy. Thus her judicial philosophy—really her constitutional understanding—must be tested in the hearings without sacrificing the barrier to prejudged positions in the process. To demand her positions on “principles of constitutional law that these decisions have propelled into America’s present and future” is to demand answers to questions such as: Do you agree with the result in Roe v. Wade?
Miers can—and must—be tested, but not that way. It can be done by pressing her firmly and repeatedly on her understanding of the reasoning in already-decided cases. If, as I expect, she fails to demonstrate a constitutional scholar’s understanding of the reasoning of significant cases, that is reason enough to vote her nomination down. To demonstrate understanding of the reasoning one need not agree or disagree with the result. And that is where George Will should have stopped. But he didn’t.
We, as conservatives, must not allow the Miers nomination to destroy the immunity court nominees must have against political litmus tests.
On this much, even TalkLeft’s Jeralyn Merritt and I have agreed.
****
update: More here.
That’s interesting. Will’s column and Grenfell Hunt’s reaction to it convinced me to support Miers. I call.
You were convinced to support Miers because of others’ criticisms of her?
Wow.
Did you read Grenfull Hunt’s article responding to Will? I certainly wouldn’t characterize it as criticism of Miers.
Actually, though, your incredulous statement is right. The unfair criticism of Miers has pushed me toward supporting her. “She can’t write.” This is directed toward a woman who has been a very successful lawyer for decades. Does it seem reasonable to you? No one has even questioned whether what’s been reported is in fact her writing.
If Miers is who all her longtime associates say she is, then the critics have fallen for the media lies about her. Or all her longtime associates are idiots (including Ken Starr!) Sounds completely illogical to me. When two and two equals three, I get suspicious.
Media lies? You mean the conservative media or the liberal media?
Bush lost me on this one with the “just trust me” speech. I felt like he was selling me a fucking used car. Nothing I have learned since has made me think different.
tw: simply, I ain’t no shyster, so I simply go on instinct
I mean the media in general. I wasn’t aware there was a conservative media, unless you’re talking about talk shows.
I find it very difficult to believe that Harriet Miers can’t write. How could she be a very successful lawyer yet unable to write? So I don’t buy that what’s been published about her is accurate. The people who have known her for years call her “brilliant”. She’s brilliant but she can’t write? Something is seriously wrong with this picture.
A lot of the arguments I’ve seen against her – like today’s “quota” argument are simply unpersuasive. Read Hunt’s article – but with an open mind – and ask yourself (as I have) how can these two pictures of the same person be reconciled – 1) she’s brilliant – 2) she’s mediocre, 1) she’s very successful, 2) she’s a third rate lawyer. Doesn’t your antenna go up? Something is seriously wrong here.
The people who have written against her (sometimes in extremely vitriolic rhetoric – Bork, for example) don’t know her. The people that support her unequivocally have known her for years and speak of her as brilliant, hard working, an originalist, etc.
I think there’s been so much heat on the nomination that every single “fault” has been magnified to the nth degree and her qualifications have been ignored or belittled.
I always read with an open mind, thanks. And I can assure you I’ve reached my conclusions based on the same kind of disinterest as you lay claim to.
And yes, I read Hunt’s essay and responded (briefly).
Many of the most successful lawyers can’t write—in fact many are crappy lawyers. I live in that world. Remember, she wasn’t successful at lawyering, or else she would have some wonderful examples to point to. She was successful at ingratiating herself with a powerful, career-climbing politition. Big deal. There are thousands of lawyers out there doing that every day. She just got lucky and rang the bell. That’s not a qualification for the Supreme Court.
Jeez, if her supporters are reduced to this, they really have nothing to offer.
Miers may be an originalist or she may not (Why, we can’t prove she isn’t an originalist, right? That should be good enough for anyone who isn’t some kind of sexist snob, surely.) but that certain prominent conservatives and former friends are willing to endorse her doesn’t say much to me beyond the fact that Beldar and Hewitt aren’t the only conservatives who’ve decided to stand by their man and preserve a united front against the Democrats at all costs.
