Posted on 10/08/2005 3:40:47 PM PDT by quidnunc
Who’d have known that Harriet Miers would have caused such a ruckus just by saying “yes”?
At first blush, President Bush’s nomination of Miers as the successor to Justice Sandra Day O’Connor looked like a welcome indication that he wasn’t going to shoot a flamethrower at the neighbor’s parched lawn and laugh maniacally at the ensuing pandemonium.
He could, after all, have poked the Democrats in the eye once again with Priscilla Owen, whom he obstinately wrestled onto the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Instead, he chose a trusted adviser who under other circumstances would have been considered an accomplished woman who blazed a trail in the legal profession.
And that has ignited a tizzy among elitists and extremists, among demanding rightists who feel Bush owes them a definitive anti-Roe vote on the court and skeptical leftists who worry that she’ll wear her religion on her opinions about abortion rights.
-snip-
She probably hasn’t spent her legal career theorizing about the application of strict scrutiny, the scope of procedural due process and the vitality of the dormant commerce clause. But she almost certainly has studied the scope of the president’s war powers, the proper limits on biomedical research and other issues that could come before the Supreme Court.
What’s important to know is how she views the weight of legal precedent, the role of the high court in our constitutional scheme, the importance of judicial independence and integrity.There are many questions that Senate Judiciary Committee members should and must ask. But Miers is entitled to show how tall she can stand in her reportedly size-6 shoes.
(Excerpt) Read more at centredaily.com ...
The title of this post is fair warning that this essay may tend to wander.
JPod promptly responded to my wee-small-hours post and my associated email to him about Harriet Miers' op-eds with his customary grace and wit — but in a way that nevertheless disappoints. Her op-eds read, he says, "like all 'Letters from the President' in all official publications — cheery and happy-talky and utterly inane."
Well, yeah. That's sorta because they were, indeed, "letters from the president" written for the bar journal. "They offer no reassurance that there is anything other than a perfectly functional but utterly ordinary intellect at work here." Well, yeah. But "perfectly functional intellect" is pretty much exactly what we want, and all anyone has any reason to expect, from a bar president writing in a bar journal; anyone's writing for United States Reports can reasonably be predicted to be different and more profound, just as the issues being written about are different and more profound. Can you point me to a state bar president in history who's used his "letters from the president" column to perform some stunning new synthesis of constitutional theory? You fault her for being appropriate exactly why?
What's very frustrating to me is how the goalposts keep moving on this nomination, and it's my own team that's doing it. (I say "my team," I actually mean "what I thought, apparently wrongly, was a team, and the one I've always thought I was on.")
First it's "She wasn't even on law review." Okay, so I explode that untruth, which took no more effort than to look in a standard legal directory (plus the preexisting knowledge, as a Texas lawyer, that the "Southwestern Law Journal" is in fact a law review even though it doesn't have the words "law review" in its name). Is the response, "Hmmm, well that's encouraging, we're sorry about jumping to that wrong conclusion, and you know, that's pretty encouraging, she was indeed a law review editor just like John Roberts"?
No, the response is "She was at a second-rate law school." I and others point out that it's a pretty good school, she was there because her family and financial situation tied her to Dallas, she was among the top of her class, and her professors still rave about her 35 years later. Again, is the response, "Hmmm, well, that's encouraging"?
No, the response is "Well, she's never handled any really big cases involving constitutional law." I point to three published opinions from appeals on constitutional law matters — one of them a question of constitutional first impression when she was opposed by one of the nation's most respected constitutional law professors with the outcome of a presidential election on the line, and she just beat him like a drum in the trial court, the Fifth Circuit, and the Supreme Court. Here you go, guys, volume and page numbers. Is the response, "Man, we've been really wrong about our facts now more times than we've been right, maybe we're being grossly and rabidly unfair?
No, the response is "Well, anybody could have won that case. And besides, she's never written any op-eds."
-snip-
So who's the newest critic who insists that this nomination is "a disaster on every level"; that "It's a little late to develop a constitutional philosophy or begin to work it out when you're on the court already"; and that "It's kind of a slap in the face to the conservatives who've been building up a conservative legal movement for the last 20 years"?
Robert Bork. The acid-tongued, short-fused, fire-breathing, contempt-dripping law professor-turned-judge who famously scolded senators on the floor of their own chamber for being so stupid and who generally freaked out the American public. A genuinely brilliant conservative, whose lifetime personal contributions to the precedent of the Supreme Court turned out to be zero. Well, he is indeed qualified to speak of disastrous nominations and botched confirmation processes, being as he is the all-time quintessential example of same in the history of the Republic.
But he's not being elitist in blaming a practicing lawyer for not publishing constitutional law treatises on a regular basis, no sir. And we'd keep moving these goalposts for any nominee, not just one who's coming from amongst practicing lawyers instead of the professoriat.
Robert Bork is an elitist. Period. He's not the only one, either. And confronted with that accusation, he might very well twirl to face his accusers, agree, and mount an impassioned defense for elitism that would, in the end, not be an endorsement of excellence but an assertion that only law professor-types are excellent enough to be on the Supreme Court. No one will ever convince him otherwise, his mind is closed.
-snip-
A sympathetic commenter of mine wrote the other day, "This is like the crowds shouting for Barabbas," which made me laugh really hard. That's too harsh.
