Posted on 10/06/2005 8:33:48 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob
My favorite supporting character in the legendary strip, “Peanuts,” is Pigpen. His unique trait is raising a cloud of dirt everywhere, even on a clean, dry sidewalk. Pigpen came to mind when I saw the White House Press Corps’ question President Bush Wednesday on his nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.
First, the status of the nomination. Monday afternoon, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid held a nearly unprecedented press conference with Harriet Miers, just hours after her nomination. Reid said that she was an “exceptional” candidate, and “the sort of person who should be nominated.” In short, the leader of the opposition all but endorsed the nominee.
What’s the consequence of that? Slam dunk. A home run in the bottom of the ninth. Game, set and match.
When the general of the other side stands down, the battle is over. To be sure, leading Senators is like herding cats. Seldom will members of either caucus follow their leaders unanimously. Continued opposition is to be expected from Senators Kennedy, Schumer and Durbin.
But with Senator Reid withdrawing from the fray, Harriet Miers will be comfortably approved by Judiciary Committee, and confirmed with at least 70 votes in the Senate. Everyone who can walk and chew gum knows that this is true, as of the Reid statements on Tuesday afternoon.
So, how did many reporters react in the President’s press conference the next day? They became political Pigpens, raising clouds of dirt on a dry sidewalk. Questions about the Miers nomination dominated the conference. Here are three representative ones:
“Q: ....Many conservative women lawyers have expressed their extreme distress that you chose as a woman nominee for the court someone whose credentials did not come close, in their view, to the credentials of John Roberts. They feel as though it's, kind of, old-fashioned affirmative action, women don't have the same credentials.”
“Q: You said several times now, sir, that you don't want a justice who will be different 20 years from now than she is today. Given that standard, I wonder in hindsight whether you think the appointment of Justice David Souter then was a mistake.”
“Q: Some conservatives have said that you did not pick someone like Scalia and Thomas because you shied away from a battle with the Democrats. Is there any truth to that? And are you worried about charges of cronyism?”
These and similar questions introduced all of the themes which Democrat Senator outliers began to raise Monday in a speech by Senator Schumer (perhaps prepared in advance). Those themes have continued to date. But after Senator Reid’s comments on Tuesday, they are irrelevant to the outcome.
The press had made much of the opposition of the likes of Eugene Delgadio and Pat Buchanan. I know both these gentlemen who are off the reservation on the hard right. Their remaining supporters, combined, are insufficient to sway the vote of a single Republican Senator. It’s just Pigpen journalism.
The first question above is an insult to all women lawyers, all women judges, and the two women who have served as Justices. It is Pigpen journalism.
The third question assumes Harriet Miers is not like Justices Scalia and Thomas. Yet as the President patiently explained, repeatedly, on Tuesday, he knows Miss Miers well and worked with her on legal issues for ten years. He knows she will “follow the law” and not “legislate from the bench.” Pigpen, again.
The “Souter” and “cronyism” are inversely related. The first President Bush nominated Justice Souter, who turned out the opposite of what he expected, on recommendations by Chief of Staff Sununu and former Senator Warren Rudman. Those recommendations were dead wrong. But this President Bush is not relying on recommendations.
Anyone with an ounce of managerial experience who’s worked with someone for ten years, WILL know their basic philosophy. Miss Mier’s philosophy is that judges should respect and enforce the law, not rewrite it from the bench. And that is the philosophy of Scalia and Thomas. Again, Pigpen.
Last is the cronyism charge, based on the fact that the President has known the nominee a long time. “Crony” is a charged word, one step shy of being a henchman of a burglar. Would one entrust ones money to a crony of Ken Lay of Enron? Of course not. But what about a crony of Warren Buffett of Berkshire Hathaway? That way leads to wealth and success. Again, Pigpen journalism.
Harriet Miers will be comfortably confirmed. She’ll serve with distinction for a generation. And the false sniping of the press will prove meaningless.
About the Author: John Armor is a First Amendment attorney and author who lives in the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina. John_Armor@aya.yale.edu
No, you'll take the input of whoever supports Bush on anything over the input of those opposed. If the "name brand" commentators were supporting him on this, you'd be denouncing his opponents on FR as fringers.
There's never any logic to it, just various excuses for ignoring what you don't want to hear.
With so many good judges out there who are certifiable warriors of the right, who are fighting the good fight every day on the front lines, paying their dues and then some, and leaving a "paper trail" a mile long, why did Bush have to come up with two stealths in a row??
Now we can only keep our fingers crossed and hope that Miers isn't another Souter. It didn't have to be that way and I am extremely disappointed in the President who won my vote first and foremost because of "the judges".
Thanks, John, for this column.
On another tack, I worry about the repeated complaint coming chiefly from the right: "She has no judicial record".
Does this mean, in the minds of the complainers, that only judges can be nominated to the Supreme Court?
That is NOT a constitutional requirement.
If they feel this strongly about "no judicial record", isn't it time to for them to initiate an amendment to the effect that only judges can be nominated to the SC?
Again, thanks for writing this.
Yep the right wing media elitists which includes uber neocons such as bill krystal to uber paleocons such as pat buchanan.
The DC right wing elitist press are in kniption fits over this nomination, again I think that is good thing.
If the battle is simply to get W's candidate confirmed, then I would agree, the battle is over.
I say, make the right nomination, let the Dems filibuster, then break the filibuster.