But really, for an appointee to the highest court in the land, we shouldn’t have to be arguing ‘Why not her?’ but ‘Why her?’. There were enough eligible candidates whose intellectual firepower was beyond question and whose ideological positions had been tried and tested; I have yet to see anyone convincingly argue that Miers really is (even taking into consideration pragmatic concerns about whether a given appointee would actually be confirmed) anything close to the best choice from among them. Frankly, for Bush to be forced to walk back this nomination would be a much needed reminder to him (and to the Republicans in general) that he cannot simply become Democrat-lite at home and float by with his base come what may because he’s still got a monopoly on credible approaches to the war on terror.
This political disagreement works a lot like a legal dispute. In litigation, the two sides make their case and the judge or jury decides between them based on the evidence and arguments. Here, the two sides make their case and each of us individually decides between them. If the proponents have no evidence and little but a series of nonsensical arguments in support of their position, why are they surprised when people decide against them?
I’m not referring to the blogger proponents, whom I respect even though I find their arguments unpersuasive. I’m referring to the White House and its minions, who have given us no case and all and have insulted us personally in the process. We’re elitists, sexists, right wing nuts. I even saw Dan Quayle on TV saying that the conservatives just like to argue about things. So much of the evidence weighs against Miers that you’d think we would get some help from the White House.
I’m still a fan of the big guy, but this process has been appalling.
password: Anti. Damn, Jeff, is Google doing your passwords?
Would it be fair to say that the ‘elitist’ description has now been earned?
Howso?
About three-quarters of the lawyers I know (working with and against) cannot write well. We are a long way from the days of learned scribes dipping quill to inkwell to draft their incisive missives.
There is room in many law practices (especially the larger, corporate ones where Ms. Miers used to work) for the people-organizer, the face lawyer, the deal-maker.
These firms have three kinds of lawyers: finders, minders and grinders. Those who find clients (and keep them happy), those who mind the store (competent senior attorneys) and grinders (the ones who do all the real work).
But, by all means, Antimedia, keep trusting that intuition of yours. God forbid it be set aside to make room for actual facts, experience or reasoned judgment.
“Actual facts, experience or reasoned judgment”? You mean like, I don’t care if Ken Starr, who has known her for fifteen years, says she’s brilliant. She’s obviously a medicre, third-rate lackey who got lucky and hit the big time despite herself? You mean that kind of “actual facts”?
You mean like, even though Supreme Court justices from Texas have stated she’s “brilliant”, “an originalist” and “a supurb lawyer” that she’s a “face” (didn’t you forget “pretty”) for the corporation to bring in clients.
Yeah, I’m getting more convinced by the minute.
Strange how the same crowd that sniffed out the Bush Guard memos in less than 24 hours swallows the media stories of Miers without even questioning why the “facts” are so discordant.
I’d have a lot more respect for folks (and no, I’m not referring to you, Jeff) would just admit they wanted Luttig or Brown or Owens or whoever and they’re bitterly disapponted that they didn’t get [him|her] than I do for people who pick apart her supposed punctuation and grammer errors and claim there’s thousands of lawyers in the country as good as she is.
Strange how she was voted by her peers as one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America. Were they all just sucking up? The “logic” of the opposition escapes me. Sorry.
Meh. Nobody listens to what I say, anyway. Unless its about sex or armadillos. Then suddenly I’m a freaking GURU.
I’m listening. It’s just the nature of blogs that the comments derail pretty quickly. I understand your decision, and your reticence to support Miers. Don’t take it personally.
It would seem that Will is the conservator of conservatism. Maybe we can have big ‘C’ and little ‘c’ conservatives. We will have to check with Will to see if it’s ok though.
I also would revist your definition of the pragmatics (big ‘P’
IMO, most pragmatics in this soap opera do NOT support results-oriented juriprudence, but results-oriented politics.
You have stated in other post that you did not care if the nomitation one of the NRO ‘Top Guns’ did not survive a confirmation fight, because the public debate would be good. That you did not care about the political results.
