Retort
With all due respect, Jim, all you've given are hypotheticals. You admit that we know little about Harriet Miers, yet proclaim that we've been left "high and dry" and that Bush's presidency is over. Excuse me if I find that a little hysterical. You have theories, suspicions, and rumors from unnamed White House sources. In any other situation, we would demand more evidence before passing judgment. One would think that conservatives would have preferred the nomination of Hillary Clinton, the way it sounds.
Why do you assume Miers is not a constitutionalist? What has Bush done to make you think he would nominate another Souter? Why are you and so many others so quick to bury your heads in the sand and decide we've lost everything...over a woman you admit to knowing very little about?
*I* happen to be one of the ones who helped elect Bush, and I don't feel "abandoned." I'll tell you what would make your dire predictions come true, if the talk about a Republican filibuster has any relationship with the truth at all. Last I heard, Republicans were in favor of an up or down vote on the basis of qualification to be a Supreme Court justice, not whether or not they got who they wanted.
JAS responds: I would simply redirect you to David Frum's comments again, particularly these two graphs:
Every time a Republican president has gone this route, Jen (well, okay, almost - I think the proportion is roughly three out of every four) the Right has gotten shafted. That goes all the way back to Dwight Eisenhower half a century ago. It's not up to us to take Bush at his word; it's up to him to make good on his campaign promise to appoint constitutionalists to the SCOTUS.
He did so with Chief Justice Roberts (and if you go back through my posts, you'll find that I didn't share the hyperanxiety of a handful of tighty-righties - most especially your heroine, Ann Coulter - that Roberts was another Souter); he has failed mightily with Harriet Miers by the straightforward fact that he did not appoint any of the far better qualified and philosophically grounded conservative judges that were available.
Again, I am not recommending that any 'Pubbie bolt or stay home next Election Day because of this. I simply have lived through the past twenty-five years of American political history and I know what the GOP base does when it perceives its elected leaders as having betrayed them.
Take a gander at these comments left at AmSpecblog:
Call me loopy, but I don't remember that sort of sentiment from our lines on the day the President trundled out Chief Justice Roberts. And the last time I can remember a Republican White House generating this kind of base disapprobation was fifteen years ago when Pappy jokingly quipped, "read my hips" and proceeded to throw his no-new-taxes pledge overboard. The cost in the 1990 midterms was nine House seats and one or two Senate seats, and two years later Bush41 was summarily cashiered, ushering in the halycon Hamelot era, from which the nation is still recovering.
Take it for what you will, and I'll throw in an acknowledgement that thirteen months is epochal in political terms, but this wasn't an ordinary issue like ANWR drilling or the child tax credit. This was JUDGES. This was deposing the robed tinpots that are taking over more and more of our lives, particularly in imposing gay marriage and squashing religious liberties and the ever-popular Kelo ruling. This was taking another step toward overturning Roe v. Wade. This issue was the animating force of the past three election cycles. It mattered. Apparently it didn't matter quite as much to the President as he led us to believe.
I dunno, maybe that fabled smirk is enough for you. But for me and, it appears, quite a few others, "trust me" just doesn't cut it any more. And, White House delusions of this dissatisfaction "dissipating" within forty-eight hours not withstanding, this double-cross will be remembered, and for a lot longer than a year and change.
They always are.
HINDERAKER again:
I can just hear Karl Rove now: "Don't sweat these malcontents, Mr. President - after all, where are they going to go?"
They don't have to "go" anywhere; they can just stay home.
It astounds me that they're not thinking of that. But I can guarantee they will be as the Democrat-controlled 110th Congress prepares to convene, with the first order of business being the double-impeachment of Bush and Cheney.
If that happens, remember this post. Because you can bet I'll have my "See, I told you so"'s ready.
FINAL THOUGHT (for today, at least): It's funny that Jen goes out of her way to stress the "theories, suspicions, and rumors from unnamed White House sources" cited by those of us who feel most justifiably betrayed by this lame-assed SCOTUS selection. I've just spent the past twenty minutes surfing through a matching quantity of theories, suspicions, and rumors from other unnamed White House sources spinning Harriet Miers as Scalia in a skirt. If we "admit to knowing very little about" her, it would be nice if the people trying to apply not just lipstick but all manner of cosmetics to this (metaphorical) pig would make that same concession.
And that would include the President himself. So much of the "trust W" apologists' case is based upon the notion that Bush knows Ms. Miers and we do not. But how well does he really know her? And how well would he have to know her to really know what kind of Supreme Court Justice she would be? After all, the past half century is littered with example after example of GOP SCOTUS choices whom either past Republican presidents or aides that they implicitly trusted "knew" would be outstanding originalists who would not "legislate from the bench," only to see them all lurch to the left once their were ensconsed on Olympus. Good heavens, even Ronald Reagan himself was only one up (Scalia) and two down (O'Connor, Kennedy - though the latter probably shouldn't count entirely against the Gipper, since he really wanted Bork). Unless Dubya knows how to perform Vulcan mindmelds, he does not, and cannot, truly know how a Justice Miers would rule on another challenge to Roe v. Wade. Whereas he, and we, could have with a Justice Luttig or Justice McConnell, etc.
