Posted on 10/10/2005 10:35:47 PM PDT by 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.
Wow, a real cartoonist! I'm just a young wannabe for now.
Good one. Trusting politicians who have repeatedly taken, shall we say, "less-than-conservative" positions is even more ridiculous.
Nicely written Lancey. I share the reservations of most about this woman, but refuse to participate in this public crucifixion before we know more about her or the chicken little nonsense about the conservative movement on the wane.
I'll bet the farm Toomey wouldn't have won the election even if a majority of people voted for him.
When you will learn little if anything more about her.
anything less is useless mewling.
---
Great points, decal. I'll take a look at your site and try to do something productive instead of being upset.
I guess it's pretty disappointing to know that a noncloseted conservative is not allowed to be on the Supreme Court, but a ACLU head counsel can be on the court 96-3. And even with a sizable Republlican majority in the Senate, the House, and the presidency, Republicans still have to beg for their scraps like Oliver Twist. But even if leftists only have 20% of the country agreeing with them, they operate from a position of power. I guess it is kind of depressing to think, someone who thinks like I do is not allowed to be in this country, but someone who thinks it's very important to defend a bunch of Nazis marching is.
....both of whom voted to confirm John Roberts, who is far more conservative than I have any confidence in W. Harriet Miers ever turning out to be.
Yeah, real good strategerizing, Mr. President.
-Dan
The president's base would have stood by him if he had repeatedly sent up nominations who fit the Scalia/Thomas mold, and would have grown weary of both Democrats and RINOs who opposed them. Eventually, the clamor that is now against the president would have been for the president because he would have been demonstrating his absolute insistence on sending up the best possible candidate, without being weighed down by expediencies.
With all the clamor on the right for the last several years about Democrat obstructionism, and the president's willingness to use it to propel Republican victories in two elections, it is impossible to believe the majority that elected Republicans specifically to seat conservative judges would stand by and allow their stalwart president to be defeated by RINOs and Democrats. It may have caused a lot of battles, but this is a war the president could have won. Instead, we get a candidate whose views will not be known for years. She may be great; the point is, we shouldn't have to be guessing.
He kicked a field goal on a first and goal in the beginning of the third quarter. This is bad politics.
If I don't learn anything that will influence my opinion. In the meantime I'm not going to persecute and degrade Miers like others have. Actions speak louder than words (and tell more about a person).AWB
Thanks for trying to cheer us up! :D
That's me - - the eternal optimist.
(Terrence W. Boyle (Fourth Circuit): Originally nominated 9/4/2001
Janice R. Brown (D.C. Circuit): Originally nominated 7/25/2003
Richard A. Griffin (Sixth Circuit): Originally nominated 6/26/2002
Thomas B. Griffith (D.C. Circuit): Originally nominated 5/10/2004
Brett M. Kavanaugh (D.C. Circuit): Originally nominated 7/25/2003
David W. McKeague (Sixth Circuit): Originally nominated 11/8/2001
William G. Myers (Ninth Circuit): Originally nominated 5/15/2003
Susan B. Neilson (Sixth Circuit): Originally nominated 11/8/2001
Priscilla R. Owen (Fifth Circuit): Originally nominated 9/4/2001
William H. Pryor (Eleventh Circuit): Originally nominated 4/9/2003
Henry W. Saad (Sixth Circuit): Originally nominated 11/8/2001)
Since then, the President has placed one additional name into nomination, on September 29, 2005 (James Hardy Payne to the 10th Circuit in Oklahoma.
As to point 2, there is more secondhand evidence that she's a mediocre lawyer than there is secondhand evidence that she's a good one. Conservative lawyers involved in briefing her for the position as Counsel to the President quickly became disillusioned as to her competence and recommended finding a strong deputy counsel. Chief of Staff Andy Card was of the same opinion and again, secondhand evidence suggests he is the primary force involved in getting her promoted, since he can't fire her because she's protected by the President and First Lady. By promoting her, he gets to try and hire someone competent to replace her. (Admittedly, this is secondhand evidence and could be completely wrong....but it's also only second and third hand evidence that we've been given in support of her...and a significant proportion of that comes from someone who turns out to be her lover.)
As to point 3, I can very easily imagine just what you propose. That is why actually having a judicial philosophy is so important since it grounds the way in which you interpret the Constitution. The way you've portrayed Harriet Miers (and the way she's been portrayed in all of the 2nd and 3rd person accounts we've all read) she supposedly adores the President. It also means she's malleable. She is influenced by the people with whom she associates. We don't need another follower on the Court. The President will be gone from Washington in 3 years. After that, his influence on her will be minimal. Who fills that void? Given the culture in Washington, it's nearly a given she will drift quickly to the left. It's almost exactly what happened with Sandra Day O'Connor. She was reasonably conservative....until Reagan left office.....then she began her drift to lala land, picking and choosing which parts of the Constitution she likes and those that she doesn't (which again, is what happens when your interpretation of the Constitution isn't grounded in a firm philosophy).
Most people have not been degrading Miss Miers. Most of us argue there are candidates with far better experience and cite her lack of conservaitve credentials. John Fund's latest article is particularly revealing with information unlikely to be discussed during the hearing.
So you want him to appoint justices that have been on the supreme court at least 14 years and have proven themselves conservatives?
Because, you know, that is kind of impossible.
I would rather see a Dem than Spector.
At least Senator Kyle would have become the Judiciary Chairman.
The reality is that Aunt Harriet needs 51 votes in the Senate -- if she can't be forced to withdraw first -- before this thing is "done", and it's nowhere near certain she's going to get them. Many of us are going to do everything we can to defeat W. Harriet Miers, an unqualified nominee to the Supreme Court, and in so doing, to defeat George W. Bush. That's how we're going to deal with it.
-Dan
At the time, many observers thought little of Clarence Thomas' qualifications for SCOTUS -- even many conservatives.
Now, he is a justice we all wish to emulate.
I am not worried about the conservative successes. I know we got them under our belt.
Always worried about repeating failures like O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter.
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.