Posted on 10/06/2005 2:30:51 PM PDT by freedomdefender
In many ways, the biggest fault line emerging among conservatives is between East Coast elites, on the one hand, and rank-and-file conservatives elsewhere in the country. As soon as the [Miers] nomination was announced, Beltway conservatives began griping that Miers, a former Dallas lawyer and a graduate of Southern Methodist University Law School, lacked the credentials to serve on the Supreme Court. "An inspiring testament to the diversity of the president's cronies," quipped National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru. ...
Away from the Eastern seaboard, however, conservatives were warming to Miers. Irate National Review readers wrote to accuse the magazine of elitism. A conservative Texas lawyer complained that calling Miers's old firm "undistinguished" was "the kind of thing that only an absolute snob--someone who takes the position that no Texas firm could ever be anything but undistinguished--would say." Meanwhile, prominent evangelical leaders were busy singing Miers's praises. James Dobson, the president of the Colorado-based Focus on the Family, gushed that "Harriet Miers appears to be an outstanding nominee for the Supreme Court." Marvin Olasky, the compassionate conservatism guru, noted with satisfaction that Miers had been active in a conservative evangelical church for 25 years, with all that implies about hot-button social issues.
What explains the divide? ...what's important here isn't ideology but sociology --that conservative elites are frequently as credentialist, even snobbish, as the liberal elites they scorn. ...
To be fair, the conservatives who populate National Review's blog retreated from the credentialist critique of Miers once the angry e-mails began pouring in. They emphasized instead that Miers lacked a coherent conservative legal philosophy--that she'd "never written seriously on constitutional issues," as National Review's Jonah Goldberg wrote. But this is really just a politically correct form of the same argument. Pretty much the only places where students are encouraged to develop a coherent "legal philosophy" are the top 20 law schools. These philosophies then get refined in the kind of academic or professional writing that only a tiny fraction of lawyers ever do.
Hinterland conservatives had none of these reservations. An article on Focus on the Family's website talked up Miers's record at the "prestigious Dallas law firm of Locke Purnell Rain Harrell" and quoted the organization's legal analyst, who pronounced himself unconcerned by Miers's lack of judicial experience or fluency with constitutional issues. Contrary to the widely repeated axiom that conservatives wanted Bush to appoint a "strict constructionist," most rank-and-file conservatives don't really care about legal philosophies. They care about their political objectives, such as abortion and gay marriage. ...
So which side will win out? Allow me to answer with a brief digression. A few years ago, I interviewed a top adviser to New York Governor George Pataki. New York conservatives, particularly neoconservatives at think tanks like the Manhattan Institute, were up in arms over the governor's habit of buying off interest groups with generous state contracts. I asked the adviser whether he was worried. Without missing a beat, he told me that no New Yorker had ever rejected a candidate because the "neocons" didn't approve. And he was right: Pataki won an overwhelming majority of Republican votes that fall.
The same can probably be said of legal politics: No voter is ever going to walk into a voting booth wondering whether the president's Supreme Court nominees share her legal philosophy, for the simple reason that most voters don't have a legal philosophy themselves. That may be unsettling to conservative elites. But, then, George W. Bush has never been one to worry about elites of any kind.
And that is what, 10% of the total argument?
So you'll ignore everything else valid that is being asked, because you feel you're tired of a small issue.
Here's one of the main issues:
List the top ten people thought to be on the 'short list' for the nomination.
Then, based on what you know about them (real evidence, not hearsay) list how close they'd be to the mold of scalia and thomas that we were promised in 2000.
Now do the same for Miers. Use real evidence. And "trust us" doesn't count as evidence.
Your likely response for her is that you don't have enough information to do the same for miers.
That is the main objection. There are numerous other picks out there where their philosphy is almost a sure thing bet. And instead of them, we're supposed to accept the crap shoot.
It is staggering how many people waste so many words saying nothing. Outside of elitists like this author, nobody cares what school Miers went to or how "distinguished" her law firm was, or any of that other crap.
I happen to have a gut feeling that Miers will turn out to be an improvement over O'Connor, but I didn't want to have to depend on a "gut feeling" - - I wanted to go to bed knowing FOR SURE. With so many good judges out there who are certifiable warriors of the right, 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??
There is no reason that we needed to have the slightest apprehension about this nomination, but here we are. THAT's what has upset so many conservatives, in my opinion.
Who said I was ignoring everything else??
That is the main objection. There are numerous other picks out there where their philosphy is almost a sure thing bet. And instead of them, we're supposed to accept the crap shoot.
Well ... it seems the difference between you and I .. is that I am will to hearing Meirs out before tossing her under the bus or not
You don't seem to want to hear anything she has to say and would rather just toss off the cliff
LOL! Excellent post!
The left said he was to radical, too religious because he was a catholic and pro choice ... some on the right said he wasn't like Scalia or Thomas adn were ticked off the President didn't pick either of them to be the Chief Justice
And then when the hearings started up .. Roberts blew everyone away
It's only 4 days into the process and a little to early to make a final judgement either way
If Meirs is a dud and not up to par ... it will came out
The criticism is rooted in elitism, envy, and the fact that every single one of these "intellectual heavyweights" criticize this pick as "poor judgement on the President's part", when they have zero clue about her, and those who've known her for decades heap praise on her. If they wouldn't spend so much time hobknobbing with the pinheads in DC at some social function, and actually got out of the cage that they themselves live in and met some folks who know this woman, they might have some clue about her.
Big deal, she deserved every bit of it, just like she did when she said the Inaugural Address was "too preachy".
Agreed!
He brought it on himself because he did not consult with Limbaugh, Kristol, Novak, Ingraham, Coulter, Buchanan and assorted other media pundits?
I hadn't heard that before. If true, it's encouraging. Do you have a source?
No. He brought it upon himself for his decision to pick his private attorney for the highest court in the nation when there's a list of many much more qualified strict constructionists of the Constitution who have a clear record and have made a career in constitutional law -- all to be pushed over the wayside because she's a friend of Bush's.
I voted for Bush and like him, but that was a huge mistake on his part, one which he'll never admit to, I think; therefore, I don't feel sorry for him at all.
Rehnquist was a corporate attorney before he worked for the President who nominated him. He was not then nor was he ever a Judge.
We will have to agree to disagree.
Again, how she will vote in the Supreme Court isn't the issue here. If she votes the right way, fine.
But that does not take away from the fact that other strict constructionists of the Constutition, who are much more qualified, who worked hard in the field of constitutional law, were passed over simply because she's a friend of Bush's. If that isn't a strong example of outright cronyism, "who you know" rather than "who's the best candidate for the job", then I don't know what is.
One of the things conservatives believe, or should believe, is that the best candidate should get the job, period -- without regard to race, religion, gender, or who they know. Republican politicians, such as Bush, have been touting that as the reason to be against quotas, etc. Now, because of this, if Bush ever says that again, it will just be a joke.
Slowly the facts are getting out there. Too bad the over the top rhetoric by Rush, Levin, Kristol, Ingraham, Coulter....got out there first and loudest.
Thanks, I'd seen the endorsement, but didn't know exactly who Leo was.
I'm still unhappy, but this helps.
BTTT
Man, what a line-up.
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.