More on Miers
Look, Jim, no one respects your opinions more than I, and heaven knows I realize your political instincts are many times right on the money. You are reading a little more into my posts than is there. I'm not cheerleading for Harriet Miers or blindly accepting what so many on our side seem to think is the devil incarnate. I simply do not understand the vehemence of the opposition to the pick by a President who has given us nothing but stellar judicial picks so far. You have declared his presidency over and resigned yourself that we will lose Congress in 2006 over this.
Many have jumped to conclusions regarding her record and have had to back up and retract. Believe me, I have read all of the opinions you have posted here that agree with your position on this, and many, many more. I honestly do not understand the panic on the conservative side regarding this pick. Again I ask, why are you so quick to think the President has abandoned his base? Dick Cheney is enthusiastic about Miers, when has he disappointed us? I'd love to see that man as the next President, myself, but that's another discussion.
And no, I don't regard criticism of the President as criticism of the right. I have a little more insight than that. I simply have high regard for Bush and Cheney and I have no doubt that he gave this a lot of thought. I am confident that he understands the need to move the Court back into the role they were intended to have. I simply do not believe that he is backing down from a fight, and picking Harriet Miers is his way of doing that. I'm sure he realized that he was going to get some flack for this. Apparently he believes Miers is up to the job. I'm willing to find out more about her before throwing her, and President Bush, to the wolves.
By the way, while I do like Ann Coulter a lot, her last 3-4 columns have left me underwhelmed. [g]
JAS responds: Some of your impressions are in need of correction.
1) Nobody on our side thinks Harriet Miers is "the devil incarnate." What many on our side do believe is that she is an empty vessel who will quickly be filled up with "the devil's" philosophical brew, which is what has almost always happened with "stealth" nominees.
2) I don't think "opposition to the pick" is a fair characterization. In all likelihood she will draw little opposition from Dems and no active opposition from Republicans. But the former is the core of our objection. Any nominee that doesn't have Leahy, Schumer, Biden, and Kennedy collectively sucking their thumbs in the fetal position - which John Roberts did, I hasten to remind - has to be considered a questionable choice at best, justifiable only when facing a Senate under firm control of the opposition.
But that is not the case; the GOP drumbeat for the past three election cycles has been electing a big majority so that constitutionalist judges could get confirmed despite fanatical Donk opposition. And the base responded, and that big majority was attained. And when the time came to pull the trigger on a legacy SCOTUS pick that would actually deliver the payoff of moving the Court to the right, we get a nominee who is a philosophical blank slate.
In politics, perception is everything. Whatever sort of Justice Harriet Miers turns out to be, the perception is that Bush folded on a winning hand. And the past half century of GOP SCOTUS whiffs backs that up all too comprehensively.
3) I have "declared" that the political viability of the Bush presidency is over - which, ironically, this SCOTUS pick implicitly concedes. As to the fallout in 2006, it's just a simple logical progression: the judiciary is an overriding issue, the base was sold for six years running that electing Republicans would address it, and after we held up our end of the bargain the President himself reneges on his. People remember things like that, Jen - particularly conservatives. And it certainly takes the judiciary off the table as a wedge issue for this next cycle.
4) Nobody has jumped to any conclusions regarding Ms. Miers' record because she has no record as pertains to how she would rule once on the Court to jump to any conclusions from. That's what makes her such an underwhelming and unacceptable choice.
5) If you don't understand (not necessarily share, just understand) the "panic" in our ranks over this pick after all I've posted yesterday and today, then either you're not paying attention or I am unable to communicate it to you.
6) I have not said that the President "abandoned his base." That would imply that he knowingly selected an oligarchist who would legislate from the bench and the "stealth" angle was directed at deceiving his supporters. I think Bush genuinely believes that Miers will be a conservative vote on the Court. What I question is his judgment in taking such an unwarranted gamble whose outcome not even he can truly predict when he has the votes in the U.S. Senate to confirm truly outstanding constitutionalists like J. Michael Luttig, Michael McConnell, Emilio Garza, Edith Holland Jones, Priscilla Owen, Miguel Estrada, Janice Rogers Brown, etc., etc., etc. whose reliability once on Olympus could be confidently expected.
And if he doesn't have the votes in the Senate despite the GOP owning a ten-seat majority, well, that just speaks all the more to the futility of striving to elect more Republicans, now doesn't it?
7) Dick Cheney is not a free agent. I don't know what Big Time's opinion of Harriet Miers is, but disseminating his personal views is not part of his job description. Either he shares the President's view or he does not. If the latter he can't very well go forth publicly and whack Dubya off at the knees. He's a team player, he works at the pleasure of the President, and the President has made his choice. And Cheney was sent out to help sell it.
