Posted on 10/03/2005 9:19:26 AM PDT by West Coast Conservative
IF ALL GOES WELL, Harriet Miers will turn out to be a less impressive version of John Roberts: that is, a judicial conservative, or constitutionalist, who will cause the ideological balance on the Supreme Court to shift to the right. She's not likely to have Roberts's gift for describing and defending a conservative judicial philosophy, dodging questions on current issues, and toying with frustrated Democrats. All she needs to do is come off as a credible mainstream conservative, avoid the questions that Democrats will try to trick her on, and persuade senators she's not merely a Bush crony. That accomplished, she should be confirmed.
She'd better be able to do this. If she can't--if she's not really a conservative--the political effect will be to shatter President Bush's still-strong relationship with his base. The love affair will be over. The president will have dashed the hopes cherished by conservatives for a conservative Supreme Court. And he will be far weaker as a national political leader as a result.
Here's what people at the White House told me after Bush announced to nearly everyone's surprise that Miers, 60, now the chief White House legal counsel, was his pick to replace Sandra Day O'Connor: After running the judicial selection process along with Karl Rove--the process that led to the Roberts nomination--she had become a candidate for the high court herself.
The president and others at the White House have had long discussions with her about judges. She and Rove were involved in questioning at least five candidates for the court vacancy Roberts has filled. From those talks over the months, I'm told, it became clear to Bush that she had exactly the philosophy of judicial restraint he favors and that she wouldn't "grow" as a justice and turn into a swing vote or a liberal.
Also, I'm told, the president is fully aware of the stakes in this nomination. Roberts's replacement of William Rehnquist as chief justice was simply a conservative replacing a conservative. But Miers would succeed a swing justice. With her, I'm told further, Bush believes he would be altering the ideological makeup of the court, moving it to the right.
The question is: why pick Miers and not someone with a judicial record as a conservative? Bush had before him a list of roughly two dozen potential nominees with unassailable qualifications and clear conservative leanings on judicial matters. He'd already interviewed at least four of them. Any of them would be likely to win confirmation. No president whose party controls the Senate has lost a Court nomination fight since 1968. And that year, President Lyndon Johnson's selection of his buddy Abe Fortas came late in the term. That made it easy for Republicans to delay and ultimately kill the Fortas nomination.
So why did Bush choose Miers? For him, these nominations are quite personal. He wants to feel comfortable with his nominee, confident his pick will be a conservative now and conservative 20 years from now. Bush picked Roberts after being impressed while interviewing him. His doubts were erased (and there were initial doubts about Roberts). My guess is with Miers his doubts were washed away too.
Conservatives shouldn't throw up their hands in despair, at least yet. They should wait until they hear from Miers as a witness before the Senate Judiciary Committee. It's then that we'll begin to find out if Bush was correct in his view that she's the person to fulfill the dreams of so many conservatives and finally shove the Supreme Court to the right.
I would be happy if we could just shove the SC back to the middle!
Because...the middle is further right than everyone thinks.
My goodness, a "conservative pundit" that ISN'T vowing to slit his wrists????
Thank goodness for a little bit of "deep breaths" regarding this nomination...
I think all Republicans need to take some deep breaths..and that included me!!
When it comes right down to it, Bush doesn't appear to be about shifting anything to the right. He's about status quo.
It may be your last.
Conservatives shouldn't throw up their hands in despair, at least yet. They should wait until they hear from Miers as a witness before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
That, my friends, is entirely too long!
The perception on this pick is wrong publicly!
Since Bush has been elected, I have never felt so disgusted and betrayed as I do today. I am not one of the posters here on freerepublic who is constantly down on Bush either, quite the opposite, I have always given him the benefit of the doubt (except the incomprehensible border/immigration policy). Why is he deferring to Harry Reid, passing over dozens of highly qualified strong conservatives for this. Disgusting. Yes, I question his judgement.
Hugh Hewitt is another conservative pundit who thinks Miers may be a decent pick, and for a surprising reason: the war on terror.
See the blog entry titled: "Do You Trust Him?
http://hughhewitt.com/archives/2005/10/02-week/index.php#a000302
Maybe he should read the torrent of Conservative outcry on this forum, and rethink the part in bold.
Ummm sorry. No.
Give me a reason to think that she is an originalist.
I know she is good buddies with W.
That's not one of the qualities I'm looking for.
And it only takes 51 votes, correct? Take heed, Frist.
apt screen name lol
"They didn't even know what hit them." Suckers.
Because the Democratic opposition has made the groundrules clear: ANYTHING they object to will become grounds for a huge noisy messy foot-dragging temper-tantrum tirade, the likes of which may never have been seen in US politics, with the intent of harassing the nominee's supporters to the point they'll drop the nomination just to shut up the other side. It's worked before, they'll do it again and an order of magnitude moreso. Any tangible hint of right-leaning philosophy will become grounds for a scorched-earth policy.
Ergo, Bush has two options:
- Get into a huge fight
- Give them nothing.
Bush chose the latter.
Bush knows her stance - privately. Nobody else knows squat about her. The opposition, as with Roberts, has nothing to oppose. 22 opponents have already demonstrated on record that they're whiny tantrum-throwers, having opposed someone about whom there is nothing to oppose; the other opponents are on record giving support where there is nothing to oppose. As such, Bush has 'em in a headlock: being another "stealth" nominee, those who supported have no legitimate reason to change their vote, and those who voted against can either play nicely or cement their status as gratuitous partisan obstructionists.
So long as this nominee is actually what Bush wants, he'll get what he wants. Why pick someone no better that would give the opposition something to latch on to?
Betrayal only comes from trust proven misplaced.
We don't know this nominee - that alone does not warrant "betrayal".
LOL - looking back it seems possible. W talks a good game, especially in his first term. Now he stammers and stalls and gives his enemies what they want. Just looking at him you see a man who has lost focus and direction politically. The WOT has become a boondoggle, spending is off the charts, he sleptwalk through a hurricane and is now racked with white liberal guilt, he backstabs conservatives while throwing roses to the liberals, etc. He's done and he will help Hillary in 2008 by his inept second term.
The public will see her position, agree, and turn even more against the Democrat agenda...
Hey I can hope!
I absolutely agree. Republicans could really use some straight talkers right now. The President is more of a showboater on a lot of conservative issues, except maybe Iraq. I don't think McCain would have invaded, certainly not in the same gung-ho kind of way.
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.