The logic is inescapable - if Bush wanted a constitutionalist, he wouldn't have selected Harriet Miers, because he didn't select her for her judicial philosophy (assuming she even has one - reportedly their interview didn't even touch on her views on issues likely to come before the Court), but solely for her presumed confirmability without a knockdown, drag-out fight.
Jennifer, if Harriet Miers turns out to be Edith Jones on steroids, I will be the first to cheer and do the bowing down/"I'm not worthy, I'm not worthy" ritual to the President. But there's at least an equal, and probably better, chance that she ends up as Harriet Goldis instead [inside joke, dear readers - it would take far too long to explain]. And either way, Bush has so bollixed the politics of this nomination that if he gets a third shot, he'll probably have to navigate whoever it is through a Democratic Senate, meaning doing no better than another Miers - and, given this White House's distaste for partisan conflict, probably a great deal worse.
So very much to pay for so very little.
Why do you assume Miers is not a constitutionalist? What has Bush done to make you think he would nominate another Souter? Why are you and so many others so quick to bury your heads in the sand and decide we've lost everything...over a woman you admit to knowing very little about?
*I* happen to be one of the ones who helped elect Bush, and I don't feel "abandoned." I'll tell you what would make your dire predictions come true, if the talk about a Republican filibuster has any relationship with the truth at all. Last I heard, Republicans were in favor of an up or down vote on the basis of qualification to be a Supreme Court justice, not whether or not they got who they wanted.
JAS responds: I would simply redirect you to David Frum's comments again, particularly these two graphs:
I worked with Harriet Miers. She's a lovely person: intelligent, honest, capable, loyal, discreet, dedicated ... I could pile on the praise all morning. But there is no reason at all to believe either that she is a legal conservative or - and more importantly - that she has the spine and steel necessary to resist the pressures that constantly bend the American legal system toward the left. This is a chance that may never occur again: a decisive vacancy on the court, a conservative president, a 55-seat Republican majority, a large bench of brilliant and superbly credentialed conservative jurists ... and what has been done with the opportunity?
I am not saying that Harriet Miers is not a legal conservative. I am not saying that she is not steely. I am saying only that there is no good reason to believe either of these things. Not even her closest associates on the job have good reason to believe either of these things. In other words, we are being asked by this President to take this appointment purely on trust, without any independent reason to support it. And that is not a request conservatives can safely grant....
Every time a Republican president has gone this route, Jen (well, okay, almost - I think the proportion is roughly three out of every four) the Right has gotten shafted. That goes all the way back to Dwight Eisenhower half a century ago. It's not up to us to take Bush at his word; it's up to him to make good on his campaign promise to appoint constitutionalists to the SCOTUS.
He did so with Chief Justice Roberts (and if you go back through my posts, you'll find that I didn't share the hyperanxiety of a handful of tighty-righties - most especially your heroine, Ann Coulter - that Roberts was another Souter); he has failed mightily with Harriet Miers by the straightforward fact that he did not appoint any of the far better qualified and philosophically grounded conservative judges that were available.
Again, I am not recommending that any 'Pubbie bolt or stay home next Election Day because of this. I simply have lived through the past twenty-five years of American political history and I know what the GOP base does when it perceives its elected leaders as having betrayed them.
Take a gander at these comments left at AmSpecblog:
Vic: “The President is playing for a tie.”And their webmaster says that's just a lunchtime sampling.
JP: “Watch how the Democratic Senators treatment of her evolves; they may see a kindred spirit.”
Ken: “Probably the best we can hope for is mediocrity. Please plant no more Bushes on the White House grounds - ever.”
Mark P: “This is the last straw for me.”
Jennifer: “W promised us a Scalia or a Thomas.”
G. Deveney: “There are many Conservative women Judges deserving of this position…I personally will no longer trust the GOP.”
Cathy: “...what next, is he going to appoint Jimmy Carter to dole out the billions in FEMA funds which will bankrupt this country?”
John: “He has left all of the red states red faced....”
Call me loopy, but I don't remember that sort of sentiment from our lines on the day the President trundled out Chief Justice Roberts. And the last time I can remember a Republican White House generating this kind of base disapprobation was fifteen years ago when Pappy jokingly quipped, "read my hips" and proceeded to throw his no-new-taxes pledge overboard. The cost in the 1990 midterms was nine House seats and one or two Senate seats, and two years later Bush41 was summarily cashiered, ushering in the halycon Hamelot era, from which the nation is still recovering.
Take it for what you will, and I'll throw in an acknowledgement that thirteen months is epochal in political terms, but this wasn't an ordinary issue like ANWR drilling or the child tax credit. This was JUDGES. This was deposing the robed tinpots that are taking over more and more of our lives, particularly in imposing gay marriage and squashing religious liberties and the ever-popular Kelo ruling. This was taking another step toward overturning Roe v. Wade. This issue was the animating force of the past three election cycles. It mattered. Apparently it didn't matter quite as much to the President as he led us to believe.