This pragmatic does not believe any good would come of such a battle at this time. This pragmatic believes there is much more battleground prep to be done, like your word=>intent arguement, before conservatives ideal of judicial restraint wins the public (or even Senate) support it deserves.
and yes the world still luvs ya Jeff.
You could take a Katrina(TM) swing at Malkin though. Her emails proving the FEMA failure have that faint ‘Shep’ scent to them.
OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG…
Much better now.
There’s probably some of both, and likely some that are both.
The difficulty in using these terms is that there’s always the individual context to consider. For instance, judicial idealism, in this instance, can be seen as pragmatic if it proceeds from the political position that now is the time to advocate for such idealism. Similary, political pragmatism can be a form of idealism when it fails ever to take a chance that could hurt the party as a matter of principle.
The very fact that we’re having to read the tea leaves under an electron microscope with this nominee is reason enough for me to reject her. Bush said he’d spend all his political capital. Swell; then let him pick a qualified judge with a solid track record, and go to the mats for him or her.
Miers’ allegedly fine legal mind is almost beside the point. Of course the frickin’ POTUS is going to have a sharp personal lawyer. That’s not the point. She should not be jumped over more qualified people, and she should not open the president to charges of cronyism.
Disregard the constitutional arguments for a moment, and this doesn’t look much different than if Warren Harding had nominated one of his poker buddies to the SC.
Turing = means, as in I support most of the conservative agenda as much as anyone, but in this crisis the means are just giving me the bends.
I’m thinking this may help to sink Miers once and for all. The “I didn’t know I got overpaid” defense isn’t going to fly with me—not when her pals have spent the last couple of months convincing me she is Superlawyer and OCD-like in her attention to detail. That leaves me to believe that she knowingly stole $26,000 from the state of Texas.
Ah, well, it must be true. After all, Knight-Ridder published it! Even though they don’t identify a single source for the story, it simply must be true. After all, Harriet Miers is an unqualified, mediocre, token lawyer who has traded on her name and face her entire life. All the bad stories coming out about her couldn’t possibly be false!
Antimedia —
You seem to be going out of the way to avoid the real argument most conservatives have—namely, we’ve been told Miers is the best available candidate, which is slap in the face to a host of conservative legal minds with proven track records. WHY is she the best available candidate? Because Ken Starr assures us she’s brilliant? Because she’s evangelical, and that’s clearly code for “originalist”?
And what about the suggestions about her favoring affirmative action and proportional representation? Do those things not bother you—particularly in lieu of her not having a judicial record?
Did I miss the part of the Clinton impeachment where Ken Starr was supposed to impress me? Because he is not exactly a winning endorsement in my book either.
I wasn’t aware I was doing that. I don’t know that Miers is the best available candidate. A lot of people seem to be assuming that their favored candidate was available, but they don’t know that for a fact.
But she is the candidate, and you’ve asked a legitimate question, so I’ll try to answer you. Due to the length, however, I won’t do it here, because I don’t think that would be fair to you.
I’ll post it to my blog and give you the URL when I’m done.
Fair enough?
Anti, there are many of us who would love to view her with an open mind. We would love to view her qualifications and then pass judgement. The problem is that there is no indication that we’re going to see anything. What, you expect that the “keen minds” in congress are going to help us any? Judging from the Roberts nomination, I wouldn’t hold my breath.
If you’re going to nominate someone without any experience in being a judge to the highest bench in the land, then I expect at least some writing on the subject of constiutional law to look at first. Hell, I would be willing to accept blog postings or reviews on Amazon.com. I don’t even have that.
Would you vote for a President with the kind of information we have about her? “I’ll vote for Joe Smith. I have no idea what he stands for, but Ken Starr likes him” would not be enough…and in many ways a President could turn out to be far less of a disaster since we could allways vote them out in four years. This is a lifetime posting, and the burden of proof falls on her, not on the rest of us.
tw: “sure”. yup. that’s what it’s all about.
