SCOTUS Nominee Harriet Miers
Scott Kirwin
If you care about this issue, count yourself as a true politics/news junkie. I do - which is why I've spent the last hour researching President Bush's 2nd nominee to the Supreme Court.
So far what I am reading leaves me feeling disappointed and underwhelmed. There has been serious talk about a showdown between the Democrats and Republicans over this nomination. I would have preferred to see the President nominate someone with serious Conservative credentials to challenge the Democrats and liberal Republicans. After all, the midterm elections are less than a year away as is the beginning of the President's Lame Duck status. Such a fight could have fractured the Democratic party and forced it to reevaluate its role in politics - something that it desperately needs to do if it hopes to attract Bush Democrats like me.
But instead of Priscilla Owen we get Harriet Miers - the President's personal lawyer.
Is she SCOTUS material? Sure she hasn't left much of a paper-trail, leaving the Dems to make stuff up - which they would have done anyway. Selecting Miers looks like a defensive move - a safe choice.
There's also the issue of cronyism. She's a personal friend of Bush's. However the President himself must recognize that a Supreme Court justice is one of the most powerful legacies a president leaves. Surely he wouldn't want to squander it simply by choosing a personal friend.
As an admirer of Karl Rove, I am left hoping that there is more to this nomination than appearances. Perhaps Bush and Rove know that Miers is a hardcore Conservative - someone that makes Bork look as liberal as Earl Warren. Gay Patriot has some suspicions. SCOTUSBlog is concerned. The guys at Powerline are flat out bummed.
Sun Tzu advised that one must hit one's opponent where he least expects it. Is this another Rove Masterstroke
* Update * Heh.
Related Posts (on one page):
- We've Got Our Fight
- The Harriet Miers nomination redux
- too funny
- SCOTUS Nominee Harriet Miers
Ive never bought into the Rove mythos. If anything, Rove, Delay, et al are characterized more by hubris rather than brilliance. As some have pointed out, it only took the GOP 10 years of power to attain the level of corruption that it took the Democrats 40 (echoed by GOP conservatives themselves at RedState, mind you). Progress of sorts, I guess.
I don't think the nomination of Harriet Miers as associate justice of the US Supreme Court is going to sink.
What I do think will happen is that the religious-political rightwing will make enough negative noises about her nomination to insure perhaps even broader bipartisan support in the US Senate than was enjoyed by John Roberts during his recent confirmation.
I think that in general, the mood of the American voting population is swinging back to center, and this is affecting both parties. Extreme liberal leftists among Democrats and extreme religious rightists among Republicans both face political realities that will disappoint them, of course for different reasons.
Miers has an extensive background in American law, has been influential enough to capture the attention of the president of the United States, and, barring any revelation of wrong-doing or other scandal in the thorough background check she shall undergo, she will in fact be confirmed.
In any case, Roe v Wade will be re-examined, probably more than once, but it will not be overturned in the foreseeable future. Which means it probably never will be overturned at all.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
It *may be* that that's exactly what the court needs. But it's not a slam dunk, and i'd like the administration to actually make the case.
In the meantime, i'm highly amused at the frothing reaction among the conservatives.
Mind you, I'm not as much of a politics junkie as Scott--not anymore--so my reaction is sort of "enh." IT would have been exciting if he'd nominated Janice Rogers Brown, who I like and who I think has been horribly smeared because she's black and conservative. But obviously the President didn't want a fight, so picked someone he personally trusted who he figured would sail through.
The right can try to fight but they won't muster enough to matter. I predict that unless she says something stupid or some dirt is dug up on her, she'll sail through with 80 or more votes, with a few rabid Dems voting "no" just on general principles and a few surly Repubs simply not showing up or casting a "no" vote while openly admitting it's mostly a statement.
By the way, one thing that gets missed in these analyses is what influence the Senate leadership had, and what horse trading went on in the background that we don't know about. It is entirely possible, indeed likely, that Bush made this pick in order to get other things he wanted. The fact that Chuck Schumer said he likes this woman is strongly indicative to me that some sort of deal was made. What that deal would be would likely not be immediately apparent, but it might well be that Senate Dems' attack dogs will be "strangely silent" on some other upcoming issue as a result of this pick.
"What if Miers happens to be a Conservative Lesbian - as Gay Patriot hints at?"
That would certainly be my ideal, of course. And it would certainly get the CommuNazis out screaming. For, the one thing my enemies fear above all is:
Conservative Lesbian Individualist Theology
I think she will prove to be a basically centrist conservative, devoted to keeping the United States Constitution protected against judicial as opposed to legislative amendments.
But I also think abortion was considered a natural right when the US Constitution was first written, and that this right was watered down only after the US civil war in the 1860s, when the medical profession in this country got better organized and made serious efforts to get rid of professional competition from midwives in the birthing rooms of this country. Which means that I think Roe v Wade was a constitutionally sound idea.
Moreover, I think most Americans agree. And perhaps most importantly, I think that Bush, Roberts and Miers know they agree.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Bush has never been an arch-conservative. Never. Did you think he was? You imagined it. Bush is a politically moderate man of principle who places great stock in his chosen advisors. And, in turn, in his own ability to judge character and ability. Always has, always will. It really works quite well most of the time. You're not going to bully Bush into doing everything you want by threatening to go play with the Democrat kid down the street. I think that's a good thing, myself.
Given the overwhelming plethora of talent of more than qualified juridical candidates, I can only say, Bush just picked "Alberto-Gonzalez-lite'.
As Humphrey Bogart once said, "Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine." Fortunately for Bogart it was only a movie.
Every conservative voter, I know, voted Bush solely on his SCOTUS choices and Bush comes in and trys a hopeful bunt single to first base.
What an idiot.