I dunno, maybe that fabled smirk is enough for you. But for me and, it appears, quite a few others, "trust me" just doesn't cut it any more. And, White House delusions of this dissatisfaction "dissipating" within forty-eight hours not withstanding, this double-cross will be remembered, and for a lot longer than a year and change.
They always are.
HINDERAKER again:
[I]t is significant that Bush appoint someone who turns out to be a conservative, but it is also important (albeit less so) that he be perceived as doing so.Here's some of what Rush had to say today:
Bush is at a very significant point in his second term. Things have not been going great for him on a number of fronts. The one real triumph he has had so far this term was his selection of John Roberts as Chief Justice. Bush needs to keep the party's conservative base aggressively in his corner. He also needs to show that, notwithstanding his mostly-superficial second term problems, he can get what he wants from the Senate when the chips are down. He had the opportunity to do that with another top-notch nomination, and he had great candidates available. Instead, it is widely perceived that he punted.
The base is in no mood for a stealth candidate who donated to Democrats throughout the Reagan Administration. For Bush, vindication ten years from now will come too late.
I just wait for the choice to be made, and it just seems to me that at the outset here that this is a pick that was made from weakness. There was an opportunity here to show strength and confidence, and I don't think this is it. There are plenty of known quantities out there who would be superb for the court. This is a nominee that we don't know anything about, a nominee purposely chosen in one context, we don't know anything about her. It makes her less of a target but it also does not show a position of strength....I think the difference you and I are having, Jen, is that you aren't distinguishing Bush from your own conservatism, but are rather conflating the two, and as a result you're perceiving criticism of the President from his right as criticism OF the Right. Ultimately, the movement has to be bigger than any one leader, or else it will be impossible to hold any leader accountable to the base that helped put him/her into office. For those who "want to believe," they'll always find a reason - and will be taken for granted thereafter, since lemming supporters who attach no conditions to their support need not be listened to by definition.
[T]he main reason I don't like this pick has nothing to do with Harriet Miers because I don't know her. I think the pick makes President Bush look weak. I think the pick is designed to avoid more controversy; the pick is designed to appease. I can't tell you how that disappoints me.
I can just hear Karl Rove now: "Don't sweat these malcontents, Mr. President - after all, where are they going to go?"
They don't have to "go" anywhere; they can just stay home.
It astounds me that they're not thinking of that. But I can guarantee they will be as the Democrat-controlled 110th Congress prepares to convene, with the first order of business being the double-impeachment of Bush and Cheney.
If that happens, remember this post. Because you can bet I'll have my "See, I told you so"'s ready.
FINAL THOUGHT (for today, at least): It's funny that Jen goes out of her way to stress the "theories, suspicions, and rumors from unnamed White House sources" cited by those of us who feel most justifiably betrayed by this lame-assed SCOTUS selection. I've just spent the past twenty minutes surfing through a matching quantity of theories, suspicions, and rumors from other unnamed White House sources spinning Harriet Miers as Scalia in a skirt. If we "admit to knowing very little about" her, it would be nice if the people trying to apply not just lipstick but all manner of cosmetics to this (metaphorical) pig would make that same concession.
And that would include the President himself. So much of the "trust W" apologists' case is based upon the notion that Bush knows Ms. Miers and we do not. But how well does he really know her? And how well would he have to know her to really know what kind of Supreme Court Justice she would be? After all, the past half century is littered with example after example of GOP SCOTUS choices whom either past Republican presidents or aides that they implicitly trusted "knew" would be outstanding originalists who would not "legislate from the bench," only to see them all lurch to the left once their were ensconsed on Olympus. Good heavens, even Ronald Reagan himself was only one up (Scalia) and two down (O'Connor, Kennedy - though the latter probably shouldn't count entirely against the Gipper, since he really wanted Bork). Unless Dubya knows how to perform Vulcan mindmelds, he does not, and cannot, truly know how a Justice Miers would rule on another challenge to Roe v. Wade. Whereas he, and we, could have with a Justice Luttig or Justice McConnell, etc.
The logic is inescapable - if Bush wanted a constitutionalist, he wouldn't have selected Harriet Miers, because he didn't select her for her judicial philosophy (assuming she even has one - reportedly their interview didn't even touch on her views on issues likely to come before the Court), but solely for her presumed confirmability without a knockdown, drag-out fight.
Jennifer, if Harriet Miers turns out to be Edith Jones on steroids, I will be the first to cheer and do the bowing down/"I'm not worthy, I'm not worthy" ritual to the President. But there's at least an equal, and probably better, chance that she ends up as Harriet Goldis instead [inside joke, dear readers - it would take far too long to explain]. And either way, Bush has so bollixed the politics of this nomination that if he gets a third shot, he'll probably have to navigate whoever it is through a Democratic Senate, meaning doing no better than another Miers - and, given this White House's distaste for partisan conflict, probably a great deal worse.
So very much to pay for so very little.
posted by Jennifer at 2:39 PM
<<< Home