Miers Leaves White House With No Regrets

New York Times ^ | 30 January 2007 | AP and NYT Staff

[shrinkermd]

Conservatives and liberals alike battered White House counsel Harriet Miers during her 24-day rise and fall as a Supreme Court nominee.

Critics questioned her experience, her judicial beliefs and her grasp of constitutional law.

Now, preparing to leave the White House more than a year after the ordeal, Miers says she doesn't regret the experience. After being nominated, she heard from childhood friends. Strangers came up to her to say they were happy for her.

''Through the course of the nomination there were some ugly -- I thought unjustified -- comments,'' Miers said in an interview in her West Wing office. ''There were many, many wonderful aspects of the experience that get lost because people don't focus on that.''

Miers, 61, is being replaced by Fred Fielding, a lawyer in the Nixon White House and President Reagan's chief counsel who is viewed as better versed at handling the legal fights the new Democratic Congress is expected to have with the administration.

The president got high marks for choosing John Roberts as chief justice of the United States, his first high-court nominee. But on Oct. 3, 2005, when he announced he had picked Miers, his loyal legal counsel, to succeed retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the right wing of their own party skewered both Bush and Miers.

[shrinkermd]

First, thank you Harriet Miers for your exemplary and dedicated service to President Bush and our country. You have spent a lifetime in devoted service to others. Surely, this characteristic of anonymous service is not found in Washington DC and more particularly not in the inner sanctum of SCOTUS.

You were indeed qualified to be a member of SCOTUS. The allegations leveled against you were cheap shots suggesting you were another stupid Evangelical who really didn’t know what from when. Looking at the issue closely, I find that The Constitution of the United States is a very readable document. Even an average person like me fails to understand why lawyers, especially conservative lawyers, see it as a hermeneutic challenge.

Apparently, according to conventional, inside-the-beltway-wisdom the Constitution is now a super Rorschach card (inkblot test) where each and every SCOTUS member reads whatever they believe into the document. Solipsists with underlying beliefs, then, are the preferred members of the court with one exception.

That is the Court must have Blacks, Jews, Roman Catholics and tepid Protestants—no practicing, observant Evangelicals allowed. Don’t drown me in the statistics. Just read George Will and the other bow tie conservatives and sense their shock and scorn.

Further, let us face the fact that the scattering of races and creeds on SCOTUS merely belies it is now a super parliament usually populated by elites vetted by the MSM sufficiently thoroughly to become the judicial oligarchy that rules and over rules our faith and beliefs. You would have been a welcome addition on the Court regardless of where you fell on the liberal/conservative continuum. You could have decided on a simple reading of the Constitution plus what society is, has been and will be. After all, supposedly in a limited government the bulk of our devotion and belief rests in the common culture.

I would be derelict in my moral duty by pointing out this quote by Ann Coulter, ''However nice, helpful, prompt and tidy she is, Harriet Miers isn't qualified to play a Supreme Court justice on 'The West Wing' let alone be a real one,'' conservative writer Ann Coulter said in one of the more cutting comments…” A cheap shot from a woman who specializes in boyfriends old enough to be her son and never discusses her family life which seemingly she can keep private even though she is a more public person than the usual elected official. Other than having what some believe to be outstanding looks and others see it as a troubled form of affectation, she makes her money by cleverly trashing the reputations of others. Harriet Miers she was a good enemy to have! Even though we shortly will have her latest provocative poses placed for the 1000th time on FR, she is no conservative—conservatives respect civility and Ann belongs with the Dowd wing of the RAT party.

What did Lincoln say about you can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time? Yes, many out here in "boobsieville" were not fooled—you did a great job for a great man and would have made a great SCOTUS justice. Thanks.

[fatnotlazy]

"You were indeed qualified to be a member of SCOTUS."

***

Certainly no less qualified than those who did ascend to the high court and those who came before her. In fact, we've had quite a few UNQUALIFIED jurists in the past and some might say more than a few on the S.Ct. right now. The allegation that she was unqualified because she did not previously serve as a judge was a bogus excuse.

[misterrob]

"A cheap shot from a woman who specializes in boyfriends old enough to be her son

Proof?

[shrinkermd]

Ask Her. It is in all the gossip columns. The latest is a rock musician.

Why not ask her. You will never get an answer.

[sine_nomine]

Talk about cheap shots.

Let's stick to the issues.

I recall Harriet called pro-life demonstrators "terrorists."
So was she pro-life? Was Bush honest?

[linda_22003]

Since she's not married to anyone, is there any reason this would make the remotest amount of difference?

[AFPhys]

I am in full agreement with all but one of your paragraphs.

Thanks for posting a final defense of Harriet Miers' nomination.

[Pondman88]

Nice.

