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.
"The fact remains, Bush is the President and Miers is an old friend"
Exactly, a crony. Charles Krauthammer put it this way in urging Bush to withdraw her nomination: "There are 1,084,504 lawyers in the United States. What distinguishes Harriet Miers from any of them, other than her connection with the president?"
Guilt by association. LOL
I agree with you, particularly on McCain whose anger and style have left their fingerprints all over the box he worked to put around the President. This much any reasonable reading of recent history tells us...President Bush values his word while McCain values his ego and pursuit of power. I don't think Bush's famed loyalty stops and starts with his inner circle...it extends to those he promised a certain type of judicial nominee. He didn't promise educational credentials, club membership or resume...he promised a philosophy that mirrored his voters common sense and values.
Coulter, Kristol, Bork and the rest may fashion themselves as perfect leaders and intellects but they could not persuade the majority of voters on most any issue. In their rhetoric about Miers we can see why. That they have chosen to become destructive, knowing full well that they have neither the power or the candidate to reunite the divide they seek to create, says a great deal about them. I will not follow.
Whew. Another article about the Miers pick. And just in time.
One prominent Conservative noted, "Harry Reid got his candidate. When do we get ours?"---
No, I was just demonstrating several critical areas where President Bush has squandered the trust of his Conservative base. Rush Limbaugh was echoing a lot of these items on his show today, but I guess he and all the other "used-to-be Conservatives" opposed to Miers are just being shrill and hysterical.
"Whew. Another article about the Miers pick. And just in time."
lol
I appreciate it.
:)
I wouldn't call John Roberts, Pricilla Owens, Janice Rogers Brown, Michael McConnell, Edith Brown Clement and Bill Pryor trust me picks.
So if W didn't call them 'trust me' picks and I didn't call them 'trust me' picks, why did you insinuate that in your first post to me?
Which has a greater bearing on the future of this country? Scotus or a lower court appointment? Which can afford a mere 'trust me' and which can't?
Has this been posted:
Oct. 10 (Bloomberg) — The Dallas law firm headed by U.S. Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers helped accounting firm Ernst & Young LLP sell a sham tax shelter in 1999 by providing letters to shield customers from IRS penalties, a Senate investigation found.
The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations said in February that the firm, Locke, Liddell & Sapp, provided “deficient”‘ opinion letters to support the shelter, which was used to convert highly taxed ordinary income into lower-taxed capital gains. Ernst & Young sold the shelter to more than 132 taxpayers, netting fees of more than $27.8 million, the report said. The Internal Revenue Service banned the transaction in May 2002. […]
Locke, Liddell & Sapp’s endorsement of the tax shelter may complicate Miers’s quest for Senate confirmation to the Supreme Court given that she headed the firm in 1999 and President George W. Bush emphasized that in nominating her. […]
At least one unidentified Ernst & Young client dubbed the transaction a “classic sham tax shelter” and criticized the “weak legal analysis” provided by Locke, Liddell & Sapp, the Senate report said.
Ernst & Young paid a $15 million fine to settle a case with the IRS over its tax shelter promotions in July 2003.
I've got news for arrogant posters flinging petulant catch phrases designed to put people in their places: if Miers by chance is confirmed and lists left like Kennedy or veers left like Souter, Stevens, O'Connor, then the Republicans can kiss the social conservatives and their governing majority goodbye.
Ifa, shoulda, coulda, woulda. Get over it. Bush is the President. Its his decision. Krauthammer is upset that Bush didn't pick him. I woulda liked to see Bush pick Michael Luttig. But I don't get my way. There is only one POTUS and right now Bush is the man. Miers is a solid pro-life conservative pick. She'll be just fine.
"The Rats always nominate the most opinionated, biased judges who will fight for their beliefs they can find and then we are surprised that are meek stealth nominees are turned into liberals on the SCOTUS."
The put up Ruth Bader-Ginsberg a top ACLU mouthpiece. They sure knew where she stood on issues important to the Democrap base. We like to self-flagilate.
i dont think so!
Who is the heck is Bork and why do you keep quoting him. He is absolutely NO ONE. He is a bitter loser. After hearing him recently, I am glad that this moron is not a Supreme Court justice.
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.