Hmmm.
@ Jeff Goldstein
I enjoy reading your site a great deal. I frankly admire the irreverent humor of your writing and that of the people who post here. But I have to state that I think one paramount thing is missing from this Miers debate.
Accountability.
Conservatives have been led down the rosy path before. Kennedy. Souter. O’Connor. The list is seemingly endless. In each of these instances dignified well-respected conservatives pontificated on this and that, and stated that such a person was very conservative and would do us all proud. And then were proven completely and hopeless wrong not long afterwards.
And yet there has never been, to my knowledge, any accounting by these pundits and leaders for their errors.
And that’s quite frankly one of the reasons why I simply do not trust Hugh Hewitt’s judgement, nor that of many others, on this subject. In every instance opinions are given and supporting arguments are made, but there is also the sure and certain knowledge that these same individuals would be just as quick to decry the confirmation, if Miers turns out badly. And it’s also a very certain thing that nobody supporting Miers would be willing to accept personal responsibility for any errors or misjudgements she makes on the bench.
Which is why I simply don’t trust them.
Hmmm.
@ AntiMedia
I believe that a few probable women candidates were contacted, including Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown, and each has categorically denied having refused the nomination to the Supreme Court.
So I’d like for you to please provide the names of those women candidates who refused the nomination. Because I’ve seen any number of people repeat this, when the only source for it was Dr. Dobson from a private conversation with Karl Rove.
And isn’t the fact that there is no supporting evidence the reason why you are rejecting the Knight-Ridder story? So. Please provide the evidence to support your story.
Thanks.
It’s good you brought up Kennedy, Ed.
How the hell exactly did he end up on the Supremes?
I am sure there were well qualified ‘strict constructionist’ with a long paper trail who were available at the time.
Maybe even a couple of them. To bad none were nominated because I am sure the battle for thier confirmation would have been a ‘Good Thing’ for the conservatives cause. Yep. Ideals and all that.
Interesting idea, I don’t see it happening given the intellectual abilities of her inquisitors, however. It also wouldn’t make good political theater.
Ed, I’m not sure I follow you. Which conservative pundits do you not trust? The ones who support Miers? The ones who don’t support Miers? Or both?
WRT your question, it’s very simple. No one has said who was willing to serve and who wasn’t. So we don’t know. Bush said Miers was the best available candidate. What does that mean? That she was the best of all candidates? Or the best of those who were willing to go through a process that would dehumanize and disillusion any normal person to the point that they would never want to go through it again?
I don’t know what I don’t know, and I’m not willing to assume facts not in evidence. Opinions are a dime a dozen and worth at least half that – including George Wills’, Hugh Hewitt’s, Jonah Goldberg’s, the entire NRO crew, etc., etc., etc. They’re all just opinions. None of the above-mentioned people know Miers or have ever worked with her.
antimedia,
Even though I think the Meirs nom is a disaster, I grasp at your posts like a drowning man reaching for floating splinters. I WANT her to be the candidate that we, as “Conservatives”, have been working towards for decades. But I just don’t see it – because I don’t know WHAT I see.
I see only two real possibilities here. One is that someone has Bush by the short hairs, and the other, more probable scenario, is that Bush has been talking to the Senate and has come away with the word “NO!” for any truly Conservative candidate.
What I , and I think most Conservatives are saying, is that this is the time to stand and be counted. The gang of fourteen? Fuck ‘em. Schumer? Fuck ‘im. Reed? Kennedy? Specter? McCain? Fuck ‘em.
There will never be a better time to make our stand, and I would rather go down in a blaze of glory than to be pulling what appears to be a cheap political cop out.
We might well lose, but the advantages of this fight at this time are enormous. The Dems have become so outrageous that even many on the left are deserting them. How could it hurt to push them even further into their corner of partisan ridiculousness? How could it hurt to expose the gang of fourteen for the Executive branch usurpers that they are? A concerted effort by the Right would do exactly that.
