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?
I'm also telling that to the Bushbots.
You are getting, in Ms Miers...
An Evangelical Christian.
A very succesful business woman.
The Presidents Lawyer.
I will lay off the "elitism" charge though I do think is is abundantly true.
Ms Miers deserves a fair hearing.
I'm on the fence with Miers; I simply don't have a read of how she will conduct herself.
As for Lott, he's probably hoping for more evidence that she will be a "like-for-like" replacement.
You seem to not understand the relationship of a sitting 2nd term President to the constituency that elected him.
Her nomination was floated as a possibility and nobody thought it was a "joke."
Then you accept the premise she was put on the short list by, well, by the president and herself because of the consultation and approval of Sen. Reid and Sen. Leahy?
She's a highly accomplished attorney
There are thousands of lawyers in this country with similar levels of accomplishment within their specialized career paths. We're talking about a Judgeship that is on the most powerful Court in the world. There is an entirely higher plain of accomplishment that has been achieved by hundreds of lawyers and judges in this country, who when compared to Miers make them better qualified and more apt to build a true legacy of Constructionist interpretation.
They should get over it.
This is not about any pundits or individuals particular favorite candidate for the court, President Bush and Harriet Miers failed to give ANY candidate a fair chance. It stinks of cronyism, insularity, and quite possibly sycophantic behaviors by Miers to pursue her career goals by any means necessary.
...I truly hope she has been talked into throwing herself to the lions to further the 2nd nominees chances to pass confirmation.
It is elitism to look down one's nose, as the blonde bimbo does, at a "third tier" Southern law school (SMU). What the hell has Ann Coulter ever done with her law degree, except try to pass herself off as a "constitutional expert"?
This thing is now being driven by the egos of a bunch of beltway snobs who are showing themselves for the opportunists they are.
Lott is, among other things, toying with the President. But that's fine.
It's wrong to jump on the president when no one can guarantee how even these "safe" picks will actually vote, it's wrong to attack this woman's qualifications, and yes it's wrong to overreact and attack your president because he doesn't pick someone from your list. And I find it especially wrong after mnost everyone bought John Roberts hook line and sinker. My conservative money is on Harriet over beltway lawyer John.
We do agree on this and I've said also, elsewhere, that I'm willing to be wrong about Miers and I'm eager to be suprised. I just hate that we even have to use the word "hope" when it comes to the president's selection.
There are many names (we all know the list) that no one and I mean NO ONE would have to "hope" about.
But I guess Frum is saying her inclinations and instincts are soft left. .. I'd like to see more proof of that, myself.
So you like complete surprises. Enjoy the mushroom, hope it doesn't give you judicial food poisoning.
I've read some of the things that Coulter has been quoted as saying lately and I heard her the other day on a talk show (not the Hewitt show) during my lunch break and I thought she was out of bounds, in her critique.
This thing is now being driven by the egos of a bunch of beltway snobs who are showing themselves for the opportunists they are.
I must respectfully disagree on this point, Frum and others speak for a lot of conservatives on the ground that are equally miffed.
"crybaby."
Good response.
Now...as for the substance, this is a pretty devastating article. It articulates something that conservatives I think knew but hadn't quite articulated: she's all about relationship, team, and process. And no one knows anything about her actually ideology. The reason for that is probably because she doesn't have one.
That's not a fault.
In fact, in order to run a large law firm, it would be damn near necessity.
That is why she has been successful in what she has done.
But...to move her onto SCOTUS with no knowledge of her ideology, seems to ...well...I'm not sure that the campaign promise is obviously fulfilled with this. But, as I have said before, it would be pretty naive for us to take that campaign promise literally.
They take the middle road, which is invariably whatever some other court has held (or, I should say, what I tell them that court has held...LOL)...completely unable to think for themselves.
I guarantee you that Scalia knows how he is going to rule on a case once he reads the issue presented. Miers, OTOH, looks like another swing vote.
Good arguments, seriously.
Well, thanks. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.
So you want to elevate someone to Supreme Court who supports racial preferences?
Perhaps you're right about this. But therein lies my breaking point. President Reagan swung for the fences with Robert Bork and unfortunately the ball was snagged from leaving the ball park.
In 1987, there was no internet, no talk radio, no real conservative grass roots movement for Reagan to rely on to fight back. As this National Review article from 1987 points out, the left in 1987 was already well armed for a fight: http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback200510050806.asp
Where we stand in 2005, there's a calvary of support ready to go to battle for Luttig, Brown, Owen or McConnell. This only adds (I think) to the dismay felt by myself and I assume others...
"Michael Brown managed 150 disasters including four simultaneous hurricane relief efforts in Florida last year before he ran into a totally broken Louisiana emergency management system."
Not to mention that the entire municipality (Mayor in paricular) and the Governor is a joke.
Brown is getting a really bad rap and I can't wait for his book (new doubt soon) will open some eyes. Also, watch how the current admiral will get his comeuppance with the rampant incompetence and corruption of the NO establishment over the next few months.
It will be a sight to marvel!
Yes...Scalia is talented in his own way.
Yet, there is much to recommend in people who don't make snap decisions.
More deliberative decision makers are often much more skilled at convincing others to see things their way.
People who make quick decisions, even if they make the right decisions, can be terrible at explaining things to others .
"More deliberative" decision makers often can't make a decision because they don't understand (a) the impact of the decision and (b) the reasons behind the decision. They can't even convince themselves, let alone someone else.
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.