Posted on 10/05/2005 6:42:00 AM PDT by conservativecorner
George W. Bush, it is supposed, has a secret.
It is not classified national security information. But whatever its substance, the President evidently found it so persuasive he decided to risk the Supreme Court on it.
The secret is when and how—if ever—a middle-aged Harriet Miers made the long philosophical journey all the way from being an Al Gore contributor to being a constitutionalist conservative of such unshakable conviction that she merits lifelong appointment to a sharply divided Supreme Court by a President who promised he would name justices in the mold of Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia.
Many voters supported Bush on the strength of this promise. So, did he keep it or break it when he named his former personal attorney and current White House counsel to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor?
The public record does not come close to demonstrating that Miers is a Scalia-Thomas constitutionalist. Some of it, in fact, points to the opposite conclusion.
In an October 4 press conference Bush said he picked Miers because of her philosophical constancy. “I know her well enough to be able to say that she’s not going to change; that 20 years from now she’ll be the same person, with the same philosophy that she is today,” he said.
But if Miers is now a committed constitutionalist, she was not one 17 years ago.
In early 1988, she contributed $1,000 to the Democratic presidential primary campaign of then-Sen. Al Gore. Later that year, five days before voters would decide whether then-Vice President George H.W. Bush or then-Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis would be the next president, she contributed $1,000 to the Democratic National Committee.
The Supreme Court was a hot issue in that campaign, as the senior Bush branded Dukakis a “card-carrying member of the ACLU.” Dukakis said abortion was “one of the reasons why we don’t want George Bush and Dan Quayle appointing new justices to the Supreme Court.”
The very next year, according the Dallas Morning News, she made a $150 contribution to the Texans for Life Coalition.
But Miers’ 1988 investment in the DNC cannot be chalked up as a youthful indiscretion. She was an aspiring, 43-year-old Democratic politician who would soon be elected to the Dallas City Council. In her one term there, she definitely did not embrace fiscal conservatism, voting to endorse a 7% increase in property taxes.
It has been suggested that Miers’ effort as Texas Bar Association president to get the American Bar Association to hold a referendum on whether it should be neutral on abortion or pro-abortion is evidence that she will be a good justice. But Darrell Jordan, who preceded Miers as Texas Bar president, who supported ABA neutrality on abortion, and who, according to the New York Times, supports “abortion rights,” told the Times it is “unfair” to interpret Miers’s work for the referendum as an indication of her views on abortion. “I know Harriett as well as anyone could,” he said, “and I’d have a hard time telling you what her beliefs are on that subject.”
At his press conference, Bush was asked how he would convince conservatives that Miers is another Scalia or Thomas. “First, she is a woman of enormous accomplishment,” he said. “She understands the law. She’s got a keen mind. She will not legislate from the bench. I also remind them that I think it’s important to bring somebody from outside the judicial system, somebody that hasn’t been on the bench. And, therefore, there’s not a lot of opinions for people to look at.”
Some of these things could be said about Hillary Clinton--except, of course, that she would not legislate from the bench, a conclusion we can draw precisely because Clinton’s opinions are not a secret.
In the coming years, the Court is likely to decide fundamental questions about American society. The protection due to property rights, the sanctity of marriage, and the sanctity of life itself, will all be in the dock—perhaps, decisively, for the last time in generations. Even if John Roberts turns out to be as great a constitutionalist as William Rehnquist, the court will still need two more such justices--including whoever replaces O’Connor--just to muster a 5-4 majority that respects the Constitution as written.
If President Bush and Harriet Miers have solid evidence that she has become a Scalia-Thomas constitutionalist, they should make it public and defend it proudly in the Senate. Otherwise, conservative senators, who have their own duty to the Constitution and the future of our country, would be on solid ground asking the President to send up instead one of the many other excellent potential nominees, who does have a constitutionalist record and the gumption to defend it.
Terence Jeffrey is Editor of HUMAN EVENTS.
When the lecture was over, Miers said words Hecht had never heard from her before. "I'm convinced that life begins at conception," Hecht recalled her saying. According to Hecht, now a Texas Supreme Court justice, Miers has believed ever since that abortion is "taking a life."
"Jeffrey graduated from Princeton University and went to work at the Washington Times as an editorial writer. He has worked on Pat Buchanan's Republican presidential bids, serving as his campaign manager in 1996." - Human Events
In other words, another Buchanan Brigadier crawls out of the sewer to trash Bush. No surprise.