The preferred Conservative candidates are not grotesque monsters bent on fascism, but they are people who understand that the Constitution consists of the words that it is written with, and not the detrius of years and years worth of overlying “legal” decisions. When the Constitution says “Congress shall make no law…” it does NOT mean the “Congress shall make no law EXCEPT…”.
No, I want badly to be on board with you, having spent five years defending Bush through thick and thin. I want to believe that this is a good move on Bush’s part, but I am having a lot of trouble because this whole affair stinks. Why is Bush unwilling to fight for the people that put him in the White House in the first place? Why does he feel that he has to hide our light under a bushel basket?
This is NOT about RvW for most of us, and if Bush thinks it is, it is the worst mistake of his political career. Bush needs to withdraw Meirs (which is looking more and more likely), and put up someone like Brown, take a deep breath, and enter the fray. Brown has the charisma to at least give undecideds pause when the Left tries to portray her as a fascist monster. The fight is with the electorate, NOT the Senators. If Brown were nominated and forcefully backed, the Senators would get the message. There will never be a better opportunity, and to keep pushing Meirs now is to claim defeat before the battle is even entered. Stand up! Screw the Democrats!
I believe a good fight over a true textualist would only further expose the Democrats for the lying hypocrites that they are. If we lose, we lose, but we do so with our pride intact. I just don’t happen to think that we would lose. We don’t have the MSM, but we do finally have our own network for getting our word out. Why so much fear? I would take on anybody for Brown, but I have no idea how to defend Meirs. I’ve never even heard of her.
Meirs, no matter who or what she really is, is a tacit admission that we are ashamed of ourselves, and therefore, we give up before we even start. I, for one, am not ashamed to stand on the side of the Constitution. It is the only thing we have to keep the Euro-weenies away from the levers of power. I think it is worth fighting for, and losing, if that be the case. Even if we did lose, we couldn’t help but win in the long run.
Dog (Lost),
We did that before. It was Bork. He was Borked. We got Kennedy (The third nominee). Was it worth it? Was that twenty years ago? How much did Kennedy help the conservative movement.
Losing a bruising confirmation battle over a ‘strict constructionist’ has real results.
All I hear is people guessing that the results would not be TOO bad. IMO, it is a HUGE gamble, and not worth the risk.
Possibilities:
1. Nominate ‘Strict Construcionist’ and get…
confirmation…….a HUGE win! or
2. Can’t get cloture and nuke option doesnt work…..possible HUGE loss for the origialist crowd! Because the next compromise nominee would certainly NOT be a ‘strict constructionist’.
Wasn’t the Senate Democratic during the Bork hearings?
And yeah, losing the battle has real results. As does not fighting it.
If I’m Bush, I keep putting up constitutionalists and let the Senate keep trying to shoot them all down. Let them explain to the American people why every single conservative judge who believes in a textualist approach to adjudication is “radical” or out of the mainstream. Let them explain to the American people why it is important to know exactly how a judge is likely to rule before they place him or her on the bench.
Now is the time to have the debate.
Jeff writes, “Let them explain to the American people why it is important to know exactly how a judge is likely to rule before they place him or her on the bench.”
I’d like those on the right who are demanding to know where Miers stands before she’s even appeared at the hearings to explain that to me. I honestly don’t see the difference.
Sure, it would have been nice if Bush had picked a fight. He didn’t. No one can really say what the consequences of a fight would have been. Perhaps that uncertainty is one of the elements behind his decision to nominate Miers. I don’t know, because Bush hasn’t said.
Dog, I can’t help you. All I can do is ask you to look at the facts. The fact is that those who do not know Miers have called her a “third rate” lawyer from a “third rate” law school, a “mediocre” candidate and a “failure”.
I just posted a brief article about Miers’ educational and professional accomplishments. Read it. Then ask yourself if the portrayal of Miers by some on the right is accurate.
Then make up your own mind about who’s telling the truth.
I am going to have to use an analogy, but I will try
.
