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.
"I wouldn't call John Roberts, Pricilla Owens, Janice Rogers Brown, Michael McConnell, Edith Brown Clement and Bill Pryor trust me picks."
I would say Roberts is a definite trust me. I have no idea whether he would vote to overturn Roe or whether he is really a conservative. I sure hope he is. In any case, all of these have records that can be examined. Miers is a blank piece of paper--that and the fact she's a Bush crony is all that she has going for her as far as I can see.
Please detail when POTUS said ONLY 'trust me' regarding any of those you have mentioned?
:-)
Seriously, thanks for the info!
People who continue to castigate "beltway insiders" or "Northeastern elites" need to wake up and smell the coffee.
- fight a global war against Islamo-facism, and fight it to win it ASAP
- mobilize the country to fight and win this global war against Islamo-facism, militarily, economically, socially
- secure our borders during a time of war, by building a wall/fence and/or using the military if necessary
- enforce immigration laws during a time of economic instability and post 9-11 job losses
- lead the charge for American energy independence from our unfriendly "allies" in the Middle East
- cut Federal spending on items unrelated to winning the war against Islamo-facism
- cut Federal bureaucracy so that we are better prepared to thwart a 9-11 like attack or prepare for it's aftermath
Should we now "trust him" on his nomination of Miers?
There have been cronies, aka.friends/pals, of US presidents throughout our history. Some have been good, some not so good and some pretty bad. Being a crony is not a detrimental factor. Miers has been involved in legal matters for 30 years. She headed the Texas state bar association and was a managing partner in a large Texas law firm. Miers was also legal council to the POTUS. She is pro-life and believes in interpreting the Constitution per the FF`s idea of original intent.
Miers will be solid conservative justice.
Sheesh, the sky will not fall if certain elite pundits don't get their fight.
And every other state where he smeared them.
He didn't have to. Most conservatives knew of these jurists. Miers is not well known. So what. That doesn't change the fact, Bush`s judgement and decision making in his court choices has been above reproach.
"There have been cronies, aka.friends/pals, of US presidents throughout our history. Some have been good, some not so good and some pretty bad. Being a crony is not a detrimental factor. Miers has been involved in legal matters for 30 years. She headed the Texas state bar association and was a managing partner in a large Texas law firm. Miers was also legal council to the POTUS. She is pro-life and believes in interpreting the Constitution per the FF`s idea of original intent."
Thank you for sharing your OPINION of Miers. I don't share it. I have heard the evidence in her favor. Were she not a Bush crony, she would not be the nominee.
Since Lindasy Graham and Arlen Specter support your views, I have to say you have some strange bedfellows.
So it's not about Meiers, it's about your personal grievances and she's the vehicle for your anger.
I would say Roberts is a definite trust me. I have no idea whether he would vote to overturn Roe or whether he is really a conservative.
I agree and have wondered why we do not have a Scalia court. The Miers nomination makes you review the Roberts nomination.
Opinion in context and with substantive content is always a winner. The fact remains, Bush is the President and Miers is an old friend. So what. Better Miers then Alberto Gonzalaz.
The reality is that Harriet Miers is the best candidate that could be confirmed. Evidently, Bush is gambling on quick, painless confirmation for Miers and desperately wants to avoid a filibuster with the Dims since the votes aren't there to end it.
Trust me does not cut it. Not when the SCOTUS is at stake.
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.