Posted on 10/06/2005 9:46:30 PM PDT by nickcarraway
The problem is not that Harriet Miers stands outside the elite legal establishment but that she is very much part of it. The Bush administration, searching here and there for a marketing point to quiet skeptical conservatives, has been touting her simple, populist virtues. But her substantial involvement in the American Bar Association suggests she's spent far more time in the company of judicial activists than in the company of unfashionable originalists whose understanding of the Constitution corresponds to the common sense of ordinary Americans.
Would that Miers did lack credentials. Unfortunately, she possesses the very conformist credentials the legal elite responsible for decades of destructive jurisprudence find most reassuring. There is very little evidence yet -- apart from her procedural opposition to the ABA's abortion stance -- of a nonconformist streak in her. To overturn the unconstitutional growths metastatizing under stare decisis requires Scalia-like nonconformity. Is Miers capable of bucking the ABA culture that contributed to forming her?
Yes, she opposed the ABA's abortion plank. But what about all the ABA stances she didn't oppose, and in some cases facilitated? Were Antonin Scalia head of the ABA's rules and calendar committee in 1998 like Miers, would he have submitted for discussion on behalf of his colleagues motions endorsing homosexual adoption and the formation of an International Criminal Court? The White House has said that this doesn't prove agreement with her colleagues. Okay, but it does prove cooperation with them. And is working-well-with-peers a quality desirable in a potential justice with whom 4 to 5 of her peers are sure to behave like judicial activists?
That she was "just going along with what others wanted," both on this matter and possibly in her donations to Democrats like Al Gore and Lloyd Bentsen, undermines the White House's confident prediction that she will show impervious, changeless leadership on the court for decades to come.
Her resume suggests that she has spent far more time preoccupied with, and engaged by, process/consensus than principle. That aptitude no doubt made her an effective managing partner in Dallas. But how will that translate into courageous dissents? Much of President Bush's praise of her is beside-the-point, because it doesn't bear on the two qualities essential in a strict constructionist: a deep and lucid understanding of the Constitution and the resolute character to apply that knowledge in the face of withering scorn from the legal establishment.
Bush didn't need to find an intellectual as defined by the Harvard law faculty. But he did need to find someone like Scalia who embodies the best of populism and intellectual life -- that is, an intellectual who hasn't lost his intellect, or the will to use that intellect in defense of truths contained in the Constitution that the elite are determined to erase.
Bush found the advice of Democratic senators that he look outside the "judicial monastery" very persuasive. Why? The advice just reveals the nakedly political mindset of the Democrats: that they are looking not for judges with monkish independence but pols susceptible to fads and currents. The superficial, PC decision-making surrounding Miers's selection -- Laura Bush wanted a woman on the court, Bush was impressed by Miers's status as a female "pioneer" in his home state and so forth -- just adds to the impression that this choice will not dislodge Sandra Day O'Connor's influence on the court but reinforce it.
The Chronicle of Higher Education reported on Thursday that Miers "has played a key role in exposing college students to some unmistakably liberal ideas." She helped start in the late 1990s at Southern Methodist University's law school "an endowed lecture series in women's studies named for Louise B. Raggio," a Texas lawyer who advanced women's interests in divorce and property cases. Gloria Steinem offered the series' inaugural address. She was followed by a Who's Who of feminists, from Susan Faludi to Patricia Schroeder to Ann Richards to Gwen Ifill.
No, Miers isn't an outsider scorned by the elite, as the White House conveniently argues; she is a member of the elite. If she hews to a brave, nonconformist path on the court -- upholding a constitution written by dead white males -- her friends at the ABA and in SMU's women's studies program will surely be surprised.
"No, Miers isn't an outsider scorned by the elite, as the White House conveniently argues; she is a member of the elite."
I couldn't have said it better myself. I want Ed Gillespie to apologize to the entire conservative movement for his accusations, while kissing our shoes individually.
George Neumayr Ping
That will be news to Mr. Will and Miss Coulter, to name at least two.
How many "first woman to" accomplishments does she have by her name and yet he claims she doesn't have a nonconformist streak in her? She grew up in the United States and overturned decades of cultural dictates in her professional career and he wonders if she is up to bucking the ABA culture?
I don't much about Miers but this author can't even establish a good premise to make his case.
Sounds like maybe the rats played Bush like a fiddle. No wonder they're so happy.
Scroll down and read the whole column. I found it disturbing.
Here is what the guy who was hired to write the President's 2001 Christmas message said:
"I worked with Miers at the White House. Though my interaction with her was limited, since I was merely a Presidential Writer and she was the Staff Secretary, I had a unique experience with her. In 2001, I was given the task of writing the President’s Christmas message to the nation. After researching Reagan, Bush, and Clinton’s previous Christmas messages, I wrote something that was well within the bounds of what had been previously written (and in case you are wondering, Clinton’s messages were far more evangelical than the elder Bush’s).
"The director of correspondence and the deputy of correspondence edited and approved the message and it was sent to the Staff Secretary’s office for the final vetting. Miers emailed me and told me that the message might offend people of other faiths, i.e., that the message was too Christian. She wanted me to change it. I refused to change the message (In my poor benighted reasoning, I actually think that Christmas is an overtly Christian holiday that celebrates the birth of Christ and the beginning of the redemption of man.).
"The director and deputy of correspondence supported me. I even emailed Ken Mehlman (then the Political Director at the White House, now the Republican National Committee Chairman), to see what he thought about the message. He was not offended by it in the least. Miers insisted that I change the tone of the message. I again refused, and after several weeks, the assignment was taken out of my hands. I was later encouraged to apologize to Miers. I did not apologize."
Let's not leave out that Miers fully supported lowering physical standards for female firefighters so affirmative action quotas could be met while on the Dallas City Council.
Gay adoption, an international criminal court and quotas...Sounds more like Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg than Sandra Day O'Connor.
For her not to have a public record of strong positions on legal issues of our time, Harriet Meiers must have been a fence-straddler her entire professional life.
More character assassination. Funny how they tried out all this against Roberts too. Sorry this is rumor and hearsay, NOT facts. She is guilty because she associated with..... Sorry doesn't fly. It's a logically indefensible position. Just more flailing around for an excuse to be mad at Bush for picking Miers instead of one of the Conservative Establishment's picks. This is the Hysteric Leftist style argument, "She is guilty cause we want her to be guilty so we will make a bunch of innuendo about her" this is not an argument that will sell to Conservatives. Where are the facts?
Isn't Thomas the example he should have used for someone willing to go against stare decisis?
Good point. Thomas has the least compunction about that sort of thing. In his mind: right is right; wrong is wrong. How terrible.
Good article. Thanks for posting it.
Interesting.
This would seem to indicate Miers has a propensity for caving in to PC. Of course, one anecdote does not a trend make. This bears watching. Thanks for the information.
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.