What is so telling is to whom he is attempting to make the Administration's pitch. Seriously, Jen, doesn't it concern you that the White House deliberately made a selection that they knew would need to be sold to their own supporters, and which Democrats have flocked to like ants to a picnic? Was that the case with John Roberts?
Your faith in Bush and Cheney is admirable, but, I think, too uncritical. It's the difference between being a Republican first and a conservative second and vice versa. The former can blind you to emerging political realities that you'd rather not see. That's why I spent the whole 1996 presidential campaign insisting that Bob Dole was going to be the next POTUS, and why you don't understand conservative "panic" at being led to expect a Cadillac nominee and getting a ghost car/Ford Focus hybrid instead.
It's going to have electoral consequences, Jen. Only time will tell just how severe they will be.
JIM GERAGHTY adds:
If Dubya wants to consult his magic eight-ball, let him do so on what brand of pretzels to put in the White House residence snack bowls. Supreme Court appointments are supposed to be a bit more serious.
ONE MORE UPDATE: Here's an email Ed Whelan got over at Bench Memos:
Still want to use that "Kool-Aid" analogy, Jen?
Many have jumped to conclusions regarding her record and have had to back up and retract. Believe me, I have read all of the opinions you have posted here that agree with your position on this, and many, many more. I honestly do not understand the panic on the conservative side regarding this pick. Again I ask, why are you so quick to think the President has abandoned his base? Dick Cheney is enthusiastic about Miers, when has he disappointed us? I'd love to see that man as the next President, myself, but that's another discussion.
And no, I don't regard criticism of the President as criticism of the right. I have a little more insight than that. I simply have high regard for Bush and Cheney and I have no doubt that he gave this a lot of thought. I am confident that he understands the need to move the Court back into the role they were intended to have. I simply do not believe that he is backing down from a fight, and picking Harriet Miers is his way of doing that. I'm sure he realized that he was going to get some flack for this. Apparently he believes Miers is up to the job. I'm willing to find out more about her before throwing her, and President Bush, to the wolves.
By the way, while I do like Ann Coulter a lot, her last 3-4 columns have left me underwhelmed. [g]
JAS responds: Some of your impressions are in need of correction.
1) Nobody on our side thinks Harriet Miers is "the devil incarnate." What many on our side do believe is that she is an empty vessel who will quickly be filled up with "the devil's" philosophical brew, which is what has almost always happened with "stealth" nominees.
2) I don't think "opposition to the pick" is a fair characterization. In all likelihood she will draw little opposition from Dems and no active opposition from Republicans. But the former is the core of our objection. Any nominee that doesn't have Leahy, Schumer, Biden, and Kennedy collectively sucking their thumbs in the fetal position - which John Roberts did, I hasten to remind - has to be considered a questionable choice at best, justifiable only when facing a Senate under firm control of the opposition.
But that is not the case; the GOP drumbeat for the past three election cycles has been electing a big majority so that constitutionalist judges could get confirmed despite fanatical Donk opposition. And the base responded, and that big majority was attained. And when the time came to pull the trigger on a legacy SCOTUS pick that would actually deliver the payoff of moving the Court to the right, we get a nominee who is a philosophical blank slate.
In politics, perception is everything. Whatever sort of Justice Harriet Miers turns out to be, the perception is that Bush folded on a winning hand. And the past half century of GOP SCOTUS whiffs backs that up all too comprehensively.
3) I have "declared" that the political viability of the Bush presidency is over - which, ironically, this SCOTUS pick implicitly concedes. As to the fallout in 2006, it's just a simple logical progression: the judiciary is an overriding issue, the base was sold for six years running that electing Republicans would address it, and after we held up our end of the bargain the President himself reneges on his. People remember things like that, Jen - particularly conservatives. And it certainly takes the judiciary off the table as a wedge issue for this next cycle.
4) Nobody has jumped to any conclusions regarding Ms. Miers' record because she has no record as pertains to how she would rule once on the Court to jump to any conclusions from. That's what makes her such an underwhelming and unacceptable choice.
5) If you don't understand (not necessarily share, just understand) the "panic" in our ranks over this pick after all I've posted yesterday and today, then either you're not paying attention or I am unable to communicate it to you.
