The Case for Miers (when things look blurry)

President Aristotle blog | 10/6/2005 | Grenfell Hunt

[KMAJ2]

I came across this blog op ed, and it is a well reasoned piece. This is for those with an open mind, the closed minded will not be swayed by anything. Though still waiting to see how she handles herself in the confirmation hearings, I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt. I do hope she has a thick skin, the attacks of some on the far right have been abhorrent, taking up the tactics of the fringe left to smear her because she is not who they wanted. Would such embittered vitriol targeted at her by some conservatives determined to eat their own make her rethink her positions ? I hope not, but they will have themselves to thank if she does. Meanwhile, the democrats sit back and laugh as they let the conservatives do their work for them, divide and conquer. This is a case of political stupidity due to ideological entrenchment, the old "if I can't have my way, I will take my bat and ball and go home." I have to shake my head at the immaturity of these tactics. If she blows up at the hearings, or something monumental is exposed, in the process, then, by all means, she should be defeated. Anything else is simply whining about not getting your way.

[Artemis Webb]

Great Post!
Thank you.

[oblomov]

None of the deleterious outcomes you mention, such as division among conservatives, would have happened had someone more qualified been nominated.

[justche]

You've got to be joking, a fair - well thought out - well documented piece - it'll still get ripped to shreds by a few vocal folks, if it hasn't by the time my post actually shows.

While I disagree with Bush on plenty of things - he is who I voted for President, and I will support him on his nominee.

Thanks for the post.

[oblomov]

The only efforts to define Miers' philosophy have been on the issues of abortion, homosexual rights, and gun control.

What about the all-important issues of economic regulation, property rights, and states rights? I've seen nothing that gives me any comfort.

[saveliberty]

I enjoy reading President Aristotle --

Here are a couple more links that are great reads

http://presidentaristotle.blogspot.com/2005/10/why-right-judges-go-wrong-note-on.html

http://presidentaristotle.blogspot.com/2005/10/barking-dogs-of-texas.html

Also, Hugh Hewitt's interview with renowned law professor Lino Graglia, who co-wrote the Bork book and said that he was surprised by Bork's rejection, given what Bork had just written

http://hughhewitt.com/archives/2005/10/09-week/index.php#a000340


Also an interview with John Fund. He points out that a big issue was bad communication with the WH and bypassing the formal vetting process.

Fund indicates that he does think that she will be confirmed and he also concedes the point that no beltway conservative has ever gone wobbly on SCOTUS

http://www.radioblogger.com/#001056


Of course, Beldar is great. Here are two
http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2005/10/a_westlaw_romp_.html

http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2005/10/miers_versus_ro.html

[DJ MacWoW]

None of the deleterious outcomes you mention, such as division among conservatives, would have happened had someone more qualified been nominated.

Why pit Senate Yorkies against Pitbulls and Rinos? Do you ACTUALLY think they'd win?

[Racehorse]

. . .had someone more qualified been nominated.

By now, everyone understands there is only one qualification:  nomination.

Even the advice and consent of the Senate can be circumvented by a recess appointment.

The rest is a hodge-podge of personal and group preference.

Me?  I'm still hoping the next opening goes to Bork.  That'll get the rebel rousers their fight!

[traderrob6]

I'm a bit concerned about her affirmayive action stance.

[Racehorse]

What about the all-important issues of economic regulation, property rights, and states rights?

Amen.

[oblomov]

I don't know if either of you remember the Clarecne Thomas confirmation hearings. They were enthralling TV viewing. The Democratic Senate did everything they could, stooping to wild personal attacks, but still could not stop him.

Why couldn't GWB have nominated JRB, Emilio GArza, or Priscilla Owen? Each of them would have galvanized conservative support, and would have put Democrats on the defensive. And they nuclear option would be worth it for any of them.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Well with the regulation or banning of abortion there's a hugh and series state right that she's ready to hand back on a platter.

[thoughtomator]

And the "rights" of illegal aliens.

[Bush 100 Percent]

How do you know? The way we are examining these people under the microscope, before they can even talk for themselves ....

I saw people with lots of different views on each of the "favored" nominees. In their backrounds they each were bound not to have ruled, written, etc. 100% the way some conservative group or another thought they should.

[HiTech RedNeck]

And they nuclear option would be worth it for any of them.

Yeh, only to see about 6 or 7 RINOs fall off the vote itself.

[Artemis Webb]

It is interesting that you bring up "affirmative action". Yesterday I saw a Freeper make the comment that Miers had been behind the administrations position on Grutter v. Bollinger which was the famous Michigan case that the administration came down on the wrong side of.

Apparently John Yoo and David Frum have both said she was is pro-affirmative action but have never produced documentation, let alone a specific anecdote to back up that statement.

On the issue of affirmative action I simply don't know. I do know I don't trust Frum's motives. I don't know anything about John Yoo.

I know also that the President has consistently appointed conservatives to the Federal bench and that the person who was his go to for all of those nominations was Harriet Miers.

[Dane]

Pop, pop, goes the heads of the Meirs/Bush haters.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Why couldn't GWB have nominated JRB, Emilio GArza, or Priscilla Owen?

Well Priscilla Owen asked not to be nominated and the President is only allowed nominate people who say yes.

[DJ MacWoW]

The Democratic Senate did everything they could, stooping to wild personal attacks, but still could not stop him.

Why couldn't GWB have nominated JRB, Emilio GArza, or Priscilla Owen?

I read Owens and Brown said "no thanks". The NY Slimes was going to investigate the Roberts childrens adoption until FR went into attack mode. What makes you think that the candidates WANT to go through that kind of he!!? If that's the case, the Prez can't tell us they all said "no".

[oblomov]

The concept of chareacter is this: one's actions speak for the person. Having a person "speak for himself" is redundant, and potentially misleading. It is better to examine the nominee by looking at their past decisions, causes, and statements. Whatever is said at the confirmation hearings will be in contemplation of the position, and should be given less weight than past actions.

Would you hire a person whose resume is a mess, but who makes comforting assurances in an interview? I wouldn't.