Posted on 10/04/2005 5:27:35 PM PDT by RWR8189
President Bush is a politician trained in strategic thinking at Harvard Business School, and schooled in tactics by experience and advice, including the experience and advice of his father, whose most lasting political mistake was the nomination of David Souter. The nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court shows that he has learned his lessons well. Regrettably, a large contingent of conservative commentators does not yet grasp the strategy and tactics at work in this excellent nomination.
There is a doom-and-gloom element on the Right which is just waiting to be betrayed, convinced that their hardy band of true believers will lose by treachery those victories to which justice entitles them. They are stuck in the decades-long tragic phase of conservative politics, when country club Republicans inevitably sold out the faith in order to gain acceptability in the Beltway media and social circuit. Many on the right already are upset with the President already over his deficit spending, and his continued attempts to elevate the tone of politics in Washington in the face of ongoing verbal abuse by Democrats and their media allies. They misinterpret his missing verbal combativeness as weakness.
There is also a palpable hunger for a struggle to the death with hated and verbally facile liberals like Senator Chuck Schumer. Having seen that a brilliant conservative legal thinker with impeccable elite credentials can humble the most officious voices of the Judiciary Committee, they deamnd a replay. Thus we hear conservatives sniffing that a Southern Methodist University legal education is just too non-Ivy League, adopting a characteristic trope of blue state elitists. We hear conservatives bemoaning a lack of judicial experience, and not a single law review article in the last decade as evidence of a second rate mind.
These critics are playing the Democrats’ game. The GOP is not the party which idolizes Ivy League acceptability as the criterion of intellectual and mental fitness. Nor does the Supreme Court ideally consist of the nine greatest legal scholars of an era. Like any small group, it is better off being able to draw on abilities of more than one type of personality. The Houston lawyer who blogs under the name of Beldar wisely points out that practicing high level law in the real world and rising to co-managing partner of a major law firm not only demonstrates a proficient mind, it provides a necessary and valuable perspective for a Supreme Court Justice, one which has sorely been lacking.
Ms. Miers has actually managed a business, a substantial one with hundreds of employees, and has had to meet a payroll and conform to tax, affirmative action, and other regulatory demands of the state. She has also been highly active in a White House during wartime, when national security considerations have been a matter of life and death. When the Supreme Court deliberates in private, I think most conservatives would agree that having such a perspective at hand is a good thing, not a bad thing.
Other conservatives are dismayed that the President is playing politics (!), rather than simply choosing the “best” candidate. But the President understands that confirmation is nothing but a political game, ever since Robert Bork, truly one of the finest legal minds of his era, was demonized and defeated.
The President’s smashing victory in obtaining 78 votes for the confirmation of John Roberts did not confirm these conservative critics in their understanding of the President’s formidable abilities as a nominator of Justices. Au contraire, this taste of Democrat defeat whetted their blood lust for confirmation hearing combat between the likes of a Michael Luttig or a Janice Rogers Brown and the Judiciary Committee Democrats. Possibly their own experience of debating emotive liberals over-identifies them with verbal combat as political effectiveness.
In part, I think these conservatives have unwittingly adopted the Democrats’ playbook, seeing bombast and ‘gotcha’ verbal games as the essence of political combat. Victory for them is seeing the enemy bloodied and humiliated. They mistake the momentary thrill of triumph in combat, however evanescent, for lasting victory where it counts: a Supreme Court comprised of Justices who will assemble majorities for decisions reflecting the original intent of the Founders.
Rather than extend any benefit of the doubt to the President’s White House lawyer and counselor, some take her lack of a paper trail and a history of vocal judicial conservatism as a sign that she may be an incipient Souter. They implicitly believe that the President is not adhering to his promise of nominating Justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. The obvious differences between Souter, a man personally unknown to Bush 41, and Miers, a woman who has known Bush 43 for decades, and who has served as his close daily advisor for years, are so striking as to make this level of distrust rather startling. Having seen the Souter debacle unfold before his very eyes, the President is the last man on earth to recapitulate it.
