Posted on 10/06/2005 6:13:22 AM PDT by ejdrapes
OCT. 6, 2005: RESPONSES Hugh Hewitt asks whether there isn't some personal animus or motive behind my comments on the Miers nomination. A number of readers have raised the same concern. I suppose it's a natural question. So let me answer for the record that my relations with Miers were always professional and correct when we worked together. I always thought she was a fine and decent person, and I have no personal animus or motive of any kind in this matter. And though this is probably unnecessary let me add here also: I have been and remain a supporter of this administration and this president. For the past three years, I have been speaking and writing in defense of this administration's goals and this president's character, not just in this country but around the world, most recently in for example The Financial Times. This summer I even proposed to do a documentary about decision-making inside the Bush administration, in hope of refuting once and for all the unfair stereotypes about the way in which it does its work. So if I don't dislike Miers and want the president to succeed, why am I speaking out? Aside from all the substantial reasons I have cited to date, I am speaking out because there are so many others who want to speak but cannot. I have spent many hours of the past three days listening to conservative jurists on this topic - people who have devoted their lives to fighting battles for constitutionalism, for tort reform, for color-blind justice, people who fought the good fight to get Bork, Scalia, Thomas, and now Roberts onto the high Court. Their reaction to the nomination has been almost perfectly unanimous: Disappointment at best, dismay and anger at worst. Here's the tough truth, and it will become more and more important as the debate continues: There is scarcely a single knowledgeable legal conservative in Washington who supports this nomination. There are many who are prepared to accept, reluctantly, as the president's choice. Some still hope that maybe it won't turn out as bad as it looks. But ask them: "Well what if the president had consulted you on this choice," and the answer is almost always some version of: "I would have thought he was joking." Why do so many fine conservative lawyers object to Miers? This oped by John Yoo gives a hint. John was one of the most brilliant lawyers in the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice in the first Bush term. He was a stalwart defender of the president's war powers - and he has taken his share of abuse in the press for fighting for his conservative principles. Yoo's piece is very carefully phrased. Indeed, given the heavy hints that the administration has been throwing out recently, it must have taken strong courage for this man who is himself eminently qualified for an appellate judgeship, to have gone even as far as he did. But listen: "[A]ccording to press reports, she did not win a reputation as a forceful conservative on issues such as the administration's position on stem cell research or affirmative action." Yoo is referring here to the case of Grutter v. Bollinger, a challenge to the constitutionality of preferential treatment for minorities in education. Many in the administration wanted to take a strong stand in favor of color-blindness. In the end, the administration faltered and argued that racial preferences are okay, up to a point. It is hard to imagine a more central issue to modern legal conservatives. Where was Miers? On the wrong side. Inside the White House, Miers was best known, not as a conservative, not as a legal thinker, but as a petty bureaucrat. Read this article from a December 2004 article in the Legal Times about Miers' promotion to general counsel: "Her critics say the problem goes beyond what Miers does or doesn't know about policy -- and right back to a near-obsession with detail and process. "'There's a stalemate there,' says one person familiar with the chief of staff's office. 'The process can't move forward because you have to get every conceivable piece of background before you can move onto the next level. People are talking about a focus on process that is so intense it gets in the way of substance.' "One former White House official familiar with both the counsel's office and Miers is more blunt. "'She failed in Card's office for two reasons,' the official says. 'First, because she can't make a decision, and second, because she can't delegate, she can't let anything go. And having failed for those two reasons, they move her to be the counsel for the president, which requires exactly those two talents.'" The Washington Post reports that as staff secretary she was notorious for personally correcting the punctuation in White House memos. This is sadly true - and it is also true that in 14 months of working with her on punctuation, I never heard her say anything substantive about any policy issue, with one exception. Yoo again: "Another red flag for conservatives may be what is regarded as Miers's strongest credential: her work with the organized bar. Miers was elected president of the Texas bar and was a mover and shaker in the American Bar Association. Republicans have long criticized the ABA for politicizing the professional bar by taking positions on controversial social issues such as abortion and providing politically biased evaluations against Reagan-Bush judicial nominees. To be sure, Miers reportedly fought to allow the general membership to vote on the ABA's position supporting the right to abortion, a fact much trumpeted by Bush administration supporters yesterday. But she also apparently urged that the White House preserve the ABA's privileged role in reviewing the qualifications of judicial nominees." Some NRO readers have challenged me: Why should we trust you when you say that Miers is not qualified rather than trust the president when he says she is? My answer is: Don't trust me. Trust your own eyes. The woman is 61 years old, a lawyer for more than three decades. Can you see any instance in this long life and career where Miers ever took a risk on behalf of conservative principle? Can you see any indication of intellectual excellence? Did she ever do anything brave, anything that took backbone? Did anyone before this week ever describe her as oustanding in any way at all? If the answers to these questions is No, as it is, then you have to ask yourself: Why is a Republican president bypassing so many dozens of superb legal conservatives to choose Harriet Miers for the highest court in the land? I am not saying she is a Michael Brown. But I am saying she is being chosen for her next job in exactly the same way and for the same reasons that Michael Brown was chosen for FEMA. And that is not good enough for me. Is it good enough for you? Hugh Hewitt, you are a lawyer: Is it really good enough for you?
Who's running? Not me.