I used to love Olympic boxing. Olympic boxing was supposed to be scored strictly by whether a punch made contact or not. One punch = one point, period. But it gradually got corrupted by judges with agendas not just political and geographical, but in the judging of the fight itself. Some would award phantom points for style, and aggressiveness, and how hard the punch landed. Not necessarily wrong or biased or inconsistent, just not the way the we want the fight judged because of the subjective nature.
Now say I am selecting new fight judges and want to get back to the old-fashioned, less opinionated method of one point per punch, and someone proposes a seasoned fight manager for the position. He knows boxing inside and out, hard to argue his qualifications, but he has never judged a fight, so I have no way of knowing what is values are. I am not asking who he thinks will win ahead of time, I just want to know that he is going to judge the fight on the agreed upon criterion.
If all I get is a wink and “trust me” he is going to be shown the door.
If all he is going to get is shown the door before you even interview him, then I suggest your criteria for choosing judges is flawed. Miers has not yet even had the chance to articulate her views. She has had to sit silently while she is villified and excoriated by the right without being able to even answer the charges against her.
Now that’s the essence of America, isn’t it? The very essence of conservatism, right? Why should anyone ever again allow themselves to be nominated for the Court? Now they not only have to suffer the slings and arrows of the left but of the right as well.
Miers hasn’t had the chance to articulate her views? Is she only allowed to talk to the Senate, then? She is going to work for me, she can fucking talk to me. All I have gotten is a “trust me” from W, that is my point. I don’t give a rat’s ass how well she can play politics with a bunch of pin-head popularity contest winners. Is she too good to talk to me?
Antimedia,
As I say, I want to come down on Meirs side, but I know absolutely nothing about her. I DO know where Brown stands. I really have no choice but to accept Meirs, and hope that she is what you say she is. I have never questioned her competence, and don’t expect that I will. What I do question is her judicial philosophy, because I have absolutely no idea what it is. I am being reassured by all kinds of people, but not by the little I know about Meirs herself.
What gives me pause is how the President and his advisors seem to think that if we can somehow know that she will vote against RvW, that’s all we need. BZZZZZT! Wrong. I really don’t care about RvW, but I do care mightily about a justice who interperets the Constitution from what it actually says, and not through a haze of prior decisions and political compromise. There are many things in the Constitution that are a little murky, but free speech (McCain-Feingold) and the right of property (Kelso) are not among them. Only someone who is completely ignorant of this country’s history (which I doubt is the case), or just chooses to ignore it could come to the conclusions that let these two abominations stand. These decisions are absolutely 180 degrees from what the Constitution says IN PLAIN ENGLISH. Perhaps Kelso has a little wiggle room, but not if one has ANY comprehension of what the Revolution was fought for. It was certainly not to give our own government the right to take private property at their whim.
smacko brings up Bork, but I don’t see a lot of parallels with bringing up a Constitutionalist now. Bork was blind sided, and I think the Republicans were so stunned that they were almost paralyzed. We also had no way at all to rebut the MSM, and what they said was gospel. We do now, and we can expect and prepare for a “Borking”. I’m telling you, Brown has the charisma, and that is nothing to sneeze at in nationally televised hearings.
I can’t imagine ever being in a better position than we are now to put an actual Constitutionalist on the court. Of course we start at a disadvantage, but that is where millions of people like myself come in. It is at the grass roots level that we can win this fight, not by trying to counter McCain’s presidential aspirations and the Dem’s socialist power grab. Logic is on our side, and I don’t think the welfare class is big enough yet to thwart it. Judging by the election map, though, this may not be true for too much longer.
Again, I hope you are right, and I have never questioned that Harriet Meirs is a very intelligent and competent woman. What little I have seen about her leads me to think that she is more interested in political peace than Constitutionalism. My real question is “WHY?”. If Bush loses with Brown (or whomever), THEN is the time to put Meirs forward.