He anticipates and is defusing the extremely well-financed opposition which Democrat interest groups will use against any nominee. Yes, he is playing politics by nominating a female. A defeated nominee does him and the future of American jurisprudence no favors. By presenting a female nominee, he kicks a leg out from under the stool on which the feminist left sits. Not just a female, but a career woman, one who has not raised children, not married a male, and has a number of “firsts” to her credit as a pioneer of women's achievement in Texas law. Let the feminists try to demonize her.
If they do so, almost inevitably, they will seize on her religious beliefs and practice. Some on the left will not be able to restrain their scorn for an evangelical Christian Sunday school teacher from Dallas, and this will hurt them. They will impose a religious test against a member of a group accounting of a third of the voting base. Speculation on her being a lesbian has already started. "She sure seems like a big ol' Texas lesbian to me," as one of the Kos Kidz put it.
They are going to make themselves look very ugly.
The President must also prepare himself for a possible third nominee to the Court. With the oldest Justice 85 years old, and the vagaries of mortality for all of us being what they are, it is quite possible that a third (or even fourth) opportunity to staff the Court might come into play. Defusing, demoralizing and discrediting the reflexive opposition groups in the Democrats’ base is an important goal for the President, and for his possible Republican successors in office.
Then there is the small matter of actually influencing Supreme Court decision-making.
This president understands small group dynamics in a way that few if any of his predecessors ever have. Perhaps this is because he was educated at Harvard Business School in a legendary course then-called Human Behavior in Organizations. The Olympian Cass Gilbert-designed temple/courtroom/offices of the Supreme Court obscure the fact that it is a small group, subject to very human considerations in its operations. Switching two out of nine members in a small group has the potential to entirely alter the way it operates. Because so much of managerial work consists of getting groups of people to work effectively, Harvard Business School lavishes an extraordinary amount of attention on the subject.
One of the lessons the President learned at Harvard was the way in which members of small groups assume different roles in their operation, each of which separate roles can influence the overall function. The new Chief Justice is a man of unquestioned brilliance, as well as cordial disposition. He will be able to lead the other Justices through his intellect and knowledge of the law. Having ensured that the Court’s formal leader meets the traditional and obvious qualities of a Justice, and is a man who indeed embodies the norms all Justices feel they must follow, there is room for attending to other important roles in group process.
According to a source in her Dallas church quoted by Marvin Olasky, Harriet Miers is someone who
taught children in Sunday School, made coffee, brought donuts: "Nothing she's asked to do in church is beneath her."
As the court’s new junior member, the 60 year old lady Harriet Miers will finally give a break to Stephen Breyer, who has been relegated to closing and opening the door of the conference room, and fetching beverages for his more senior Justices. Her ability to do this type of work with no resentment, no discomfort, and no regrets will at the least endear her to the others. It will also confirm her as the person who cheerfully keeps the group on an even keel, more comfortable than otherwise might be the case with a level of emotional solidarity.
But there is much more to it than group solidarity, important though that ineffable spiritual qualty may be. Ms. Miers embodies the work ethic as few married people ever could. She reportedly often shows up for work at the White House at 5 AM, and doesn’t leave until 9 or 10 PM. I have no doubt that she will continue her extraordinary dedication to work once confirmed to the Court. She will not only win the admiration of those Justices who work shorter hours, she will undoubtedly be appreciated by the law clerks who endure similar hours, working on the research and writing for the Justices. These same law clerks interact with their bosses in private, and their influence intellectual and emotional may be more profound than some Justices might like to admit.
The members of the Supreme Court all see themselves as serving the public and the law to the best of their abilities. Their self-regard depends on their belief in the righteousness and fairness of their deliberations. They must listen to the arguments of the other Justices. But their susceptibility to viewpoints they had not yet considered is matter of both an intellectual and emotional character. Open-mindedness uusally requires an unfreezing of deeply and emotionally-held convictions.
