Posted on 10/05/2005 9:26:43 PM PDT by Pikamax
WASHINGTON -- Two questions were asked in conservative circles Monday when it was learned President Bush had nominated his lawyer, Harriet Miers, for the Supreme Court. Question No. 1: "Is this what we fought for?" Question No. 2: "What was he thinking?"
The conservative Republican base had tolerated George W. Bush's leftward lunges on education spending and prescription drug subsidies to re-elect him so that he could fill the Supreme Court with conservatives and send it rightward. But the White House counsel hardly looked like what they had expected.
Nothing could have more quickly deflated Republican spirits. The antidote to the Iraq-Katrina malaise was the spectacular confirmation performance by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., and Republicans eagerly awaited Act Two: confirmation of a successor to social liberal Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. This was one issue where the wind was at Bush's back, not in his face. But he robbed his legions of spirit with the Miers nomination.
Miers hardly seems the true believer the Republican base was anticipating when the president's agents spread the word last week that his choice would please conservatives. In 1988, she was contributing to Al Gore's presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee. She is listed as chairman of a 1998 American Bar Association committee that recommended legalization of gay adoptions and establishment of an International Criminal Court.
Presidential adviser Karl Rove, recognizing the peril here, was on the phone Monday morning assuring conservatives of Miers's intrepidity. The line from the White House was that Miers should not be compared with Justice David Souter, who was named to the court 15 years ago by the president's father and immediately turned left. While Souter was a stranger from New Hampshire to the elder Bush, it is claimed no president ever has known a court nominee as well as the younger Bush knows his fellow Texan. Skeptics are assured she is sound on abortion and other social issues.
Assuming those assurances are well founded, Miers's qualifications for the high court are still questioned. Members of Congress describe Miers as a nice person but hardly a constitutional scholar. Indeed, she might trip over questions that Roberts handled so deftly. People who have tried to engage her in serious conversation find her politely dull.
In singing Miers's praises, Bush agents contend her every thought is of the president's best interests, not her own. That may be a desirable profile for a White House counsel, but it hardly commends a Supreme Court justice who will be around long after George W. Bush is gone. By naming his longtime attorney, Bush risks the charge of cronyism. After the Michael Brown fiasco at FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency), Harriet Miers might seem the last person he would name to the Supreme Court.
Two weeks ago, Bush was seriously considering another Texas woman he likes and knows well. The nomination of Federal Circuit Judge Priscilla Owen would have been highly regarded in the conservative community. Owen was confirmed for the appellate bench only after the compromise forged by the Group of Fourteen, and Republican senators advised the White House they did not want to fight for her again so soon. But there is no rule that O'Connor must be replaced by a Texas woman who is the president's pal. Many well-qualified conservative men and women were passed over to name Miers.
The question recurs: "What was he thinking?" Bushologists figure the president was irked by repetitive demands that he satisfy the base with his Supreme Court appointments. He also was irked by the conservative veto of his Texas friend and Miers's predecessor at the White House, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. So, Bush showed the critics by naming another close aide lacking Gonzales's track record to draw the ire of the party's right wing.
Immensely enjoying himself was Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, who let it be known to colleagues that he recommended Miers to the president. With Miers at his side, Reid praised her a little for contributing to Al Gore and a lot for being a "trial lawyer" -- no encomium in the GOP. With friends like Reid, Harriet Miers hardly needs enemies.
I just added your two comments together, to wit: "tax cuts" (Bush gave us) + "Sure, our borders are a sieve, and he spends too much but let's be fair and balanced."
I don't mean to be picky. Actually, I quite agree with you. But frankly, we would be far better of with the tax cuts AND secure borders, wouldn't you agree? I wouldn't go so far as to name Bush a RINO (as the previous poster had suggested) -- but I would say that on many significant issues he has been exceedingly disappointing (border security and immigration control, profligate spending, and campaign finance reform, to cite a few majors).
