The Miers Misstep: What was President Bush thinking?

WSJ Opinion Journal ^ | October 06, 2005 | Peggy Noonan

[AntiGuv]

That having been said, the Meirs pick was another administration misstep. The president misread the field, the players, their mood and attitude. He called the play, they looked up from the huddle and balked. And debated. And dissed. Momentum was lost. The quarterback looked foolish.

The president would have been politically better served by what Pat Buchanan called a bench-clearing brawl. A fractious and sparring base would have come together arm in arm to fight for something all believe in: the beginning of the end of command-and-control liberalism on the U.S. Supreme Court. Senate Democrats, forced to confront a serious and principled conservative of known stature, would have damaged themselves in the fight. If in the end President Bush lost, he'd lose while advancing a cause that is right and doing serious damage to the other side. Then he could come back to win with the next nominee. And if he won he'd have won, rousing his base and reminding them why they're Republicans.

The headline lately is that conservatives are stiffing the president. They're in uproar over Ms. Meirs, in rebellion over spending, critical over cronyism. But the real story continues to be that the president feels so free to stiff conservatives. The White House is not full of stupid people. They knew conservatives would be disappointed that the president chose his lawyer for the high court. They knew conservatives would eventually awaken over spending. They knew someone would tag them on putting friends in high places. They knew conservatives would not like the big-government impulses revealed in the response to Hurricane Katrina. The headline is not that this White House endlessly bows to the right but that it is not at all afraid of the right. Why? This strikes me as the most interesting question.

[Paladin2]

Someday the Bushbots are going to realize that Bush won't do anything to control the borders.

Sure hope for Bush (and us) that Meirs is not another Souter.

[counterpunch]

Well many conservatives are upset and confused. Bush didn't use his advantage, his political capital forcefully enough.

Yes. Bush had enormous political capital from Roberts, and beyond that, he had something more. He had an inheritance. When it came to a Supreme Court nominee, it wasn't merely a balance of political capital deposited and deducted from a political capital account by way of elections and current events. He inherited the hopes and dreams of an entire movement that predates himself by decades. Bush believed this inheritance was a Blind Trust. He is now learning that it is not. It is this inheritance that he has squandered, and that is the true shame of it all.

[AmericaUnited]

Why do they all start getting loopy after the 'lights fade' and their 15 minutes of glory is over? It's as if they have to write more and more nutty stuff to get back the attention they so desperate crave.

[ThirstyMan]

I think this nomination marks a turning point for Bush. He's jumped the shark and is no longer relevant.

That's a VERY premature obituary there sag. Wait this thing out and see how she handles herself at the hearings before crying out like Chicken Little: "The sky is falling!"

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

And so the historical irony: Supreme Court justices are more powerful than ever while who and what they are is more mysterious than ever. We have a two part problem. The first is that no one knows what they think until they're there.

Following her reasoning to the logical conclusion that we have no paper trail is not important because even if we have the nominee with the worlds best paper trail we would still not know.

I partly disagree because while a paper trail does not guarantee one way or the other, she is right about that, it does give you a good indication. However I partly agree because I have seen them go both ways on the bench. Character might be more important then than a paper trail in deciding who should be nominated.

So let us put the question of a paper trail aside.

So then what is the problem with this pick? To sum up this article, "I wanted to see a fight and I didn't!"

That seems to be the general wail by those who would have been munching popcorn in the stands rather then actually on the battlefield.

I am not sure that a desire to see other people battered and bloody is a good reason to have a war. There should be some other gain to offset the possibility of loss. And there would be loss.

While the battle would be join to the cheers of the fight fans in the stand the non political junkies on both sides would have been shaking their heads in disgust. And whether we like it or not non political junkies are the majority of the vote.

One of the reasons the democrats are losing voters is they are repeatedly giving in to their fight fans. The voters who want calm, reasoned and orderly are turned off by this and either vote for the other side or do not vote at all. But they have to appease their fight fans because they can either appease them or be targeted by them.

Now the Republicans are finding themselves in the same unhappy position. Either they give the fight fans their circus or they will be savaged by them.

Is this really where we want to go as a party?

[AmericaUnited]

P.S. Then when they realize 'no one cares' anymore, they just continually lash out in bitter rants....

Move over Pat, Peggy needs a seat...

[BigSkyFreeper]

I hadn't heard about that. Interesting nonetheless though!

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Exactly.

It isn't. In fact it makes you look very weak. Glad to see that you understand that.

[G.Mason]

" ... Maybe he [President Bush] is unveiling a new path that he has not fully articulated--he'll call the shots from his gut and leave the commentary to the eggheads."

After reading this entire, long and rather pathetic article, I can only say that thanks to Ms Peggy Noonan I am back to my original thoughts on the SCOTUS nominations. None should EVER be women!

God save us all.