Having proven herself capable of charming the likes of Harry Reid, leader of the Senate Democrats, is there much room for doubt that Harriet Miers is capable of opening up opponents emotionally to hear and actually consider as potentially worthwhile the views of those they might presume to be their enemies?
George Bush has already succeeded in having confirmed a spectacularly-qualified intellectual leader of the Court in Chief Justice Roberts. If conservatives don’t sabotage his choice, Harriet Miers could make an enormous contribution toward building Court majorities for interpretations of the Constitution faithful to the actual wording of the document.
Thomas Lifson is the editor and publisher of The American Thinker.
Wow an argument that doesnt including "Bush-bot".
I dont see us losing the house the senate or any other seats because of her, because as more comes out this will be the knockdrown drag out fight you all wish. Now if that doesnt happen from the left then it will come from the far rightside and it will become a self fulfilling prophecy that you guys have nothing but yourselves to blame about.
OK, let's count the ways:
...the experience and advice of his father, whose most lasting political mistake was the nomination of David Souter.
Bush Sr. never expressed regret over nominating Souter. Lifson assumes he regrets it, and advised his son accordingly, based on what?
The nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court shows that he has learned his lessons well.
Begging the question. That's the question under debate.
Regrettably, a large contingent of conservative commentators does not yet grasp the strategy and tactics at work in this excellent nomination.
Special pleading. "If you doubt Miers' constitutional convictions, you aren't one of the savvy conservatives in the know..."
...stuck in the decades-long tragic phase of conservative politics, when country club Republicans inevitably sold out the faith...
Right! We're living in the past, when those Rockefeller Republicans would do things like: create massive new drug entitlements; levy protectionist tariffs on steel and other trade goods; refuse to properly defend our borders; sign every single bill congress sends their way; spend more money even than loose-spending dems; etc. We should catch up with the times--those days are over. Why, the last president to do such things was... George W. Bush.
Many on the right already are upset with the President already over his deficit spending...
"...some conservatives are so short-sighted that they get upset over a few hundred billion dollars here and there..."
Having seen that a brilliant conservative legal thinker with impeccable elite credentials can humble the most officious voices of the Judiciary Committee, they deamnd a replay.
Lifson is insane. We still don't know whether Roberts is a conservative. All we saw was a brilliant display of bobbing and weaving that left liberals and conservatives alike wondering, "So is he a conservative, or isn't he?" We want a replay of that?
We hear conservatives bemoaning a lack of judicial experience, and not a single law review article in the last decade as evidence of a second rate mind.
Expecting one of the highest judges in the land to have, oh, a few days of judicial experience isn't exactly snobbish. But this is really a pre-emptive strike: Miers has never given any evidence of a strong understanding of constitutional law, but now any questions in this area to be dismissed as "elitism".
or does the Supreme Court ideally consist of the nine greatest legal scholars of an era. Like any small group, it is better off being able to draw on abilities of more than one type of personality.
"Even though there are candidates that we know for sure believe in original intent, and that we know to be superb legal minds, nominating one of them would be pure snobbery. We have a genius (Roberts, supposedly), so a mediocre mind provides needed diversity."
Ms. Miers has actually managed a business, a substantial one with hundreds of employees, and has had to meet a payroll and conform to tax, affirmative action, and other regulatory demands of the state.
So has my plumber.
Other conservatives are dismayed that the President is playing politics (!), rather than simply choosing the “best” candidate. But the President understands that confirmation is nothing but a political game, ever since Robert Bork, truly one of the finest legal minds of his era, was demonized and defeated.
"Why bother picking the best candidate? He might not be confirmed anyway! Let's go straight for mediocre."
The President’s smashing victory in obtaining 78 votes for the confirmation of John Roberts did not confirm these conservative critics in their understanding of the President’s formidable abilities as a nominator of Justices. Au contraire, this taste of Democrat defeat whetted their blood lust
Au contraire, we still conder whether he's a conservative. 22 democrat "yes" votes say we should wonder.
I think these conservatives have unwittingly adopted the Democrats’ playbook, seeing bombast and ‘gotcha’ verbal games as the essence of political combat.
