Post-Harriet
Mercifully, for her own sake most of all and that of the country and the President she will continue to loyally serve, the political tempest that was Hurricane Harriet has finally dwindled and moved off the national stage. Now perhaps we can begin picking up the pieces in her aftermath.
That should really read "its" aftermath, since it was Miers' nomination to the Supreme Court by that was the problem, not the lady herself. By withdrawing her name from consideration she proved her loyalty and friendship to her boss, as well as her humility in reverting to the frank self-assessment that initially led her to decline consideration back in July. I am personally relieved that this woman, whose only real shortcoming was that she simply was not qualified, substantively or tempermentally, to sit on the nation's highest court, will not be subjected to the televised mugging that was looming only ten days away. That would have been toe-curling and wince-inducing to watch.
Given all the "pre-mortems" I've written about the entire Miers saga, there doesn't seem to be much of a point in going into any great length on an autopsy. Suffice it to say that the beginning of the end was the request for Miers-related internal White House documents from GOP Senators Sam Brownback and "Lobotomy" Graham, something the Bushies were never going to grant but without which, and in lieu of little other independent information on the nominee, the Senate was not going to grant confirmation. Majority Leader Bill Frist attached the proverbial toe-tag last night, and the President at last threw in the towel.
If there was any other factor that served as the coup de grace, it was Tuesday's Washington Post story on Miers' dreadful 1993 speeches. After that percolated for twenty-four hours, the steady drip-drip-drip of growing opposition became a raging flood, as even the evangelical leaders that the White House cultivated early on fell away in well-earned embarrassment.
All, that is, except for the masochistic Hugh Hewitt, who remained a hack to the very end:
His allies gave them both precisely what was needed, and spared her national humiliation and him a necrotized presidency. And it was delivered entirely fairly and without malice. Unlike an Executive Branch appointment, a judicial nominee is not entitled to confirmation "because the President says so." The Senate's responsibility is to provide "advice and consent," and the President's responsibility is to appoint qualified individuals to the bench. The former has, for going on three years, abdicated its responsibility at Democrat instigation via the abuse of the filibuster and Republican tolerance of it. In the case of Harriet Miers, it was Mr. Bush who dropped the ball. It's up to the Miersian castaways to come to terms with it and get over this Dubya personality cult they've given themselves over to. It does neither them nor the President any favors.
If K-Lo's email box is any indication, they have a long way to go.
Meanwhile, to judge from the left-wing reaction to Miss Miers' withdrawal, you'd think that they woke up on Christmas morning to find coal in their stockings and giftwrapped boxes of socks and Fruit-of-the-Looms under the tree:
Reid is also miffed that his scheme didn't work out like he'd planned:
Reid recommended Miers because he knew if Bush took his bait, it would provoke the very uproar that actually ensued. His Democrats would then "hold their fire," as they in fact did, and then, depending upon how liberal/oligarchist she proved to be, they could either put her over the top for confirmation, permanently estranging the President from his base, or ambush her at her hearings, dealing the White House a humiliating and debilitating defeat.
Whether it was the allure of appointing a trusted confidante (curse you, Andy Card) or a genetic Bush family predisposition for addle-minded bipartisanship or Pappy taking up mind control as a retirement hobby, Dubya fell for it. What Reid didn't count on is that GOP senators would actually be responsive to the concerns of their constituents, in particular the movement activists who have spent decades working toward the day when the courts could be reclaimed for constitutionalism and were not about to be "Souterized" again.
The Supreme Court is already littered with "rigid ideologues"; they're the ones who treat the Constitution like a jurisprudential Etch-O-Sketch. And that's just what the Barney Fife clone insists the President appoint in Miers' place:
"Bad behavior." "A few extremists." Coming from the man who at least helped write the book on both phenomena. He knows that his, and his party's, best shot to avoid losing Olympian ground has fallen short. It really is to laugh.
Or is it? You would think that with the lessons of the Miers fiasco fresh, the President would take no chances on another slab of mystery meat, go with an established constitutionalist heavyweight like a Michael Luttig, Michael McConnell, or Edith Jones instead, take on the "mother of all battles" that would follow, and fight his nominee through enemy lines to victory, up to and including urging the majority to trigger the Byrd option and end confirmation filibusters. Heck, given how hard he battled for his personal attorney, he'd be obligated to do no less for her replacement.