[rrrod]

Quite right...conservative voters are in a rage but I think its deeper than this nominee. Republicans constantly caving in to the RATS is taking its toll finally.

I must repectfully dissagree with those that want another selection and have a fight in the senate, for one reason.....the Republicans would cave in...again.

[BigSkyFreeper]

It gives me pause that these intellectual heavyweights don't have the brains to keep their mouths shut, and let the process work itself out. The universe doesn't revolve around them. They've allowed their stature to get to them.

[ThirstyMan]

It is this inheritance that he has squandered, and that is the true shame of it all.

Squandered hey? And you already know how Harriet Meirs is going to vote?
This is premature, your fears are making conclusions.
What galls us ALL is that we have to trust the Pres on this one. But really, this has been the ONE issue that Bush feels has brought him into office. It is his destiny issue.
Do you really think he'd allow this moment to pass while sitting on the bench, that he'd call in sick at this moment?

I don't. That seems rediculous.

[AntiGuv]

Well, I'm not looking for a bare-knuckle brawl myself. I just want a known quantity. Yes, the SC justices tend to drift, but most of them stay within range of where they appeared to be previously. Souter is a dramatic exception, but I clearly remember when Souter was nominated and he was a total enigma. There was virtually nothing to pin one's evaluation on except scraps here and there - scraps which actually pointed toward arch-conservatism, if anything.

But, what was missing was any sense of Souter's judicial philosophy. That is the key. If you can grasp a nominee's mental framework in that regard, you can get a rather good sense of how they will rule most of the time, at least for the foreseeable future. With Souter, it was a blank slate; all anyone could do was extrapolate from #41 and try to read the tea leaves. So, tell me, what is Miers' judicial philosophy? What are her ideological bearings? Do you know?

I had my qualms about Roberts as well, and still do, but I got over them within days once I looked into his background and got a clear sense of his judicial thinking. I can't do that with Miers, nor can you or anyone else. It's not just that she's never been a judge. I'm not one who claims that she's unqualified. It's that there's no indication of how she'll rule on hardly anything, and certainly no apparent judicial framework that she'll operate with.

[counterpunch]

The one thing that both Noonan and Ann Coulter missed is that this nomination is less Bush thumbing his nose at the conservative base, but in fact pay-off to the smaller sliver of evangelical religious conservatives within that base.

Bush put his own small clan of evangelicals ahead of the larger intellectual judicial conservative establishment which had supported him throughout. They allowed him his religious streak because they believed that he was ultimately a team player for the larger conservative movement and would step up when the time came. They were mistaken.

This battle in the conservative movement will be intellectual vs. faith-based, and will seriously fracture the party for a long time to come.

[Virginia Queen]

Another inside-the-Beltway thinker who used to have her feet on the ground and has now turned elitiest. Ms. Noonan there is a world out here, where real thinking people live and many of us like the President's pick. Do you need to join the ranks of Ann Coulter?? I thought you above that.

[mystery-ak]

It's now complete...Peggy has weighed in...

[ThirstyMan]

Either they give the fight fans their circus or they will be savaged by them.
Is this really where we want to go as a party?

I agree with your analysis. No, fights for the sake of dominating our opponent are unproductive, self serving and they weaken our political capital for future victories.

Bush has always turned the other cheek and annoyingly refused to participate in the red meat cravings of us conservatives.

That's probably not all bad.
I'm still not convinced by any measure that:
1. We could have won the all out fight for a "real" conservative and
2. If we had won such a fight the Country would have been well served by us winning such a victory.

[dawn53]

This battle in the conservative movement will be intellectual vs. faith-based, and will seriously fracture the party for a long time to come.

So many of the issues are seen as "faith based," but you can't deny that the Republican platform is in line with the "faith based" issues: anti abortion, and anti gay marriage being the two most obvious.

That's why I stick with the Republican party, the Dems are the party of abortion and gay marriage, and that, IMHO, is why many "faith based" voters vote Republican. That's why we even saw a small swing to the Republicans in the black community.

I don't see how "faith based" issues will split the party when they are part of the party's platform.

[tennmountainman]

Thats because conservatives will no longer stand up and fight with him. Only the Bushbots will do it now and it won't be enough.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

So, tell me, what is Miers' judicial philosophy? What are her ideological bearings? Do you know?

No. And as I said this is my biggest problem with her nomination.

I have bits and pieces and what I see looks good but I would love to have more raw data. Wanting more information is reasonable, understandable and even vital.

But like I said that does not seem to be the main issue here. The issue seems to be that people are not going to get the fight they wanted.

Thus the cry of some to nominate Robert Bork even though he is anti-second amendment as shown by his own writings. (Paper trails. I love them.) Who cares! Stick it to the Dims!

I am actually more comfortable with Miers, who I know is a gun owner, (not a paper trail but a nice indicator) then Bork who I know I can not agree with on this issue.