But an unfortunate confluence of thoughts and emotions — almost viral, certainly self-sustaining, an ugly feedback loop — has swept through many folks on the Right, including most of the punditry (save, as JPod points out, myself, Hugh Hewitt, and there actually are a few others, albeit less windy ones). Some part of it's disappointment and resentment. Some part of it is insecurity. That is, some folks harbor fears — and some folks, more than just doubting him, boldly join the Left in asserting — that Dubya really is a stupid chimp, an idiotic cowboy, a corrupt cronyist, a secret traitor to the cause. (The Left's version replaces the last element with "puppet of Rove and evil Halliburton.") If you're pounding the table as you read that and you're saying "Damn right he is!" then you're beyond my or anyone else's power to persuade; no one will be able to cure your insecurity, and nothing would reassure you short of the President ceding to you, personally, the right to make these nominations.
-snip-
(William Dyer in Beldar Blog, October 8, 2005)
To Read This Article Click Here
Placemark --- supper time --- bbl.
Now that a few days have passed since some media pundits threw their tantrums, it's kind of funny in a way.
My sympathies for those who weren't consulted by the President of the United States as to whom he ought to choose to sit on the Court.
There is no team. There are the "I want to throw down in the Senate" republicans and the "Give her a chance" republicans. The DUmmies and democrats don't have the slightest clue what to make of her, which I think was exactly President Bush's idea and goal.
Crying "elitist" in the context of this issue is vaguely amusing. Our Declaration, Constitution, and Bill of Rights were drafted by elites who were selected by elites who elected by elites.
really playing up that 'elitism' angle, eh?
Couldn't get enough mileage out of the charges of 'sexism'????
I love it. Bork is "Borking" Miers
Let's Make a Deal!
Monty: Welcome to Let’s Make a Deal. Monty Hall here with you and let’s get started. Hello, and who are you?
John: I am John from Iowa.
Monty: Welcome John, let’s play! Well Jay what do you have for us this week?
Jay: This week we have Supreme Court nominees. Let’s have a look behind door number 1. It’s Harriet Miers! She’s a 60 year old Texan lawyer who has been a close advisor to the President for years. Harriet is a born again evangelical Christian who is unmarried and has no kids. A former Democrat who has drifted towards the Republican party after finding Christ. President Bush has reassured us that you will like her.
Monty: John what do you think?
John: Well President Bush promised me more, so I think I will go with door number 2.
Monty: Not so fast John, remember the gang of 7, those Republicans who compromised with the Democrats and have reportedly told the President not to send a too controversial pick.
John: Right, that does make it more difficult. Do we know anything else about this Harriet Miers?
Monty: Jay what else do we know?
Jay: Not much, unless you count gossip and rumors. Friends tell us she is pro-life and appears to believe in the individual right to bear arms. However there is also indications that she is sympathetic towards affirmative action and has a politically correct view of separation of Church and State. Did I tell you the President says you’ll like her?
John: Do I get to ask Harriet any questions?
Monty: Sure, and she will answer them as long as they don’t have anything to do with issues that might come before the court.
John: Shoot, what good is that then. So this is all I get to know about a Supreme Court lifetime appointment who is going to be a key vote in how our laws and Constitution is interpreted?
Monty: Well that’s it. So what is it going to be, Harriet Miers or door number 2?
John: Well since Bush tells us he believes this is his best choice, door number 2 is going to be worse. Can I take the goat behind door number 3? This process has made me ill.
Yeah it is funny. The anti-evangalous Christian attack is also starting to crop up which has been used against me twice today. It is ironic since I think that is Harriet's most appealing quality and not one I am critical of.
he/she is trying really hard. first we were "daffy duck conservatives" and now this....
the more they try and discredit with these foolish charges, ie Sexism and Elitism, the more that plays into our hands. these are the tactics of the left. it is elitist to say "TRUST ME"
Excellent post. I went to the site and read the rest, which is well worth doing.
But since Miers will skip around all the questions and give legalistic answers, no one will really know much more about Miers than they do today.
What happened to sexism - did you get the max mileage out of that one? I imagine next you'll be saying those who oppose Miers are anti-Christians.
It's pathetic, and slanderous.
You sir, have succinctly put what I've posted a time or two, today. Quite pithy, you might say.
There would be some merit in folks considering that no one knows if Roberts is Pro Life. He hasn't said so.
Anyone who is disappointed by the Miers nomination is an extremist or an elitist? I don't think so, although I've seen that elitism charge about ten thousand times here on FR over the past few days.
I think she seems like a nice lady. But there are several candidates who would have been much better, and I don't swallow the idea that we couldn't appoint them. I think we were in a very strong position to do it--until this Myers business. Now Bush has compromised himself, and it is impossible to do anything but go through with the Myers nomination.
Media pundits? Our own backyard....free republic is still having a cow...
I am still wondering why Ted Olsen was not on any short lists?
Do you think he declined?
Lots can be inferred from the reactions to this nomination. Some are: Elitist, Racist, Feminist, right winger, sold out, gay rights supporter, unqualified, crony, etc. etc.
It will be interesting to see what the Senate does with this nominee over the course of the hearings and floor debate. My guess is she'll be confirmed and the nose may have been cut off to spite the face of some. We'll see.
"Racist, sexist, anti gay. Vote for Miers or go away."
LOL, the RNC can adopt the leftist chants!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.