Then repeal the 17th Amendment so that future Senators can stop monitoring opinion polls in advance of every vote.
Hardly. I rip into Bush when he's wrong. But he has been at his best nominating judges. I fail to see how he would swerve off course now, especially when he nominated a person who played such a key role in finding all those judges.
If the "name brand" commentators were supporting him on this, you'd be denouncing his opponents on FR as fringers.
Nah, I take the commentary as it comes, whether it comes from name-brand pundits or rank-and-file freepers. You're the one who raised the issue of household names, not I.
There's never any logic to it, just various excuses for ignoring what you don't want to hear.
My logic has been quite consistent. Your side just keeps throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks. And so far, all you've geneated is a big mess on the floor at the base of the wall.
Harry Reid couldn't have said it better.
I asked the question on another thread and received an answer. Do you agree with the answer given by the respondent?
My question is: Who is a better female, outside the judiciary, top of her profession, conservative LAWYER?Respondent: Any woman lawyer, of her age and experience, is more qualified who: (1) attended a top 50 law school, (2) finished at the top of her class at ANY law school, (3) made law review, (4) clerked in a federal appellate court, (5) is a partner in a top 50 law firm, has ever argued a case in the U.S. Supreme Court, OR (6) has published legal writings relating to Constitutional law issues.
And the GOP couldn't even get the votes to invoke the nuclear option from the RINOs. So what you say flies in the face of political reality.
This, right here, is the crux of the issue. I beleive that W knows her philosophy. So, the issue comes down to trust W.
Here's the problems:
1. W could either pick a candidate who is in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, who would have made him look like a fool on Campaign Finance Reform, or he could have picked a candidate that would have been loyal to him, and not make him look like a fool on Campaign Finance Reform. Which do you think he picked? I don't know.
2. What precedent does this set for the future? If HRC becomes the President, what argument will we have if Hillary appoints her personal lawyer to the Supreme Court?
3. What damage is done to the long term health of the country by continuing the trend that only lawyers who have never published anything can make it onto the supreme court?
4. What damage is done to the long term health of the country to not have in Mier's place a beacon of conservative jurisprudence to serve as the role model for the next generation of conservative lawyers?
5. Does Bush know the difference between a judge who is a "reliable vote" i.e. will vote to overturn Roe V. Wade because she is pro-life, and a vote like Scalia's who will overturn Roe v. Wade because it is bad constitutional law?
6. Does Bush really know where she will stand in 20 years? After all, her history of being a Democrat when it was cool, and then becoming a Republican when it was cool, and trying to climb the ABA ladder suggest that perhaps she is a joiner and a follower rather than a leader. If "conservatives" are ever cleared out of Washington, how do we know she won't shift left to fit in?
I would really appreciate your comments, as I admire your thoughts, particularly on legal issues.
How many of those best nominations actually got confirmed? And of the ones who got filibustered to death, how many did he actually go to bat for? How many critical words did he have for the Democrats who did this, compared to the critical words he's had for conservatives who've opposed his nomination of Miers?
If he had nominated Miers to the lower courts and Brown to the supreme, then you could say he's got his priorities straight. But all the best conservatives in the country on the lower courts aren't going to matter all that much if the high court is still the same old place it always was. And the fact that he was willing to expend the bulk of his political capital in a mostly fruitless effort to get conservatives on the lower courts doesn't speak well for his commitment to the high court.
OK, so there is evidence that she will be a judicial activist that shares some of our views. What evidence is there that she will be an originalist on the bench?
They could if he nominated Brown. The Senate had just confirmed her. The Dems themselves, let alone the RINOs, would have looked even more ridiculous than normal if they then turned around and filibustered her.
All but a few. The most conservative, such as JRB, were being blocked by Dem filibusters. And when the GOP almost had deployed the nuclear option, RINOs kept that from happening. The RINOs paved the way for JRB, Owens and others to get a vote - but also left the backdoor open for the Dems to filibuster in extraordinary circumstances - in other words, when the big enchilada was at stake.
And of the ones who got filibustered to death, how many did he actually go to bat for? How many critical words did he have for the Democrats who did this, compared to the critical words he's had for conservatives who've opposed his nomination of Miers?
Bush ripped into the Dem obstructionists time and time again. So I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here, other than revealing that you really haven't followed the issues with judicial nominations during Bush's tenure.
If he had nominated Miers to the lower courts and Brown to the supreme, then you could say he's got his priorities straight. But all the best conservatives in the country on the lower courts aren't going to matter all that much if the high court is still the same old place it always was.
And Bush says he is trying to change SCOTUS. And think Miers will help do just that. Next point.
And the fact that he was willing to expend the bulk of his political capital in a mostly fruitless effort to get conservatives on the lower courts doesn't speak well for his commitment to the high court.
Gawd, you are one big frickin' contradiction now. I can see how you get so easily spun.
"Fulsomely"? Only in his fevered imagination. She mentioned it once very briefly among a whole host of other rights, in an article that dealt with something entirely different altogether. And even then, there was no way of knowing that she wasn't simply referring to Texas's RKBA constitutional provision, which is more explicit than the U.S. Constitution's second amendment.
I haven't contradicted myself in the slightest, except in your imagination.
There are several reports that in comments yesterday, Reid backed far away from Miers..
You have said it all, Congressman Billybob; good job. The hysteria over this nomination is unbelievable. It sounds like "Chicken Little, the sky is falling".
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.