6) I have not said that the President "abandoned his base." That would imply that he knowingly selected an oligarchist who would legislate from the bench and the "stealth" angle was directed at deceiving his supporters. I think Bush genuinely believes that Miers will be a conservative vote on the Court. What I question is his judgment in taking such an unwarranted gamble whose outcome not even he can truly predict when he has the votes in the U.S. Senate to confirm truly outstanding constitutionalists like J. Michael Luttig, Michael McConnell, Emilio Garza, Edith Holland Jones, Priscilla Owen, Miguel Estrada, Janice Rogers Brown, etc., etc., etc. whose reliability once on Olympus could be confidently expected.
And if he doesn't have the votes in the Senate despite the GOP owning a ten-seat majority, well, that just speaks all the more to the futility of striving to elect more Republicans, now doesn't it?
7) Dick Cheney is not a free agent. I don't know what Big Time's opinion of Harriet Miers is, but disseminating his personal views is not part of his job description. Either he shares the President's view or he does not. If the latter he can't very well go forth publicly and whack Dubya off at the knees. He's a team player, he works at the pleasure of the President, and the President has made his choice. And Cheney was sent out to help sell it.
What is so telling is to whom he is attempting to make the Administration's pitch. Seriously, Jen, doesn't it concern you that the White House deliberately made a selection that they knew would need to be sold to their own supporters, and which Democrats have flocked to like ants to a picnic? Was that the case with John Roberts?
Your faith in Bush and Cheney is admirable, but, I think, too uncritical. It's the difference between being a Republican first and a conservative second and vice versa. The former can blind you to emerging political realities that you'd rather not see. That's why I spent the whole 1996 presidential campaign insisting that Bob Dole was going to be the next POTUS, and why you don't understand conservative "panic" at being led to expect a Cadillac nominee and getting a ghost car/Ford Focus hybrid instead.
It's going to have electoral consequences, Jen. Only time will tell just how severe they will be.
JIM GERAGHTY adds:
So which scenario is more frightening for a conservative? That Bush didn’t know that this pick would drive his base bonkers with disappointment, betrayal, and rage, or that he knew, and just didn’t care?
It is simply not plausible that anyone around President Bush was saying to him, “You know who would make a great Supreme Court Justice, Mr. President? Your buddy Harriet. I mean it. 60 years old, so this pick has much less of a legacy than Roberts, no paper trail, no experience as a judge, no reason for your base that makes judicial nominations one of its top priorities to trust her, donations to Al Gore… And think about it, you just got 78 votes for Roberts. Why use any of that momentum or political capital? Go with the gal that Harry Reid likes. I mean it, sir, she’s just the total package.”
If Dubya wants to consult his magic eight-ball, let him do so on what brand of pretzels to put in the White House residence snack bowls. Supreme Court appointments are supposed to be a bit more serious.
ONE MORE UPDATE: Here's an email Ed Whelan got over at Bench Memos:
Harriet Miers?? Harriet Miers?? (I have to say it over and over again, because I just can't believe that it's true). It's like Bush has become the cronyism perpetrator that his detractors have always alleged he was. I am fully willing to believe that she is a capable person and, probably, will vote the right way on many cases (but, then again, so did O'Connor 80% of the time). But, can anybody honestly argue that Miers was the best person (or woman) available? Is Harriet Miers the legal jurist we've been waiting for since the Souter debacle to stem the tide of liberal jurisprudence and make her mark on legal scholarship? Was she the reason I and many of my colleagues stood in the freezing rain on election day in Eastern Ohio to GOTV?
Your sources say that Bush chose her because he thought she was the best that could be confirmed. That's such a cop-out. When it came to tax cuts and the war, Bush didn't seem to care about what people told him was possible. He fought (and won) things that pundits on both sides of the aisle said would not happen. But I (and many, many, many other social conservatives) did not vote for him to cut taxes or to go to war, but because of the Supreme Court.
You are, of course, correct that all of that is history now, because she is the nominee. But, that doesn't mean that we should simply rally round the flag and bury our disappointment. Bush betrayed me and everyone else out there who expected him to fight for the future of Constitutional law, and he should be made to know it. Harriet Miers may be conservative and she may be pro-life, but that alone does not merit a seat on the Supreme Court. Nothing in her background (or in the opinions of the people I know at the White House) gives any assurance that she is capable of becoming a stellar jurist, much less of inspiring and convincing those unschooled in an honest interpretation of the Constitution.
Bush has squandered the goodwill we gave him (not to mention squandering the opportunity to appoint a great legal mind to the Supreme Court) and I fear that the GOP will suffer for it. Boy, if I'm thinking like this, Bush is gonna be in big trouble, because normally I'm the biggest team player you can imagine. I worked my butt off for Bush in 2000 and 2004.
Still want to use that "Kool-Aid" analogy, Jen?
posted by Jennifer at 2:11 AM
<<< Home