And by the way, Rehnquist's position as a "star" at Justice is a moderate bit of interpretation of history. When he was first elevated to the bench, most considered him someting of a nebbish and not particularly interesting, a compromise candidate picked just because he'd be easy to get through and because he'd served in some political posts before.
This isn't even intended to compare Miers to Rehnquist. That's not the point. The point is, previous bench experience is not a requirement of this job, as there have been quite a number of justices without that. Rehnquist is just an obvious example.
So what that means in practice is: bench experience is a requirement of the job if the Senate decides it's a requirement of the job in this specific instance. As we already saw in the Roberts hearings, some Senators are not above applying different rules to candidates today than they have in the past.
These days, I'd argue that Rehnquist is more of the exception that proves the rule. When he took office in 1972, he immediately became one of three Supreme Court Justices with no prior judicial experience, the other two being Thurgood Marshall and Lewis Powell. Since then, however, all nine Justices have been replaced by individuals with at least some judicial experience. So it's more than a little odd to appoint someone with no judicial experience now, especially when she also doesn't have any of the other usual qualifications (e.g., she ain't a law professor, either).
As anybody who has ever read my comments knows, I support a wide variety of rights connected solely to the extent that they are handmaidens of personal liberty, without which our great republic cannot long stand.
These include but are not necessarily limited to,
-- the right of citizens to accumulate property, to trade it and to convert it to capital and invest it;
-- the right of citizens to keep and bear arms for purposes not only of sport but also of personal protection;
-- the right of women to solely determine and control their processes of human reproduction; the right of freedom of association;
-- the right of all persons to determine and act upon their sexual orientation, so long as their sexual congress solely involves consenting adults;
-- the right of all persons to determine and act upon their own religious philosophy, belief and orientation, or affiliation, or the lack of any such philosophy, belief and orientation;
-- the right to be left alone by government and all its works and agencies except in cases where an overarching public need dictates interference, and in such cases, solely for the duration of such need;
-- the right to reside safely in a stable society in which the government uses its agencies and forces to protect that society both from outright invasion or infiltration from aliens not entitled to take up residence among them without appropriate investigation and authorization;
-- the right to determine and mandate for their children the type and scope of education they prefer for their own children.
I cannot tell how many others share all these opinions, and I do not care. But what I want from the US Supreme Court, now and forever, is to guard and protect the Constitution of the United States so that the broadest possible mix of the rights I have described above shall be protected.
Because that constitution itself is what I see as the very fundament of a free society comprising free man and women living out their lives in dignity, liberty and self-fulfillment. Therefore, the cases chosen for deliberation and action by that great court, and the findings of the justices, where such action is deemed appropriate, are as important to the defense of liberty as the armies raised by the government for the physical defense of our country.
May the liberty of the citizens of the United States reign forever.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
I wish every word of what you wrote was engraved in granite and placed in front of the Supreme Court building, the White House, and the Capitol, and also placed in the National Archives. That is just an outstanding statement of what America is all about if I've ever seen one.
I wanted to see this nomination used as a cudgel to smash the Democrats. I want to see the current Dem leadership run out of town on a rail - so that the center can take back the party.
Instead I see Bush appearing weak - thereby emboldening the current leadership.
As for her ability on the court, I agree with the above analysis that she will most likely be a centerist.
As for Bush not being a conservative, it is quite possible that it's true and that he was appearing so in order to get the backing of the Right during his career. Conservatives have always been suspicious of the Bushes - going back to Prescott "Pappy" Bush, the clan's patriarch. If this is true, Jeb can kiss his aspirations goodbye.
The '06 election isn't on people's minds today, but it is on the minds of politicians. The choice of Ms. Miers is part of that election.
Well the joke applies on a higher level too.
----------------------------------------------
Yes, Bush is only sort of conservative. And yes, there is a war on, but tilting the Court toward Originalism is a strong part of winning the war on Islamofascism, along with being probably the lead issue domestically for social conservatives, and perhaps the second issue for the rest of the conservatives.
------------------------------------------
Yes, I think there is a deal on. If we get a bombing of Iran's nukes, and an invasion of Syria out of this, I'd be happy with the deal.
-----------------------------------------
I'd like to see a bold, energetic Bush.
--------------------------------------------
Bush has been steadily ticking off his base. The fiscal conservatives, the border worriers, the libertarians, the neocons, and now the social conservatives. Well, at least he still has the Big Business types to support him.
And, yes, I won't go play with the Dem kid...unless John "I hate Free Speech" McCain is nominated...but I might well stay home. It truly is better to have an open enemy than someone who is such, but you get the blame for his actions.
Given a choice between Hillary and an Establishment Republican, I'd want Hillary. At least when she messed up, there would be a chance of recovery. And she might actually be able to be meaner and tougher since she's a Dem. Kinda like only Nixon could go to China.
I copied and posted your statement in the Queen's blog and in Eric Scheie's Classical Values.
Given that opportunity, Bush has failed miserably. He did of course avert the error of George HW Bush by asssuring that he personally knew the present candidate (ergo: not another Souter).
Rarely, can a President make but a few Scotus
appointees. None ought be affirmative action or politically correct selections but rather most qualified candidate decisions. Voters know that, and that is why they choose to vote for a particular candidate. Did anyone listen to Bush today. After all the mumbling and stumbling he said--something like---ermmh we need to pick somebody out of the legal-judicial mumbo jumbo mainstream. Then,Dubya said, well, I picked the best candidate I could find. What he didn't say was that Harriet Mier was on the selection committee to find the most qualified nominees to recommend to Dubya.
I am very dismayed by what appears to be rather profound ineptness. And I'm not even a democrat.
IMO, Bush did not fail to miss the opportunity to to select a superior qualified judicial candidate.