Red herring. This theme dominates his essay, but he never proves that conservatives want a less-qualified candidate and a good fight. We actually doubt she is the most qualified, and we want the best person, fight or no fight. You'll see shortly that Lifson doesn't believe she's most qualified, either.
Rather than extend any benefit of the doubt to the President’s White House lawyer and counselor...
Here he cleverly turns cronyism into a virtue, and asks us to "trust Mr. Bush." How can we trust him, when he has consistently let us down so far? Lifson seems to think the "benefit of the doubt" is on par with believing in fairies.
They implicitly believe that the President is not adhering to his promise of nominating Justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas.
Darn those conservatives! Blow a few hundred billion dollars, and suddenly they don't want to buy a pig in a poke from you!
The obvious differences between Souter, a man personally unknown to Bush 41, and Miers, a woman who has known Bush 43 for decades...
Would be worth a darn, if we trusted Bush. We want proof up front.
Yes, he is playing politics by nominating a female...
The conservative favorite is a black female, and she happens to be qualified. The runner-up is hispanic. How does picking an unqualified female crony beat those two choices?
Speculation on her being a lesbian has already started.
No opinion, but let's go back to that trust thing. Would any of us be shocked off our chairs if she turned out to be a pro-gay-marriage lesbian? Unlikely, but we wouldn't bet our lives on it.
The President must also prepare himself for a possible third nominee to the Court.
Hooray. "Nan may be old, but I've known her since she became my governess when I was 5, and she's a real stickler. Don't you worry!"
Perhaps this is because he was educated at Harvard Business School in a legendary course then-called Human Behavior in Organizations.
Special pleading. "If you can't understand Bush's brilliance, it's because he posesses ancient, secret knowledge of the Shaolin!"
The new Chief Justice is a man of unquestioned brilliance, as well as cordial disposition. He will be able to lead the other Justices through his intellect and knowledge of the law.
"Honest! Watching his confirmation hearings, I could tell that Scalia and Thomas would follow him into hell and back." This man is delirious.
...taught children in Sunday School, made coffee, brought donuts: "Nothing she's asked to do in church is beneath her."
Look, buddy, I don't care if she's Mary-freaking-Poppins. I care whether she will interpret the Constitution narrowly according to its original intent.
As the court’s new junior member, the 60 year old lady Harriet Miers will finally give a break to Stephen Breyer, who has been relegated to closing and opening the door of the conference room, and fetching beverages for his more senior Justices.
Completely irrelevant. But telling! Lifson himself believes she's completely incompetent--that her contribution to the SC will be fresh, hot coffee.
Ms. Miers embodies the work ethic as few married people ever could. She reportedly often shows up for work at the White House at 5 AM, and doesn’t leave until 9 or 10 PM.
Her work ethic is only a plus if she'll use it for good. Will she? Meanwhile, it never even occurred to me to wonder whether she was a lesbian, until this guy started spinning her unmarried status so feverishly.
The members of the Supreme Court all see themselves as serving the public and the law to the best of their abilities. Their self-regard depends on their belief in the righteousness and fairness of their deliberations.
In other words, even Ginsburg and Souter can sleep at night, because they think they're doing the Lord's work. Be very afraid.
Having proven herself capable of charming the likes of Harry Reid, leader of the Senate Democrats, is there much room for doubt that Harriet Miers is capable of opening up opponents emotionally...
Wait, I'm confused--is she supposed to be a judge, or a geisha?
George Bush has already succeeded in having confirmed a spectacularly-qualified intellectual leader of the Court in Chief Justice Roberts.
Once more with feeling! The more you beg the question, the more right you become!
If conservatives don’t sabotage his choice, Harriet Miers could make an enormous contribution toward building Court majorities...
Just damn. Lifson does think she's an idiot--otherwise why does he insist she'll be such an excellent hostess/geisha/waitress?
In short, every word of the article is fallacious, irrelevant and asinine.
You mean, we should all cross our fingers and hope? With Scalia and Thomas, we knew. With Brown, we would know. Why keep us wondering?