So many people like myself are spoiling for this fight, and we think we can win because we do not live and breathe The Beltway. We have the channels to communicate now, and a grass roots that is more than willing to fight for what they belive. What upsets me so much is that Bush won’t even let the grass roots into the fight- or indeed, won’t even join the battle. IT’S NOT JUST ABOUT HIM. I love this guy, but I do not understand why he has gone wobbly all of a sudden. This is what Bush I would have done, not what Reagan would have.
We want the chance to fight this fight, and if we lose, we are no worse off than when we started. In fact, I think we would be even stronger if we lose because we have stood on principle, and there is NEVER a downside to that. The Dem’s can’t stand on principle because they would have to reveal themselves and never win anything again. But how can we win if we don’t even show up for the game?
I hope you are right, but this is too important a matter to be clouded by so many questions hovering around it. I really want to believe her supporters, and hope that they are right, but we have been down a dead end road too many times to just roll over and repeat: “OK. If you say so”.
Jeff – sorry to hog so much bandwidth, but I am on FIRE about this…
I simply don’t understand this. We shouldn’t discuss her merits publicly because, what, it could damage her self esteem?
Criticism of her positions based on what we’re able to find out about her politics is not “excoriating” her. It is analyzing her as a nominee.
She’s up for the Supreme Court. She has no track record. We are in a forum that comments on politics. Many of us are legal conservatives who care very much about the SCOTUS, and want to have a handle on the candidate before we throw our support behind her (and ultimately, we have very little power anyway). Your suggestion—that we wait and listen to her—doesn’t work for me, because I don’t trust the Senate to get anything useful from her.
B Moe,
How did your last chat with Roberts go before he was confirmed? Wanna share what he personally told you about his views? I also missed his press conferance that was held before the hearings. Musta been fishing that day.
Dog,
The problem is that there are no ‘do overs’. There are also no recess apointments to the Supremes. I am not willing to follow Jeff over the cliff, with an endless line of unconfirmed nominees. How many can W put up in the next three years. It would be ironic if a Dem won in 2008 and was able to nominate a Supreme on her/his first day in office.
Just saying that a stand on principal sometimes leaves ya feeling sick in the gut down the road. Like all the Perot voters (Read My Lips!!!! I Stand on Principal!!!) who ended up with two Clinton SC picks.
No wrinkle in the space-time continium is available, but I would think 1993-1994 would be considered a ‘bad’ time for ‘strict constructionist’. And stands on principal vs working with the possible. What would the Supremes be like without Breyer and Ginsburg? We will never know. But every fucking ‘stand on principal’ vote that went Perots way can be directly tied to the condition of the court today.
Enough…I’m getting an ulcer….
Jeff asks, “I simply don’t understand this. We shouldn’t discuss her merits publicly because, what, it could damage her self esteem?
Criticism of her positions based on what we’re able to find out about her politics is not “excoriating†her. It is analyzing her as a nominee.”
Jeff, you know you are not guilty of this, but calling Miers “mediocre”, “third-rate”, “a failure” and similary appellations is not “discuss[ing] her merits. And frankly, I’m not concerned about Miers’ self-esteem. I suspect she has plenty or she wouldn’t have lasted this long.
Criticism of her positions tells you little about her judicial philosophy. Furthermore, a paper trail matters little as well. If this were not true, we wouldn’t have some of the present justices on the Court. Ginsburg, for example, graduated first in her class from Columbia, one of the most prestigious schools in the nation. Look how much good that did the Court.
If you want to know how someone thinks, where they stand on the issues, how they might function in the future, you look at what they do (not what they say) and you talk to people who know them well.
Without any exceptions I’m aware of, everyone who knows Miers well characterizes her as “exceptional”, “brilliant”, “an originalist”. Read David Frum’s attempted takedown of Ken Starr’s comments and then read Starr’s comments. That tells you a great deal about the impartiality of the opposition.
I don’t know what to tell you. If you read what people who know her say about it, the difference between that and what the pundits claim about her is stark. Someone has to be wrong. I’ve chosen to believe those who know her well rather than those who have jumped on every unsubstantiated, anonymously sourced rumor about what she is or does.
