Skip to comments.THE LAST LAUGH (Why Miers will be a very good justice)
Posted on 10/10/2005 10:35:47 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
Harriet Miers will be confirmed.
As the reality of the Miers nomination and the near-inevitability of her confirmation sinks in, we are left only to look for positive signs that she will pleasantly surprise us. What else is there to do? I am done complaining. (God knows, I have done my share of complaining.)
That said, I have a working theory that Miers may turn out to be a reliable conservative vote on the Supreme Court.
My reasoning goes like this:
The Three Most Critical Considerations
1. President Bush has consistently nominated top-notch conservatives to various benches. His track record is very strong, and most of us can list the names. Bush knows what kind of bona fides he wants in a judge and he has certainly conveyed those preferences to Harriet Miers who reportedly has had a hand in the vetting process of several of Bush's nominations. Miers was apparently in charge of the vetting process for the last Supreme Court nomination which ultimately went to John Roberts.
The point is, Miers knows exactly what kind of judge George W. Bush wants: "A strict constructionist in the mold of Scalia and Thomas". Miers presumably used that very clear criteria during the vetting processes which she handled.
2. Harriet Miers may be a very good lawyer (in fact, I'm sure she is) but her familiarity with constitutional law is likely very scant, especially compared to the familiarity gained by experienced appeals court judges or top trial lawyers who have argued extensively before appeals courts, state supreme courts and the United States Supreme Court.
As a result, Miers will need (and will hopefully seek without trepidation) guidance during her first year (at least) on the Supreme Court. Who will she most likely look to for clues? I believe Miers will look first to the two justices who her benefactor (President Bush) promised the nation she would emulate - - Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Certainly, smart men like Scalia and Thomas understand the benefit of grooming an ally - - they should only be too happy to lend the rookie their sound advice whenever they can.
3. Harriet Miers and George W. Bush apparently have a close relationship going back at least a decade. The President clearly trusts Miers immensely and Miers' progress from Dallas to the halls of power and unquestioned access to the Oval Office are the result of that trust. And now, George W. Bush has elevated his attorney, his confidant, his friend to the very pinnacle of the field of law - - a lifetime appointment to the United States Supreme Court. Miers has accepted the President's nomination with the clear understanding of what George W. Bush expects of her, and what the President promised the nation.
Now, can anyone imagine that Harriet Miers will take her seat at the bench and then begin siding on rulings with Souter, Breyer, Stevens, and Ginsburg? To do so would be the ultimate betrayal, the ultimate stab in the back to the man who trusted her and gave her a place in history.
It won't happen.
Harriet Miers will be what the President promised she will be.
For the reasons noted above, I believe that Harriet Miers will prove to be a "strict constructionist" who practices "judicial restraint", just like the President promised. She will be a reliable vote, joining with Scalia and Thomas on many, if not most, important rulings. In the end, President George W. Bush will have the last laugh, and a lot of us will be eating crow.
(( ping ))
We voted Republicans in control of EVERYTHING. We shouldn't have to be listing hopeful reasons she'll be OK.
(( ping ))
Is she going to call Bush before each vote and find out how he would rule?
Judging by Bush's positions on federalism, affirmative action, the bankruptcy reform act, I wouldn't want a Bush clone on the Court.
"Vote for me, and I'll nominate a crony you've never heard of, because I'm a-skeered of Jim Jeffords and Olympia Snowe!"
Nope. Don't recall that.
You have also opened yourself up for a lot of flak, but I'm sure you already knew that! ;p
(( ping ))
Dude, you are preaching to the choir, man.
Because the answer to that illuminates whether or not he can be trusted.
(( ping ))
I would be interested in your thoughts on this if you have the time.
I HOPE you're right...but I didn't want to HOPE. I wanted a court full of Scalias and Thomases.
"What? Bush did something today? Well, whatever it is, I don't like it."
A classic. Thanks.
Nope. I thought I was clear that this vanity is about my being done spitting venom about what a disastrous nomination this was and trying to determine what kind of justice Miers will turn out to be in the end.
You know - - it's done, so deal with it. That kind of thing.
Yeah, sure. Koolaid, yum.
Bush "knew" Bernard Kerik when he nominated him to be head of Homeland Security last year, remember?
How long did that one last before blowing up in his face - a week?
Trusting politicians is for the feeble-minded and Russians. Let's see some proof she's more than his crony and shoe-shine girl.
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.