Yeah, that's my main problem with this too. But then my choice would be to nominate the head of the Young Republicans at Harvard Law School, or where ever, even (especially!) if only a first or second year student. I concede that nominating a high-school student would be going too far, but reluctantly.
You're starting to sound like a DUmmie. You mean the media hasn't been going after the President "with the zeal of a shark..." for the past 5 years?
sniff...
Interesting.
Given what you know about her "common sense", how would she rule on those cases you listed?
I derive great pleasure from thinking of Harriet on the bench, running rings around younger justices and clerks, when she is in her 90's.
Thought you might like to read this, ping.
I don't agree with you but I do liken the tenor of your thoughts granny....all that emotive stuff
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46641
anyhow...you can pick that apart or just dismiss it.
and we are simply just disappointed that W did not pick someone with made bones...lots of folks saying that
this conflict falls pretty steady here on FR between culture war and the what-culture-war crowd...splitting about like Schiavo did actually
just observing posters I've watched for years.
with exceptions of course.
You are purposely, cantankerously misunderstanding Tom's use of these matters in his column.
Out of curiosity, "Shalom Israel".. who would yOU have nominated?
No. We should trust President Bush to know what he's doing.
Why keep us wondering?
It's not about us, really. He has to do what he think is the right thing without lying awake at night wondering what the Free Republic poll will have to say about it.
It's the President's Pick. The cards are on the table, and there will be a process. The "wondering" will be addressed.
I see a lot of people who oppose this nomination who swore to me that Bush would never attack Iraq.
I am interested in the emotional response I am seeing from so many people. Why are they acting that way? It's an interesting phenomonon.
It's like being out on the river during an unexpected hatch of pesky flies. I guess they'll eventually just blow away or something and things will be back to "normal".
"because as more comes out this will be the knockdrown drag out fight you all wish."
Nah, there will be some interest groups agitating and a few Kennedy grandstanding...but it won't be a fight...it will be a relatively easy confirmation.
Basically, there is nothing to fight for. I've been fighting for the GOP since 80, and I'm tired...I suspect there will be quite a few people tired of fighting in the next midterms and 08 election.
I don't have a dog in this fight any longer...I'm a conservative...not a radical but an ex veteran and former loyal Party member. I considered bolting during Campaign Finance, and then again with this illegal immigration border travesty...but kept up the faith.
I have my hobbies, my son's football and sports and lots of other activities to keep me happy...I really don't see politics being that productive of an endeavor. If you do I wish you luck.
I am very disappointed.
I have bit my tongue on many things hoping he would shine in his nominations.
That's it.
You're right. Some folks really really love Bush.
I felt that way after 9-11 but that only goes so far.
too many other things....just added up
it;s not just the fringe or paleos that are mad
that said.....i'll still be there but not terribly motivated unless a lot changes tween now and 08
no other choice....but i don't have to like it
man....everything was banked on these two nominations..pisser....what a waste
that's my view and I sure wish it weren't so
I agree and hope Rush's appearance on Greta's show tonight will not give the rightist malcontents more ammo to block Meirs. She is not my choice but appears to be solid and will give insights into the Court's mentality and worldview which is needed: common sense. I agree with the author's contention that W might actually have another choice or even two. It is possible. Meirs is not a closet lefty. That talk is coming from the minority part of the conservative base who always fears disasters. I am a bit skeptical of Republican bravery but not of the Prez'!!
I will tell you this I didnt vote for Bush in 2000 because I thought he was going to be a fiscal liberal with a tax break front, I backed him when I returned from Iraq and saw first hjand the hatred on the street level for him from Code Pink and other outfits.
I am no Bush-Bot, but what I have been able to gleam about her it seems to me she is even possibly more conservative than we give her credit for. The left wants this fight as much as you do, and I think Schumer and the rest of the libs are going to come out railing against her because all of this new info. This will be the high profile fight you want, just watch, if not I will eat crow.With tabasco sauce and day old bread.
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.