I’m really just tired of answering these things. Fine. You made your choice. You are going to trust her friends. I’m saying that there were available choices who wouldn’t have put us in this position, and that I’m unconfortable with her political positions, fearing they could have some bearing on her judicial decisions. I’m also quite convinced she wasn’t the best available choice. We disagree. That’s just the way it’s going to have to stay.
As to the claims that you are keeping a clear head while everyone else is jumping on unsubstantiated anonymously sourced rumors, well, there’s your elitism and demonization of those who disagree with your right there.
Jeff, I don’t want to argue with you either. This whole thing has tired me out as well. And I certainly don’t make any claims to be completely without bias or somehow more intelligent than anyone else.
However, I hope you will agree with me that calling Miers “mediocre” and “third-rate” is not only false but un-called for. YOU haven’t done that, but some have, and I am definitely willing to claim that I’m on the right side of THAT argument.
smacko,
Though ideally I like Jeff’s approach, the practicality is as you suggest. But why not at least give a true Constitutionalist a shot? I keep using Brown’s name because I think she has the charisma to be a huge asset in an all out battle, but it could be any of the Originalist justices who have been mentioned.
My bitch is, why won’t Bush even try? There are an awful lot of us who feel like we have been clubbed with a two-by-four with this nomination. I mean, just who exactly is this woman? We don’t know beyond the affirmations of other people we don’t know. I am ready to go one on one with the people in my circles to convince them that “Originalist” does not in any way equate with “Nazi”. We have the tools now to debunk the Left’s BS now, whereas we haven’t before. Without the “new media”, I’ll bet you Roberts’ confirmation would have been a WHOLE lot different, and he might not even have been confirmed.
Anyway, my actual point is: We have more to gain than lose with a knock down battle with the Dems, and, despite what the Beltway says, I think we have a very good shot at prevailing. Bush has refused to even take the field. If Brown were to lose, THEN is the time to turn to Meirs. That I could understand.
Que sera, sera…
Tell you the truth, I have never been happy with her nomination. I do, however, understand the pragmatic/political side of trying to sneak her in. If it had gone smoothly, it most likely would have moved the court a little to the right as well as a little more ‘origianalist’. It did not go smoothly
.
Whats done is done though. And I have no idea what the best course of action is now. Of the three anti-Mier options, does any leave Bush in any position to force a more ‘acceptable’ nominee? If Bush did not think that he could get the nuke votes to force an up/down vote for a ‘strick constructionist’ before, does anyone think that a Mier withdrawal would strengthen his hand now?
1. Pressure Bush to withdraw Miers
2. Pressure Senators to vote against her (committee doesn’t really matter, only gives a approved/disapproved tag)
How the hell would either of these two options help later get confirmed someone more acceptable to us (and likewise less acceptable to Gang of 14 Arsehats)?
With any SC nomination, like it or not, politics are in play.
Follow Jeff over the cliff
and cross our fingers…
Stop the pressure against Miers, hope she is confirmed, and cross our fingers….
I agree, Bush misread the legal con’s anger. I agree, this could have been prevented. But there are no do overs. What do we do now, what are the repurcussions, and what can we live with.
and Jeff, you don’t have to personally answer my post
.
I am sure others will pitch in to help.
Not to mention sometimes my act of writing/posting sometimes is to help collect my thoughts and the arguement is really with myself
A little to the right, maybe, but her pragmatic/political (and I would add /bureaucratic) background is why I seriously doubt her “origianality” lol. Politics is for the other two branches, not the court.
And I did not demand an audience with Mr. Roberts because he had a resume and body of work that indicated a deep respect for the law. Miers does not. Miers has the history of malleablity, compromise and mystery that you would expect of a politician.
A-media,
You’re right. It’s becoming ulcer time.
My pragmatic side agrees with you, but I can’t help but feel that we are as strong and ready as we ever will be, and if we are going to lose this fight, let’s not do it with a forfeit.
Whatever…enough…