[Wolfstar]

If Barack Obama is qualified to be President of the United States, then certainly Harriet Miers was more than qualified to be a Justice of the Supreme Court.

Although I had lost respect for the more hard-edged type of conservatism awhile back, the Harriet Miers episode completely alienated me from mainstream conservatism.

[Cold Heat]

Well said...

The Meir's issue, among others has split the base asunder, and will continue to do so in the foreseeable future.

It will be interesting to see just who inherits the reign of the republican party. I am quite prepared to pack up and move if required, but I don't think it will be necessary.

There is obviously not room for all, primarily due to one faction trying to usurp the other.

In time, this will be sorted out.

In the interim, the country will enter a chaotic political period as we devolve and reform, but the self destruction is inevitable. Let's hope the process can be completed by 2014.

See you at the polls.........

[Non-Sequitur]

"You were indeed qualified to be a member of SCOTUS."

To say that someone is qualified is not to say that they were the best choice for the job. Harriet Miers was far from the best choice for the job.

[flashbunny]

doesn't matter. She was good enough and she was appointable when no one else was!

Oh wait, alito made it through. Nevermind!

[nathanbedford]

My take on Harriet Miers was markedly different from yours. Harriet Miers' nomination was a jump the shark moment for me with George Bush. This is not a reflection on Harriet Miers but a reflection on George Bush.

I know the conventional wisdom is that George Bush has learned from the mistakes of his father especially his father's death rattle: "read my lips no new taxes." But apart from this lesson George Bush seems to have learned nothing from his father's experience.

The entire Katrina fiasco was little more than an instant replay of the bludgeoning his father received in the wake of hurricane Andrew here in Florida.

Moreover the appointment of Harriet Miers was reflective of a regrettable tendency in the president to engage in cronyism. His appointment of Brown at FEMA led to the debacle of Katrina. His appointment of General Myers' niece is a replay of this vice.

But ultimately the appointment of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court betrays a lack of understanding of the significance of the appointment, the standards required, and the stakes involved for his administration, his party, his nation, and his constitution. It also stands as a betrayal of the people who gave him the very votes he solicited as he explicitly promised them he would appoint a conservative in the vein of Thomas and Scalia. It reveals George Bush to be utterly insensitive to the bitter disappointment caused by previous appointments such as Justice Souter and others as they came out of the closet and betrayed themselves to be rabid liberals as soon as they donned their black robes and assumed power until the very day they die. It signaled that President Bush, despite his campaigning for votes to the contrary, is indifferent to growing threats our judiciary as presently constituted poses to all the precious constitutional prerogatives of his constituents

The problem with Harriet Miers was not Harriet Miers herself. It is that she was an unknown quantity and the president had absolutely no business imposing such a risk on us.

In this jump the shark moment George Bush betrayed himself to be aligned not to a conservative philosophy, not to a conservative movement, not to a Republican Party, but to a tribe, a tribe of cronies who govern by noblisse oblige

[Wormwood]

Harriet Miers' nomination was a jump the shark moment for me with George Bush. This is not a reflection on Harriet Miers but a reflection on George Bush.

I believe the scales fell from my eyes around that time as well.

In all, an excellent post. Thank you.

[Iwo Jima]

I agree with your comments except with respect to Ms. Miers being an unknown quantity. She was not an unknown quantity to me and many others. She was a known quantity and unqualified to be on the Supreme Court. If she had any skill in vetting candidates, she would have taken herself out of the running.

I bear her no ill will, but I am glad she is leaving the White House.

[Democratshavenobrains]

The most hilarious thing is that if the Lefties had just put aside their Bush hatred for one millisecond and praised this woman, she might have gotten through.

BUT NO! Instead they got a smart young conservative white male.

[Non-Sequitur]

doesn't matter. She was good enough and she was appointable when no one else was!

Apparently she wasn't appointable when no one else was, or she'd be on the bench right now. And fortunately the Senate made sure we didn't have to settle for 'good enough'.

[shrinkermd]

I guess your hero is:

"This article is about the Confederate soldier; for his grandson see Nathan Bedford Forrest III Nathaniel Bedford Forrest (July 13, 1821 – October 29, 1877) was a Confederate army general and an instrumental figure in the founding and growth of the Ku Klux Klan.

"Forrest was perhaps the American Civil War's most highly regarded cavalry and partisan ranger (guerrilla leader). Forrest is regarded by many military historians as the war's most innovative and successful general. His tactics of mobile warfare are still studied by modern soldiers.

"After the war, Forrest's reputation suffered because of his KKK involvement and revelations that his troops murdered prisoners after the Battle of Fort Pillow, most of which were African-American.

[DrDeb]

EXCELLENT!

[KantianBurke]

bravo! well said.