Maybe he will. Or maybe he is still possessed by the dread of domestic political confrontation that was so obvious in the Miers choice and the accompanying conceit that he can somehow slide another obscure nominee under opposition radar (and the pathetic assumption that he needs to). I don't think he'll go the Miers route again (of course, I never thought he would pull a stunt like that in the first place, so nothing is really certain at this point), and the same issues of cronyism, internal document requests, recusal from war-related cases, and yes, a lack of originalist commitment would still rule out Alberto Gonzales. But a John Roberts type like Maureen Mahoney or a young (45) up-and-comer like Sixth Circuit Judge Jeff Sutton would be possibilities that would seem to be good compromises between "rigid ideology" and "pragmatic confirmability."
Or perhaps Bush is already grumbling, "I'll show THEM" and will announce the appointment of his dog, Barney, to the O'Connor seat, and insist that he's qualified because he's housetrained and "doesn't shed much." And he could always go up in a blaze of g(l)ory and tap Lawrence Tribe.
Bottom line is, the President needlessly feared a fight with Democrats and went the stealth route and provoked a fight with conservatives instead. The difference is he doesn't need the Democrats and will never win them over; he does need the Right. The common thread is that no matter who he appoints, he's going to get a fight. So why not swing for the fences?
As NR concluded its op-ed this morning, "Bush and conservatives on both sides of the Miers debate should now let bygones be bygones, and stand together in the fight they will now almost certainly face."
Or, "Hacks and elitists, unite!"
That should really read "its" aftermath, since it was Miers' nomination to the Supreme Court by that was the problem, not the lady herself. By withdrawing her name from consideration she proved her loyalty and friendship to her boss, as well as her humility in reverting to the frank self-assessment that initially led her to decline consideration back in July. I am personally relieved that this woman, whose only real shortcoming was that she simply was not qualified, substantively or tempermentally, to sit on the nation's highest court, will not be subjected to the televised mugging that was looming only ten days away. That would have been toe-curling and wince-inducing to watch.
Given all the "pre-mortems" I've written about the entire Miers saga, there doesn't seem to be much of a point in going into any great length on an autopsy. Suffice it to say that the beginning of the end was the request for Miers-related internal White House documents from GOP Senators Sam Brownback and "Lobotomy" Graham, something the Bushies were never going to grant but without which, and in lieu of little other independent information on the nominee, the Senate was not going to grant confirmation. Majority Leader Bill Frist attached the proverbial toe-tag last night, and the President at last threw in the towel.
If there was any other factor that served as the coup de grace, it was Tuesday's Washington Post story on Miers' dreadful 1993 speeches. After that percolated for twenty-four hours, the steady drip-drip-drip of growing opposition became a raging flood, as even the evangelical leaders that the White House cultivated early on fell away in well-earned embarrassment.
All, that is, except for the masochistic Hugh Hewitt, who remained a hack to the very end:
I think Ms. Miers has been unfairly treated by many who have for years urged fair treatment of judicial nominees.
She deserves great thanks for her significant service to the country. She and the President deserved much better from his allies.
His allies gave them both precisely what was needed, and spared her national humiliation and him a necrotized presidency. And it was delivered entirely fairly and without malice. Unlike an Executive Branch appointment, a judicial nominee is not entitled to confirmation "because the President says so." The Senate's responsibility is to provide "advice and consent," and the President's responsibility is to appoint qualified individuals to the bench. The former has, for going on three years, abdicated its responsibility at Democrat instigation via the abuse of the filibuster and Republican tolerance of it. In the case of Harriet Miers, it was Mr. Bush who dropped the ball. It's up to the Miersian castaways to come to terms with it and get over this Dubya personality cult they've given themselves over to. It does neither them nor the President any favors.
If K-Lo's email box is any indication, they have a long way to go.
