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
Thanks, John....I have been anxiously waiting to hear from you....I value your insights.
I love it when people trot out the "what are they, chopped liver?" line -- it is truly a classic line and never ages. And, I agree with your point, too!
Thank you very much for your thoughtful analysis as well as a really good turn of a phrase.
"Pigpen Press" indeed!
Now, between your publication of this outstanding quotation and Congressman BillyBob's contribution to the debate, we're beginning to see some real common sense surfacing in this matter.
The President can take heart that not all Americans have their own ax to grind in this matter, as do the "face time" pundits on TV and in the printed press.
Which is dmeonstratably false as our favorite candidates, Rogers, Luttig, Simpson, and Owen all won't to second tier schools.
I agree with the above point, but also with the criticism that these aren't the only members of the "conservative opposition." The likes of Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin and others far more prominent and too numerous to mention (OK, I'm lazy and didn't want to look them up, but you get the idea) have been VERY vocal in opposing her. I think that this is a separate subject that merits its own discussion.
Buchannen I think I know and, quite frankly, if he's against something I'm for it, almost universally. Similarly I think Bill Kristol's complaints can be attributed to personal dislike of the Bush family more than substantive reasoning. The other critics have been labeled as 'elitists,' or even pro-abortion, or simply anti-Bush.
I don't doubt those conclusions, but I can't vouch for them either. I think the entire episode cries out for someone who actually knows what they're talking about to provide a careful analysis of why this is happening within the conservative movement and, as importantly, what impact that will have going forward. We need someone who has impeccable credentials within the community and who has repeatedly exhibited great talent for in depth analysis as well as the ability to convey the results of that analysis.
You wouldn't happen to know someone like that, would you? (hint, hint)
Seriously, this could be a "Goldwater moment," a turning point akin to the rebirth of the conservative movement following the defeat of Goldwater. There is the distinct possibility that this fight, if it happens as drawn up now, will split "our side." Buchannen I can do without. Krauthamer and Coulter I desperately don't want to lose. We need to understand what's happening and find a "win win" solution.
I think I'm beginning to see the reasoning and, frankly, the brilliance of the choice of Miers. She's a real person, not an ivory tower intellectual. Bork is held forth as the gold standard of conservative jurists by those who complain about this nominee, but Miers is pro second amendment and Bork thinks it's an anachronism. I'm a cynical Christian, meaning I don't trust most organized churches of any stripe, but much of the opposition to this nominee seems to come from folks who have expressed disdain for conservative Christians. Is that what's happening? Or is this some Machiavellian plot being orchestrated by George Soros? Frankly I don't know.
I'd like to encourage you, and others with your talent, to dig deeper, to talk to these people, to understand the core objections, and then see if you can find out whether those objections are based on sound reasoning, personal animus or carefully planted disinformation.
We have an on-line community that humbled Dan Rather through a group effort with unprecedented peer review as the core principle. We tore apart not only the memo, but also exposed bogus arguments ON OUR SIDE before they got wide circulation. That combination is needed here. We need to marshal the troops and find out what's really going on, not shoot from the hip (at our own foot).
Nice article, by the way.
I'd have asked the same "Pigpen" questions. Still, well written. I hope you're right, and Ann Coulter is wrong.
Please forgive not making myself clear.
I was not speaking of folks here at FreeRepublic but media pundits like Ann Coulter, George Will, and Patrick J. Buchanon among others.
Assuming one of the liberal justices goes in the next couple of years (in whatever way, and Stevens and Ginsberg are the most likely), that's going to be the tiebreaker vote -- and all hell will break loose.
But the President only goes to war when necessary. Strategery, not battle, is the best way to win.
This nomination reminds me of the most effective strategery for winning a game of "Capture the Flag". When the other side defends their flag by covering all of the obvious best players who attack on the fringes and from behind, you send one lone brave attacker right up the gut and steal the flag. That person is halfway home before they realize the flag is gone.
Miers is running for the SCOTUS seat and Dingy Harry and co. can't catch her.
Meanwhile, the President is building quite a bloc on the Court. Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Miers -- just look at the diversity of experience and areas of the law they have among them.
And when a liberal Justice leaves the Court -- send up Jeff Sessions. They can't filibuster a member of the Senate, particularly one who sits on Judiciary.
I love it when a plan comes together.
That was the main concern for my family in the last election. While I don't agree with everything he has said or done, I do trust him to do what he thinks is right. I am pleased with his last two choices though I have more confidence in Miers than I do in Roberts.
I think your reliance on Reid to remain out of the battle is optimistic. As more revelations become public, Reid and the democrats will bail out, followed by the RINO's. With a shakey base, I don't expect we'll ever see a floor vote.
That goes without saying. Bush is all you need for that.
[This is most definitely not confined to the "fringe".]
Yes, it is.
And here's where you attempt to see validation of your own feelings on the matter. Too bad it's a wildly inaccurate statement.
"So if you want someone that doesn't present a target to the Dems for a filibuster, but want a literalist conservative who you can trust not to change their views, doesn't it make sense to pick someone you know well and trust? "
When GW was asked how Ms Miers stood on abortion, he said he didn't know, that they had never discussed it. How well does he really know her?
I tried to trust him and that just hasn't worked out too well. We have the ongoing illegal aliens running rampant, the miserable failure to protect our borders(while he refered to our wonderful minutemen as vigilantes), the tragedy of the Terri Shiavo fiasco and many other diappointments too numerous to mention here.
I worked hard and spent much money to try and get him re-elected, so I cannot be considered a Bush hater...just a disappointed conservative. I expect him to nominate a consevative with a track record, the best of the best, then use the majority in the Senate to cram the nominee right down the dem's throat! Everytime the Republicans get a majority in the Senate, they blow it.
No, I have a brain I use all by myself.
You should try it.
Don't you know a poker face when you see one?
Mier's pastor wouldn't even give a direct answer to that one.
They don't want to give the Dems the hammer to hit her with.
Did you miss my point?
I'm not even considering justifying myself to you in any way shape or form.
same answer to Rodney King at post 60?
1/2 of FR; my, you're being generous to yourself, aren't you?
And I've made myself perfectly clear on the media, theirs and ours.
I don't need them to tell me what to think.
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.