Posted on 10/10/2005 5:29:49 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite
The White House called me about 45 minutes before the president publicly announced his choice of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court. We had heard the week before that Harriet Miers was one of three people under serious consideration. The problem was, no one knew much about her.
We subsequently were told that she attended an evangelical Church in Dallas, which had strong views on social issues. Still, as I told the White House, the nomination comes down to "trust me" from the president.
I explained that I had witnessed five "trust-me" pleas regarding presidential nominees for the Supreme Court and none has worked out right.
Senator Gordon L. Allott, for whom I worked when President Richard M. Nixon nominated Circuit Judge Harry A. Blackmun, had some problems with the Blackmun's record. As a member of the Senate leadership who visited the White House weekly, Senator Allott mentioned his concern to the president.
Nixon told Allott, "Trust me. Harry Blackmun will turn out to be a carbon copy of [Chief Justice] Warren E. Burger." My guess is the president said that because he knew Senator Allott and Chief Justice Burger were good friends. Anyway, the Stevens appointment didn't quite turn out that way.
I also recall President Gerald R. Ford reassuring Senator James A. McClure that Judge John Paul Stevens was a good Republican and would vote like a good Republican. Maybe that is Ford's idea of how a good Republican would vote. It certainly is not mine.
And then there was the Kenneth Starr memo asking us to trust the Reagan White House. Sandra Day O'Connor was a conservative Republican, so the memo contended. Jane Hurst, then Free Congress Foundation Chairman, alleged that Starr had misrepresented the truth.
Then there was the White House conference call with Anthony M. Kennedy's priest who assured the Reagan White House that Kennedy's strong Catholic upbringing would cause him to vote right on social issues. The Kennedy appointment hasn't quite worked out that way.
Reagan White House Chief of Staff, former New Hampshire Governor John H. Sununu, and three-term former New Hampshire Governor Meldrim Thompson, arguably the most right-wing politician ever to have served in statewide office in modern times, scolded me for joining with Howard Phillips in opposing the nomination of Judge David H. Souter. Thompson told me he would stake his career on the idea that we would love David H. Souter on the Supreme Court. None turned out to be right. A sixth nominee was a bridge too far.
Representative Tom DeLay (R-TX), fighting for his political life, said while he agrees that "trust me" should not be acceptable in considering a nominee for the High Court, "this president deserves the benefit of the doubt."
It is true; President George W. Bush has nominated some of the finest people ever to serve on the federal judiciary. And Bush says Harriet Miers was responsible for finding many of those judicial nominees. The president says, "She knows what I want in a federal judge."
No doubt. But you don't get promoted in the Bush White House by dissenting from the president. It still doesn't tell us about her positions on issues or about her experience.
Washington Post reporter Dan Balz asked me why the Right was disappointed in the Harriet Miers nomination. In one of 27 interviews I did from 7 a.m. to 8:15 p.m. Eastern in a single day, I told Baltz that expectations were high.
After stealth candidate Judge John G. Roberts, Jr. was appointed chief justice, the conservative movement thought the president would nominate someone from among a number of well-qualified federal appeals court judges. There are women, there are Hispanics, there is a black woman.
Whatever the president was looking for was on the federal bench. There are many well-qualified scholars waiting in the wings as well.
What bothered Conservatives with whom I spoke or corresponded was that Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-NV) had recommended Harriet Miers to the president as a judicial nominee who easily could be confirmed. One prominent Conservative noted, "Harry Reid got his candidate. When do we get ours?"
It doesn't bother me that Reid has recommended Miers. Senator Reid knows Miers and has worked with her but he might not know her judicial philosophy any better than we do.
It also doesn't bother me that in 1988 Miers contributed to the Presidential Campaign of Vice President Albert Gore, Jr. Back then, nearly everyone in Texas was a Democrat. And Al Gore, believe it or not, ran as the more conservative presidential candidate that year, although he had repudiated his pro-life stance, recognizing that to get the Democratic Nomination, pro-life views are out of the question.
Frankly, it bothers me more to learn that as a Dallas City Council member, Miers reversed a high-profile position she had taken after a day of controversial votes and lobbying. Years ago, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said, "Don't just look for Conservatives to put on the High Court. Look for people who are conservative and have fought the wars and have survived." Miers has not.
If the Supreme Court appears to be an ivory tower where a Justice is subjected to no pressure and thus can vote at will, you are mistaken. Supreme Court Justices face almost as much pressure as legislators.
The national media plays an important role in pressuring the Judiciary. What would the editorial board of the New York Times think if a justice voted a different way on cases that were important to many justices? What about Miers? I am afraid she is pretty much on her own, as the president has given her as much support as he can.
Some evangelical leaders favor the Miers candidacy but this is based more upon the fact that Miers is the first evangelical to be nominated to the High Court since 1931 rather than because they know how she would vote.
Miers was raised Roman Catholic and found Christ in the late 1970s, according to one evangelical acquaintance. Since conservative Catholics are part of the Bush coalition, the White House would be ill-advised to discuss her conversion too loudly.
How Meirs does in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings could determine whether she gets confirmed. If she does well, the Senate floor vote could be at least 70-30. If she doesn't and the Democrats decide to oppose her nomination, a single "no" vote cast by a Republican, in effect, could kill the nomination.