We've fallen into a very dangerous trap in this country. Judges are only supposed to look at the law and apply it to specific circumstances. Their feelings on policies and issues shouldn't matter. The fact that their personal views matter to Democrats is more telling about the Democrats and their methods for Constitutional amendment than it is about the judges they judge.
However, now Republicans are asking the same questions. This is territory the Democrats can have. We should only ask a nominee to read the law and apply the law... anything else is legislating from the bench.
At his press conference, Bush was asked how he would convince conservatives that Miers is another Scalia or Thomas. “First, she is a woman of enormous accomplishment,” he said. “She understands the law. She’s got a keen mind. She will not legislate from the bench. I also remind them that I think it’s important to bring somebody from outside the judicial system, somebody that hasn’t been on the bench. And, therefore, there’s not a lot of opinions for people to look at.”
Some of these things could be said about Hillary Clinton--except, of course, that she would not legislate from the bench, a conclusion we can draw precisely because Clinton’s opinions are not a secret.
I like when he says "she won't legislate from the bench." He thinks just saying it should make it so.
I'd qualify that by requiring the nominee to read and apply U.S. law. Kennedy et al on the Supremes have a fondness for international law, Nigerian legal views on the death penalty etc. It is a means to legislate from the bench by giving judicial deference to the laws of other nations.
“First,shehe is awomanperson of enormous accomplishment,” he said. “SheHe understands the law.She’sHe's got a keen mind.SheHe will not legislate from the bench. I also remind them that I think it’s important to bring somebody from outside the judicial system, somebody that hasn’t been on the bench. And, therefore, there’s not a lot of opinions for people to look at.”
Based on my minor editing -- I should have been selected.
Or my Mailman, or a gazillion OTHER citizens. That's how bad and stoo-pid this pick is.
Good point, and I'm sick of the Republican Party being nothing but a bunch of wind bags that talk the good fight, but have no stomach for fighting when things heat up.
How do we KNOW she will do that? Trust Bush? Come on!
How did we KNOW Scalia and Thomas would?
Why are we running from a fight we KNOW we can win?!!
Is there a downside for Conservatives in voting down Miers if she doesn't convince them of her credentials in the confirmation hearings?
Surely in that case Bush could only nominate someone more demonstrably suitable?
What I want to know about Miers, does she believe in the "Original Intent" of the Constitution, does she feel it can change over time based on societal changes and that is up to the courts to decide? Or, does she feel there is and has always been a mechanism in the Constitution that permits change. (Read: the amendment process).
Create a great Freeper day!
Absolutely. I really don't know why so many have a bee in their bonnett. Miers is of the same cloth as Justice Thomas and Scalia.
I am disappointed that so many here are eager to take Bush to the woodshed and rather seem to enjoy participating in publicly whipping Mr. Bush.
You misunderstand the point here..
She gave $1000 to the DNC the same year Dukakis proudly said he was an ACLU member.
If you think the ACLU has the right idea on the Constitution, you are NOT a judicial conservative!
"However, now Republicans are asking the same questions."
No, the question is not about her personal views, but a simple and valid one: Will she be a real Constitutionalist on the bench in the Scalia-Thomas mold, or will she cater to judicial activism partially (like O'Connor) or wholly (like Souter)?
"Judges are only supposed to look at the law and apply it to specific circumstances. "
How do you know Miers will live up to that standard?
"Is there a downside for Conservatives in voting down Miers if she doesn't convince them of her credentials in the confirmation hearings?"
Yes! It gives cover to any Democrats wanting to kill the next conservative nominee. They can point to the Republican Senate's refusal to defer to the President as "proof" there needs to be a high standard. The GOP Senate will have to swallow this one or there will be many negative consequences down the road.
"Miers is of the same cloth as Justice Thomas and Scalia."
You know this? How?
"But President Bush has put himself in the awkward position of asking his base to trust him at precisely the moment the base was expecting Bush to demonstrate their trust was well-founded in the first place. "--this is a quote from Goldberg on NRO that I have been putting on Miers threads. I think it speaks clearly to the difficulty that the right has with this nom.
I see the hyper-skeptics from DU are out in force on FR this morning.
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.