Meanwhile, to judge from the left-wing reaction to Miss Miers' withdrawal, you'd think that they woke up on Christmas morning to find coal in their stockings and giftwrapped boxes of socks and Fruit-of-the-Looms under the tree:
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, a surprising early advocate of Harriet Miers’ nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, blames conservative Republicans for killing her nomination.The man's jealous. Ideological activism is supposed to be the sole domain of the far-left, groups like NOW and NARAL and People for the Soviet Socialist Way, people like Nan Aron and Ralph Neas. They bark "jump" and Dirty Harry and his geriatric crew wheeze, "How high?" But let conservatives organize and make their voices heard in response to their President reneging on a core and oft-repeated promise to appoint originalists to the judiciary in general and the SCOTUS in particular, and the President bow to that political reality, and suddenly the world is coming to an end.
"Apparently, Miss Miers did not satisfy those who want to pack the Supreme Court with rigid ideologues,” Reid wrote in a prepared statement.
Reid is also miffed that his scheme didn't work out like he'd planned:
Reid claimed to have recommended Miers to President Bush because he 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.”
Bush, perhaps emboldened by the request of a leading Democrat, used these same qualifications countless times in support of his nomination of Miers, and in the face of ferocious criticism from conservative Republicans and pundits.
Reid recommended Miers because he knew if Bush took his bait, it would provoke the very uproar that actually ensued. His Democrats would then "hold their fire," as they in fact did, and then, depending upon how liberal/oligarchist she proved to be, they could either put her over the top for confirmation, permanently estranging the President from his base, or ambush her at her hearings, dealing the White House a humiliating and debilitating defeat.
Whether it was the allure of appointing a trusted confidante (curse you, Andy Card) or a genetic Bush family predisposition for addle-minded bipartisanship or Pappy taking up mind control as a retirement hobby, Dubya fell for it. What Reid didn't count on is that GOP senators would actually be responsive to the concerns of their constituents, in particular the movement activists who have spent decades working toward the day when the courts could be reclaimed for constitutionalism and were not about to be "Souterized" again.
The Supreme Court is already littered with "rigid ideologues"; they're the ones who treat the Constitution like a jurisprudential Etch-O-Sketch. And that's just what the Barney Fife clone insists the President appoint in Miers' place:
"In choosing a replacement for Miss 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." "A few extremists." Coming from the man who at least helped write the book on both phenomena. He knows that his, and his party's, best shot to avoid losing Olympian ground has fallen short. It really is to laugh.
Or is it? You would think that with the lessons of the Miers fiasco fresh, the President would take no chances on another slab of mystery meat, go with an established constitutionalist heavyweight like a Michael Luttig, Michael McConnell, or Edith Jones instead, take on the "mother of all battles" that would follow, and fight his nominee through enemy lines to victory, up to and including urging the majority to trigger the Byrd option and end confirmation filibusters. Heck, given how hard he battled for his personal attorney, he'd be obligated to do no less for her replacement.
Maybe he will. Or maybe he is still possessed by the dread of domestic political confrontation that was so obvious in the Miers choice and the accompanying conceit that he can somehow slide another obscure nominee under opposition radar (and the pathetic assumption that he needs to). I don't think he'll go the Miers route again (of course, I never thought he would pull a stunt like that in the first place, so nothing is really certain at this point), and the same issues of cronyism, internal document requests, recusal from war-related cases, and yes, a lack of originalist commitment would still rule out Alberto Gonzales. But a John Roberts type like Maureen Mahoney or a young (45) up-and-comer like Sixth Circuit Judge Jeff Sutton would be possibilities that would seem to be good compromises between "rigid ideology" and "pragmatic confirmability."
Or perhaps Bush is already grumbling, "I'll show THEM" and will announce the appointment of his dog, Barney, to the O'Connor seat, and insist that he's qualified because he's housetrained and "doesn't shed much." And he could always go up in a blaze of g(l)ory and tap Lawrence Tribe.
Bottom line is, the President needlessly feared a fight with Democrats and went the stealth route and provoked a fight with conservatives instead. The difference is he doesn't need the Democrats and will never win them over; he does need the Right. The common thread is that no matter who he appoints, he's going to get a fight. So why not swing for the fences?
As NR concluded its op-ed this morning, "Bush and conservatives on both sides of the Miers debate should now let bygones be bygones, and stand together in the fight they will now almost certainly face."
Or, "Hacks and elitists, unite!"
posted by JASmius at 6:02 PM
<<< Home