Potential no votes on the Senate Judiciary Committee are those of Senators Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Tom Coburn (R-OK). My guess is both senators could end up voting for Miers, but it is not certain.
I promised the White House that if I am satisfied with the hearings I'll support her as well. Unfortunately, not before.
ping
'Trust me' might work for a lower court appointment, but certainly not for SCOTUS.
I hope that I won't become a "Harriet's Harrier" before she gets to speak for herself at her hearings.
The operative statement in the article:
"It is true; President George W. Bush has nominated some of the finest people ever to serve on the federal judiciary. And Bush says Harriet Miers was responsible for finding many of those judicial nominees. The president says, "She knows what I want in a federal judge."
I've got news for good conservatives who are disagreeing with PresBush on this one. Get over it. Bush is not pulling Miers nomination.
---One prominent Conservative noted, "Harry Reid got his candidate. When do we get ours?"---
ouch.
BUMP!
" Bush is not pulling Miers nomination."
Yes, I agree.
Bork says the same thing, he won't withdraw it because "Bush is Arrogant" (in his words). He also calls it "The last straw"
"Bork on CNN: Miers "No Relevant Record" and "Should be Rejected", "I Supported Roberts" (Video)"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1500156/posts
We had a thread here on FR earlier today called GOP rank and file backs Miers. Aside from the poll here on FR, I haven't seen much other data on how conservatives feel. This is one other example I came across. I think question 2 relates to the erosion in Bush's base support as identified by Rasmussen.
Right Wing News emailed more than 200 right-of-center bloggers and asked them to answer 4 questions about the Harriet Miers nomination. Representatives from the following 79 blogs responded...
Aaron's CC, Absinthe & Cookies, Accidental Verbosity, Althouse, AnalPhilosopher, The Anchoress, Ankle Biting Pundits, Annika's Journal, The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler, AtlanticBlog, Balloon Juice, La Shawn Barber, Betsy's Page, Blackfive, BlameBush!, Boi From Troy, Brainster's Blog, Byrd Droppings, Capitalist Lion, Cold Fury, Collected Miscellany, Commonwealth Conservative, Cut On The Bias, Daily Pundit, Daly Thoughts, The Dawn Patrol, dcthornton.blog, Dodgeblogium, Dummocrats, Four Right Wing Wackos, Fraters Libertas, Gateway Pundit, Generation Why?, Guardian Watchblog, Heretical Ideas, Hog Haven, Hyscience, IMAO, Inoperable Terran, Iowa Voice, JackLewis, Knowledge Is Power, Michelle Malkin, Mountaneer Musings, Moxie, Multiple Mentality, No Speed Bumps, The Nose On Your Face, Not A Desperate Housewife, Nykola, Patio Pundit, The Patriette, Shrink Wrapped, Southern Appeal, My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, The Patriot Blog!, Peaktalk, PoliPundit, Pundit Guy, QandO, Reasoned Audacity, Red-State, Riehl World View, Right Side Redux, Right Thinking From The Left Coast, Right Wing News, Sane Nation, Isaac Schrödinger, Sister Toldjah, Six Meat Buffet, Slobokan's Site Of Schtuff, Natalie Solent, Solomonia, Stolen Thunder, Stop The ACLU, Stark Truth, This Blog Is Full Of Crap, Vox Popoli, Winds Of Change
Here are the questions the bloggers were asked and their responses. The percentage & number of bloggers that chose each option follow the question.
1) Do you think George Bush made:
A) A good or excellent decision in selecting Harriet Miers as a nominee for the Supreme Court? (9% --7)
B) A bad or terrible decision in selecting Harriet Miers as a nominee for the Supreme Court? (49% -- 39 responses)
C) A so-so decision? (20% -- 16)
D) I'm not sure yet. (22% -- 17)
2) Has the decision to select Harriet Miers:
A) Made you view George Bush more favorably? (4% -- 3)
B) Made you view George Bush less favorably? (53% -- 42)
C) Neither? (33% -- 26)
D) I'm not sure yet. (10% - 8)
3) Would you prefer that George Bush:
A) Continue to support Harriet Miers? (41% -- 32)
B) Withdraw the nomination of Harriet Miers? (34% -- 27)
C) I'm not sure yet. (25% -- 20)
4) If the Harriet Miers nomination is not withdrawn by President Bush, then at her confirmation hearings, would you prefer that Republican Senators:
A) Vote to confirm Harriet Miers? (33% -- 26)
B) Vote against Harriet Miers? (34% -- 27)
C) I'm not sure yet. (33% -- 26)
I wouldn't call John Roberts, Pricilla Owens, Janice Rogers Brown, Michael McConnell, Edith Brown Clement and Bill Pryor trust me picks.
Some people have a need to piss and moan, no matter what.
Not on the SCOTUS.
In plain language, this is all just Washington Insider Politics among the Players. Nothing will ever change.
Of course-- that's his fault for taking the stands that he did. Better to be "stealth", I guess.
I call it engaging in our first amendment rights. You see, if this was a thread about Bush`s liberal spending habits, his expanding govt or ignoring immigration reform, I'd be highly critical. On this issue and this choice, the President is right. Well, so far he's right.
Of course it is.
Pissing and moaning is covered under the first amendment.
Bork complained that the Reagan administration did not defend him properly. That maybe true, but I think Bork didn't help himself very much either. Bork was and is a great legal mind, but is prone to speak out when he should zip it shut.
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.