BTW, I agree with your tagname. And glad you liked my straw man. Perhaps he had a little steel in him too. :O)
"I have a feeling some of our FRiends are upset because Miss Miers nickname is "Harry".
You owe me for the cleaning of my bedroom carpet. snorted raisin bran and milk all OVER THE PLACE. Haven't quit laughing since I read your reply.
Actually, the Congress provides legislation and funding, and the Executive is responsible for enforcing the laws. Even if the Congress provided inadequate funding -- which I do not believe to be true, since the spending bills sent to congress were absent additional spending for border control -- the Executive (Bush) could still ARGUE THE CASE in the public forum. No, his silence is loud and clear vis his intentions.
"Bush, the ultimate RINO.
If you disagree, give me some good examples of how he's acted like a real Republican. "
Can't say that he's acted like anything OTHER than a Republican.
He's definately not been as CONSERVATIVE as I had believed, or hoped.
OK. I hope not, but given that the conservative base has given the Republicans the Congress and the Presidency, we deserve more than questionable SCOTUS nominees. The idiological battle must be waged full scale until the immoral Left is fully defeated.
100% agreement. Great posts--both of them :)
FGS are you stupid? She's been trashed PERSONALLY, here and by so-called conservative talking heads.
Just because she hasn't staked her positions publicly does not mean she hasn't staked her positions. I look forward to the hearings, and will hold criticism or praise until then.
Hi onyx. Yes, I agree. She's been trashed because of her age; the fact that she's remained unmarried; because she didn't go to one of the top 10 or 20 law schools; because she hasn't sat on an appeals bench or other lower court; because hasn't written pompous law review articles. I wouldn't be surprised if at least some of the whining is due to the fact that she's not a particularly pretty or striking woman, although those screaming the loudest would deny they are capable of such bigotry.
Instead, she's been making a good, solid living; rising in her profession, town and state; taking care of her elderly mom; finding the Lord; serving her church; and keeping company with the same man for many years.
Well drop my drawers! We can't have a member of the great unwashed masses taking a seat on the highest court in the land. Why, someone might get the idea we have a government of, by and for the people. [end dripping scarcasm]
Thank you wolfstar, for going into detail.
I think I might as well bang my head against a brick wall instead of trying to discuss the nominee with the sorely obtuse folks here.
Incoming mail.
You won't believe the post, but I am linking you...lol.
I want to learn as much as I can about Harriet Miers before I form an opinion about her nomination. I am appalled by the attitude of so many conservatives who have condemned her and the President before she's even had a hearing.
Thanks, Jonny. I've been researching the biographies of all the 109 Supreme Court justices to serve 1789-2005. A great many of them, including some of the most historically significant justices, would not be qualified to sit on the court based on the criteria being thrown around the last few days here and among many Right-wing pundits.
The hissy fits that our so-called "conservative" talking heads are pitching, are really quite amazing in their vitriol. I am convinced they wanted a fight, not a justice who will vote with Scalia and Thomas, as POTUS has repeatedly said she will, and I believe him.
I think this is a case of GWBush out thinking the senate.
FACT: the senators think that the senate is an exclusive country club.
FACT: the senators are very biased to patronage of elitist institutions.
FACT: the entire beltway is consumed with elitist favortism.
FACT: it really really really really really really really grinds the egos of the senators that a fellow exclusive elitist was not named for the judge. WHAT KIND OF MESSAGE DOES THAT SEND WHEN A NON ARISTOCRAT IS NAMED FOR THE HIGHEST COURT!!
The peons might get upity and demand more NON-elites! GASP! future picks might be from GASP!!!! RED STATES!!!! DOUBLE GASP!!!!
Although I would have enjoyed a fight over a nominee such as Judge Edith Jones (who would be an excellent Justice), it doesn't advance our cause to have a protracted battle that leaves O'Connor on the Court for the rest of this term.
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.