I probably dislike Frum's views more than you do (don't get me started on the Frummer boy!)....but that's beside the point. He is not the only source of information about Mier's support for preferences.
the self proclaimed bushbots...they seem to be making attacks on noted conservatives they supported up until monday...and attacking posters here asking the same questions.
And when hard hitting questions come their way...they're off to find another thread.
Not one has bothered to defend Miers against the charge that she supports preferences. To me, if we put a pro-preferences nominee on the SC, that is the whole ball game. I guess they don't care.
But Frum's main objection to her is not about racial preferences, but her pro-life views which he strongly opposes.
He knows he can't attack her openly on this in conservative circles without losing his credibility, so his leadoff argument is to imply that she's too stupid to serve.
That's disgusting and dishonest.
I agree with your analysis. I would guess that Harriet is more conservative than Frum.
Frum is not the issue. Miers is. If she supports, racial preferences, how can anyone claim with a shread of credibility claim that his "conservative?"
that's should be "that she is consesrvative."
Screw David "My Glass House Is Clearly Nicer Than Yours" Frum.
Nobody, including Roberts is going to change the Gingsberg et al opinion. It's not like they're going to say something so profound when they get on the court that the left says ...... Gee.. that's right, I'll vote with you. So once we get past this idea that the person has to be a good arguer, it just comes down to how will they vote. Period.
We're told she's a 3rd grade sunday school teacher, church committee member, fundamentalist christian at a fundamentalist evangelical church, and she interprets the constitution as literal as she does the bible. If that's true.... she'll be the most conservative on the bench. Much more conservative than Frum, Coulter, Kristol et al.
I've been speculating that Bush knows her well, and he asks us to trust him, which I would like to do. That's fine, but this article makes me wonder if she's as conservative as I am.
Is Frum pro-choice?
Don't know how old you are Captain, but conservatives were in general support of some racial preferences during the late sixties and seventies. Over time, we have seen the results of that and we moved to a more neutral position on preferences and against quotas. At the time of Martin King, it was the way it was. To compare the time frames is almost apples and oranges.
In another thread, the point was raised that a more conservative nomination may have brought "a robust debate about the proper role of the judiciary", and that a "more 'controversial' candidate would have a much better chance of sparking such a discussion."
I think Miers perfectly fits the descriptions, but first, most people, INCLUDING our learned pundits, must first learn one basic fact.
When discussing the qualifications of a Supreme Court nominee (or any Court for that matter), I don't want to discuss whether that nominee has advanced any principles OTHER than Constitutional principles!
If that nominee is a Christian, and stands on the right side of the political spectrum, that's just a bonus.
One last thing...about her qualifications, or lack of them.
There are none listed in the US Constitution, what we have here, are elitists bitching that someone other than an elite has been nominated for such an elite post.
Screw them all...
Screw these elitists whose primary complaint on Harriet Miers is that she's not an elite member of their inner circles.
Let the woman stand or fall or her knowledge of Constitutional law, not on whether her predetermined ideas, driven by political partisanship, suits any of the screaming, elitist, talking heads that over crowd the American political landscape these days.
Probably Hecht. He and Owen dissented in the Texas parental notification case, where Gonzales is painted as being pro-choice.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1440372/posts?page=45#45
It has been reported that Hecht and Miers have dated, and are in regular contact. I like what I have seen of Hecht's jurisprudence.
-Can you see any instance in this long life and career where Miers ever took a risk on behalf of conservative principle?
-Can you see any indication of intellectual excellence?
-Did she ever do anything brave, anything that took backbone?
-Did anyone before this week ever describe her as oustanding in any way at all?
Yet another example of a conservative pundit who believes the appointment should be treated as a spoil of war, a reward, a medal of honor bestowed upon some warrior who took it to the mat.
The above remarks are extremely insulting, but most of these people know they will never be seeing Miers again, so what the hey.
You betcha the Senate is a problem.
Before we get to Miers, do you think the GOP leadership in the Senate might be persuaded to take up the nomination of Myers (who was reported out of committee on March 17) and Boyle (who was reported out on June 16). Reid has said he would lead a filibuster against voting on the confirmation of Myers. Maybe we can at least get that dysfuntion fixed before we move on to this SCOTUS nomination.
If that means: does Frum support the murder of unborn children? The answer is yes.
At least that is my reaction. Everyone (including the pundits) is falling all over themselves to attack the President. No one seems to be asking WHY he made this decision, except for ridiculous comments inferring that he's afraiad of the democrats or he wanted to reward a "buddy."
I don't for a minute think Bush is afraid of democrats. All one has to do is look at actions like the recess appointment of Bolton, the knocking down of Kyoto, etc. and that motive is shown to be silly.
I do, however, think that some Republican senators are afraid of the democrats, or at least of the media. Miers is the nominee who was most conservative (originalist) that he could get those squishes to support, because she doesn't have a paper trail.
I had flagged the same phrase you did: in Washington. It literally jumped out at me. I think we're finally unraveling the mystery of the seemingly inexplicable opposition to this nomination. They don't think Miers is worthy to join the club.
She doesn't have the "right" credentials, she doesn't know the right people, she didn't spend her life enmeshed in theoretical legal scholarship. She didn't play by the elite legal establishment rules and now it's not "fair" that she's allowed in!
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.