Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Fallacy of the 'Trust Me' Nominee (Weyrich)
Townhall.com ^ | 10-10-2005 | Paul Weyrich

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.


TOPICS: Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: harrietmiers; miers; scotus; weyrich
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-135 next last
To: DEADROCK

Bottomline, it's a done deal.


61 posted on 10/10/2005 6:23:27 PM PDT by Reagan Man (Secure our borders;punish employers who hire illegals;stop all welfare to illegals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend

Sheesh, the sky will not fall if certain elite pundits don't get their fight.




It's not just the pundits that wanted a fight.

A great many of us against this stealth nominee wanted a Janice Rogers Brown. Mike Luttig.

Someone that we could have had a fight over in the Senate. Someone that would have forced the Repub Senate to grow a frigging testicle and stand up and FIGHT. But no, we get a stealth candidate that Harry Reid likes. Pathetic.


62 posted on 10/10/2005 6:24:58 PM PDT by trubluolyguy (Come to the darkside....we have cookies!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: wolf24

I think we could replace Miers name with Bush in most of criticisms and get to the real point of his anger (which has little to do with this nomination).


63 posted on 10/10/2005 6:26:15 PM PDT by Dolphy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Tennessean4Bush

Get over it. It's a done deal.


64 posted on 10/10/2005 6:26:33 PM PDT by Reagan Man (Secure our borders;punish employers who hire illegals;stop all welfare to illegals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
"Ifa, shoulda, coulda, woulda. Get over it. Bush is the President. Its his decision"

With you KoolAid drinkers, the argument always comes down to this doesn't it. Trust Bush, She'll be just fine.

I wish I had your faith and/or the crystal ball you use. If its the latter, I wouldn't be posting here on FR. I'd be playing the market, the ponies, and such. Nothing like a sure thing when you put your money on an old nag.
65 posted on 10/10/2005 6:28:20 PM PDT by Cautor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: trubluolyguy

NEWS FLASH. There are few conservatives in the US Senate.


66 posted on 10/10/2005 6:28:23 PM PDT by Reagan Man (Secure our borders;punish employers who hire illegals;stop all welfare to illegals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man

I wish he was on the court.


67 posted on 10/10/2005 6:28:36 PM PDT by DB (©)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Tennessean4Bush
then the Republicans can kiss the social conservatives and their governing majority goodbye.

Even the ones that don't agree with you?

68 posted on 10/10/2005 6:28:41 PM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
If you have difficulty staying on topic, please don't instigate a convo with me. Greatly appreciated.
69 posted on 10/10/2005 6:28:45 PM PDT by deadrock (Isn't that KoolAid getting stale?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
I wouldn't call John Roberts, Pricilla Owens, Janice Rogers Brown, Michael McConnell, Edith Brown Clement and Bill Pryor trust me picks.

Never were. Fought in the trenches and won some wars. Solid records of achievement. Just because all the past choices were not trust me choices does not automatically mean that Miers is not a trust me choice, particularly since that is all the WH has put forward in her support. George Bush endorses her because, well he appointed her based on a strong endorsement from someone he knows very well (himself).

70 posted on 10/10/2005 6:28:47 PM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
Get over it. It's a done deal.

Right back at you.

71 posted on 10/10/2005 6:32:44 PM PDT by Tennessean4Bush (An optimist believes we live in the best of all possible worlds, a pessimist fears this is true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Cautor; Reagan Man

Cautor-- I wouldnt quite call Reagan Man a kool aid drinker. JMO

we just disagree on this issue.


72 posted on 10/10/2005 6:33:11 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite ( Mike Pence for President!!! http://acuf.org/issues/issue34/050415pol.asp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Cautor
I never said simply trust Bush, but its his pick. Not mine and not yours. Now isn't it. In my mind, the Miers legal record and recent statements are enough to convince me she's qualified and she'll be just fine. Sorry I can't put your mind at ease. Nothing is certain in life. Especailly not a SCOTUS nominee.

>>>>I'd be playing the market...

Did pretty good in my heyday.

73 posted on 10/10/2005 6:34:49 PM PDT by Reagan Man (Secure our borders;punish employers who hire illegals;stop all welfare to illegals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Even the ones that don't agree with you?

If Miers is confirmed and veers to the left after taking the bench, the number of social conservatives that don't agree with me will be statistically insignificant.

74 posted on 10/10/2005 6:34:59 PM PDT by Tennessean4Bush (An optimist believes we live in the best of all possible worlds, a pessimist fears this is true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Stellar Dendrite

I hear that Dobson will be taking to the airwaves Wednesday and Thursday to clarify what information he got from the White House or other sources about U.S. Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers. As we've heard, he's faced a barrage of media attention in recent days because he has tentatively endorsed Miers. This has invited scrutiny from the Senate Judiciary Committee where it is reported that some members were considering calling on Dobson to testify as to the nature of the super-secret information to which he was privy. Last week, Dobson told listeners to radio program: "When you know some of the things I know — that I probably shouldn't know — that take me in this direction, you'll know why I've said with fear and trepidation (that) I believe Harriet Miers will be a good justice."

Dobson now says he spoke to Bush's lead political adviser, Karl Rove, prior to the Miers nomination, although he has not said what they discussed. Yikes! Did Dobson get the word from Rove that he should TRUST BUSH? Inquiring minds want to know. Maybe Dobson will tell us this week.


75 posted on 10/10/2005 6:35:09 PM PDT by Cautor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wolf24
We will never know if we could win the fight or not. The question is do the PUBS deserve to be a majority party?
If so, then lead!

Leadership requires getting your nose bloody every now and then. If Janice Rogers Brown had been put up as the nominee and been backed 100% who can be sure the RINO's wouldn't have fallen into line. Don't they enjoy their perks? If she had been defeated Miers could still have been nominated and Reid would still have been happy.

As it is a nominee who nobody really knows is going to replace O'Connor and the Pubs have conceded authority over SCOTUS nominees to McCain and the RATS.
76 posted on 10/10/2005 6:37:46 PM PDT by wmfights (lead, follow, or get out of the way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Stellar Dendrite

OK, I'll just say he's a true believer.


77 posted on 10/10/2005 6:37:46 PM PDT by Cautor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Cautor

dobson doesnt know the left very well...he should have known not to say something like that.


78 posted on 10/10/2005 6:37:52 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite ( Mike Pence for President!!! http://acuf.org/issues/issue34/050415pol.asp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: DEADROCK

Perception is a personal reality. If you want to discuss the facts of this issue, fine. Otherwise, I'm not into reading your mind.


79 posted on 10/10/2005 6:37:59 PM PDT by Reagan Man (Secure our borders;punish employers who hire illegals;stop all welfare to illegals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man

Miers is a solid pro-life conservative pick




And you base this on.....?


80 posted on 10/10/2005 6:40:20 PM PDT by trubluolyguy (Come to the darkside....we have cookies!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-135 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson