THE LAST LAUGH (Why Miers will be a very good justice)

Vanity | 11 October 05 | Lancey Howard

[Lancey Howard]

Harriet Miers will be confirmed.

As the reality of the Miers nomination and the near-inevitability of her confirmation sinks in, we are left only to look for positive signs that she will pleasantly surprise us. What else is there to do? I am done complaining. (God knows, I have done my share of complaining.)

That said, I have a working theory that Miers may turn out to be a reliable conservative vote on the Supreme Court.
My reasoning goes like this:

The Three Most Critical Considerations

1. President Bush has consistently nominated top-notch conservatives to various benches. His track record is very strong, and most of us can list the names. Bush knows what kind of bona fides he wants in a judge and he has certainly conveyed those preferences to Harriet Miers who reportedly has had a hand in the vetting process of several of Bush's nominations. Miers was apparently in charge of the vetting process for the last Supreme Court nomination which ultimately went to John Roberts.

The point is, Miers knows exactly what kind of judge George W. Bush wants: "A strict constructionist in the mold of Scalia and Thomas". Miers presumably used that very clear criteria during the vetting processes which she handled.

2. Harriet Miers may be a very good lawyer (in fact, I'm sure she is) but her familiarity with constitutional law is likely very scant, especially compared to the familiarity gained by experienced appeals court judges or top trial lawyers who have argued extensively before appeals courts, state supreme courts and the United States Supreme Court.

As a result, Miers will need (and will hopefully seek without trepidation) guidance during her first year (at least) on the Supreme Court. Who will she most likely look to for clues? I believe Miers will look first to the two justices who her benefactor (President Bush) promised the nation she would emulate - - Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Certainly, smart men like Scalia and Thomas understand the benefit of grooming an ally - - they should only be too happy to lend the rookie their sound advice whenever they can.

3. Harriet Miers and George W. Bush apparently have a close relationship going back at least a decade. The President clearly trusts Miers immensely and Miers' progress from Dallas to the halls of power and unquestioned access to the Oval Office are the result of that trust. And now, George W. Bush has elevated his attorney, his confidant, his friend to the very pinnacle of the field of law - - a lifetime appointment to the United States Supreme Court. Miers has accepted the President's nomination with the clear understanding of what George W. Bush expects of her, and what the President promised the nation.

Now, can anyone imagine that Harriet Miers will take her seat at the bench and then begin siding on rulings with Souter, Breyer, Stevens, and Ginsburg? To do so would be the ultimate betrayal, the ultimate stab in the back to the man who trusted her and gave her a place in history.

It won't happen.

Harriet Miers will be what the President promised she will be.

For the reasons noted above, I believe that Harriet Miers will prove to be a "strict constructionist" who practices "judicial restraint", just like the President promised. She will be a reliable vote, joining with Scalia and Thomas on many, if not most, important rulings. In the end, President George W. Bush will have the last laugh, and a lot of us will be eating crow.
Misunderestimated again.

[patriciaruth]

Reagan also had developed a base through decades of fighting communism and giving speeches and was popular just as a movie star. (I used to love watching him on his TV shows).

George W. Bush was relatively new to us. I didn't become sure about him till AFTER the elections of 2000, despite believing before then that he had the potential to become a great President.

And the country was nowhere near as divided about standing up for American values as it is now.

Reagan signed his share of bills that were compromises with the reality of the Democrats power in Congress and the media.

You hear the report that one of the Justices was asked why he okayed CFR, and he said...it was constitutional, why did you pass such a stupid law?

[patriciaruth]

The trouble with the Dems is that they start so many fights.

They and the media are always playing gotcha.

If we took on every fight they propose we'd be doing nothing but defense.

President Bush believes you can't ask the public to support you in one thing after another in a neverending way, that you wear them out.

He believes you have to pick your fights, and do a lot of groundwork education of the public to why it's important. That means a lot of trips to Podunk to end run the mainsteam media who will never let your message get out unfiltered or at all much of the time.

Then he has to say the same thing over and over and over and over and over till Laura gets glassy eyed and starts clapping like a seal who hasn't slept in several weeks.

But that's the only way to get on local news and get a sound bite out.

It's easy for me to say I wish he'd done this or not done that, but as I say, he has chosen the fights he will take on, and the strategy he will use to win those fights that will produce success without costing him too much capital, capital he needs for other fights he has chosen.

Right now, I feel like I wouldn't wish the Presidency in these divided times on anyone. And I'm sure that some really good people who we could have supported happily have looked at what has been done to George and said, "No, thanks."

[Flux Capacitor]

----Do you think the vote count in New Orleans were correct?----

Certainly not. But in that particular race, I don't think the outcome would have been different even without the usual N.O. fraud. Such was the tragedy of that election.

-Dan