Posted on 10/05/2005 10:29:24 AM PDT by new yorker 77
She's polite. Shy. Smart. Modest. Hard-working. Goes to church. Helps the poor. She immediately won the praise of the leader of the Democrats in the Senate. And yet she may end up making Justices Scalia and Thomas look like a couple of card carrying lefties.
I'm exaggerating for effect, of course, but the point is that despite the dramatic tearing of flesh that has gone on in some conservative quarters over the last 48 hours, the indications are that Bush has chosen someone who is extremely culturally conservative. Based on what little we know at this point, he's also chosen someone who favors the Patriot Act, wider presidential authority and an aggressive national security posture.
I understand the disappointment on the right. Conservatives wanted a first-rate legal and ideological gladiator to go do battle with liberals in the Senate. Instead, Bush gave them the Church Lady.
But gladiators don't receive - nor should they expect to be given - any mercy from their opponents. A humble, accomplished, God-fearing woman is a different proposition. Those who know this process understand that the first few hours and days are absolutely critical in shaping the image of the nominee for the public. Thus far, aside from the griping of conservatives, Miers' public image is developing rather favorably and isn't being radically influenced by attacks from left-wing interest groups the way other nominations would have been.
George Will argues this morning that these types of political considerations are unimportant. Qualifications are all that matter and, according to Will, Miers isn't remotely qualified:
The wisdom of presumptive opposition to Miers's confirmation flows from the fact that constitutional reasoning is a talent -- a skill acquired, as intellectual skills are, by years of practice sustained by intense interest. It is not usually acquired in the normal course of even a fine lawyer's career.
I find this line of reasoning deeply elitist and unpersuasive. Will is setting a standard (years of practice of constitutional reasoning sustained by intense interest) that would exclude a vast number of people who would make perfectly fine justices (including Senators like Orrin Hatch) as well as a number of those who've served ably on the court (including William Rehnquist who spent 16 years in private practice in Arizona and then only 3 years in the Nixon administration before being nominated to the Court).
I also find Will's complete and total deference to constitutional scholarship unsettling. Yes, we want talented, high-caliber appointments to the Court which represents, we should remind ourselves, a co-equal branch of government. It's not at all convincing to say, if you follow Will's logic, that a court made up of nine of the country's most eminent, ivy-league pedigreed constitutional scholars is going to be any better for America than a Court composed of justices who have demonstrable talent of varying legal backgrounds and perspectives. And it is undeniable that Harriet Miers is an accomplished lawyer.
So where does all this leave us? I suspect most Republicans and conservatives will become more comfortable with Miers as we move forward and most Democrats, including Harry Reid, are going to find themselves with an increasing urge to sink her nomination.
One way of doing that is to attack her religious convictions and to imply they make her unfit to serve. This is a very perilous strategy. The other way for the Democrats to derail Miers is to argue that she is unqualified due to a lack of experience and/or intellectual-horsepower. Still a tough case for the Democrats, in my opinion, though certainly a lot easier to make when conservatives are already out there doing it for them.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. -- Albert Einstein
In the past 25 years, only one of the four stealth candidates appointed by Republican presidents ended up being a conservative originalist.
Why should we except the direction of the court change when the same failed strategy is being used once again, this despite having 55 Republican seats in the Senate?
Flashback to 1981:
United Press International
July 8, 1981, Wednesday, AM cycle
SECTION: Washington News
BYLINE: By WESLEY G. PIPPERT
DATELINE: WASHINGTON
In Texas, television evangelist James Robison expressed his support for Mrs. [Sandra Day] O'Connor based on a conversation Tuesday with presidential counselor Edwin Meese.
A Robison aide said Meese told the evangelist:
''Sandra O'Connor thinks abortion is abhorrent and is not in favor of it. She agrees with the president on abortion. There was a time when she was sympathetic toward the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) movement, but the more she studied and found out about it, the more she changed her mind.
''She is very conservative ... Sandra O'Connor assured the president that she was in agreement with him and she totally supports pro-family issues and the Republican platform.''
Ping
When Roberts was nominated, I was concerned as he was relatively unknown as well. However, by the end of the confirmation hearings, I was satisfied with him. I feel he will end up more or less as conservative as Rhenquist was.
Miers could well end up being a conservative, but there's just as much of a chance she could end up as a Souter.
Why not Ann Coulter? She's also a lawyer, she's only 43, and she's hot. Imagine the male libs on the court (well probably not Souter) being intimidated by her sexiness...
Can we think of any Bush appointee who is a committed conservative? I hope the Roberts nomination turns out well. There is some hope for him. The Bush defense of the Church Lady and the Democrats' support of her make me deeply suspicious. Obviously a deal was made in advance. The Senate Republicans were told, "You will back the nominee," before they knew the name.
The Bush administration and the current GOP leadership have made the Republicans the Party of Appeasement. They always seek to placate the Left by surrendering the high ground.
It reminds me of the Byzantines defending their city in the Fourth Crusade. All a Western knight had to do upon entering a hole in the wall was pull out his sword. The soldiers could have turned this first invader into tomato sauce. Instead, they ran like bunnies, the beginning of the end of that battle, the beginning of the end of Constatinople.
I will vote GOP with my nostrils pinched shut, but I will vote for conservative principles, not for those who fake it (like McCain, et al.).
Nicely said! Also, I think most of us that are sick of the elitist bastards running things can seriously appreciate getting a new point of view into the mix. Last night on the "Jim Lerrrrrhhherrr" report they had a very special elitist idiot from Stanford. Whew......spare me one like that.
But how will she be on eminent domain? Second Amendment?
Bill and Hillary both went to church regularly (separate congregations) in their mad pursuit of power. Church attendance is a great cover. Besides, the vast majority of church membership is with mainline denominations whose leadership is to the left of Dan Rather
FINALLY!! Someone is beginning to sound rational about this appointment. I am sick of the Ann Coulters, G. Wills, etc., elitism and comments that only people with certain pedigrees should be on the Court. Give me a break! I was an EA to a Fed Judge for 25 years and I used to "oversee" law clerks as one of my many duties. Without exception, the ones from the Ivy League schools were a royal pain in the bunns (arrogant, rude, drunks, lazy, spoiled, undependable). The ones from smaller, more conservative law schools were like angels from heaven to have around (dependable, flexible, clean, well-dressed, nice manners, good writers/spellers and determined to succeed)(and not drinkers).
#6, Right to life.
That's what Rush is saying today. Watch out, the schmucks on the left are gonna come out against her with the only thing they have: She's a religious kook. Evangelicals are uniformly pro-life, blah, blah, blah. Seems comforting to me, although I am cautious. But I don't feel like someone who has been advising the Prez, and helped him come up with the other nominees that we DO KNOW, ie. JRB, well that there tells me something
Thank you for this post. :)
The constitution was not written by constitutional scholars. :-)>>>>>>>
Oh my goodness, I never even thought of that, BRILLIANT
(I'm being serious, too many freepers here are being as elitist as Will)
I'm probably too optimistic but I think GWB just nominated a version of Ann Coulter. The difference is that Harry Reid made the suggestion so the dims can't very well attack her. We will find out shortly if, during the hearings, Ted Kennedy's head explodes.
The (left-wing, liberal) Houston Chronicle wrote a nice puff piece today. If the Chronicle likes her, how could she be conservative?
Does anyone hear any liberals screaming their heads off?
Their silence, or faint praise, tells a lot of this candidate's leanings.
Hoppy
In my estimation, anyone endorsed by Harry Reid, who supports gay marriage and who has contributed to Algore and Lloyd Bentson is not likely to be to the right of Scalia and Thomas.
The lottery job meant she stepped down from her million dollar a year job for government pay - where do you see that in the career of any recent justice? By the way what Washington DC law firm has a women as senior partner? When did our favorite Thomas or Scalia run a business and made a payroll? /rant off
As a 58 year old "church lady", I can testify that they
may have a tiger on their hands if she gets nominated.
I'm praying she has the mind of Christ (which is what
every Christian is told to acquire).
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.