Posted on 10/12/2005 10:22:22 AM PDT by quidnunc
-snip-
Today, instead of my usual two cents' worth, the reader gets two single-penny columns. I wanted to subtract from what I said last week, on President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In the week since, much dust has settled, and it has become clear that Ms Miers is acceptable to the broad rightwing Republican constituency, and to not a few Democrats. She is despised, chiefly, by the rightwing intellectuals (people like me), who were heartbroken that Mr Bush would pass over the long list of brilliant, strict-constructionist legal scholars that have arisen in response to the challenge presented by two generations of often deconstructionist rulings by the same Supreme Court. Especially, that he should do so to appoint some woman who was his own personal lawyer, and who looks at first glance as if she could be — on the grand constitutional issues, outside her own territory of corporate law — a ditz.
(A strict "constructionist" is an interpreter who reads the U.S. Constitution as if it were written in plain English, which it was. A "deconstructionist" is my cute attempt to label judges who prefer to rewrite the Constitution as they go along — in the American case, mostly by riffing on the 14th Amendment.)
While I'm not sure we rightwing elitists were wrong, I hope we were, and without speaking for anyone else, I'm beginning to think I was wrong. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. If Ms Miers clears the U.S. Senate, we will see what sort of judge she'll be.
But for now, President Bush's apparently weak argument, "Trust me," is beginning to look much sounder. Perhaps the great Texas jurisprude, Lino Graglia, put this best, in an interview with Hugh Hewitt. To paraphrase: the Supremes are in the habit of arrogating to themselves decisions that should really be made by the people (on everything from abortion, pornography, and school prayer, to all-male military academies in the State of Virginia). Power naturally flows to their heads. Yet the Constitution had nothing to say about such things, and explicitly left what it had nothing to say about, to the people. It is this trust in the people that has made America the beacon she is.
And Harriet Miers may be exactly the sort of real-world type who can understand that. And George Bush, from knowing her well over a long time, is in a good position to know she knows. She doesn't need bells, whistles, and law degrees from Harvard and Yale. It might even be helpful not to have them.
It was a quiet Monday morning. The new chief justice was to begin his era at 10 o'clock with a docket that included the Oregon assisted suicide law. Having had Roberts approved with relative ease, the president proceeded to use his second draft choice on a highly successful corporate lawyer who would bring a wealth of experience from the private sector.
Just the sort of government appointment that Ronald Reagan would make. Within an hour, the Right Blogosphere began weighing in.
1. Michelle Malkin (90,511 visits/day): "What Julie Myers is to the Department of Homeland Security, Harriet Miers is to the Supreme Court."
2. John Hinderaker at Power Line (78,960 visits/day): "A disappointment."
3. David Frum at NRO: "The Miers nomination, though, is an unforced error."
4. Glenn Reynolds (141,974 visits/day): "Perhaps they'll change my mind, but so far I'm underwhelmed."
5. PoliPundit (25,656 visits/day): "I’m not thrilled with this pick, but can live with it."
And on and on. The big boys (and girls) decided it was spinach and they did not like it. Soon, the baby ducks fell into line.
Well, OK, everyone is entitled to their opinions. I'm just not really sure if an opinion formed instantly is worth a rat's ass.
So much for the 11th Commandment.
I did some digging, as did others. Beldar (a lawyer) actually unearthed the archaeological evidence of her legal work and explained what a managing partner does. She should fly through confirmation. But looking this stuff up had to wait for the weekend.
Which raises the question: What sort of people have time to blog on a Monday morning at 9? Retirees, free-lance writers and tenured professors. Once their minds were made up — instantly — no argument could change their opinion.
Dr Sanity lives up to her name: "A little while ago, I suggested that conservatives who opposed the nomination of Harriet Miers should calm down and let events develop. If they didn't like her, they could vote against her. Instead, the hysteria has continued. It has continued to the point that people I once thought were truly reasonable have completely gone off the deep end and are ready and willing to sacrifice everything for the sake of ideological purity."
The instant group think was just like the very MSM that they said they were going to save us from. A few people's heads have gotten real big.
-snip-
They jumped the shark on this one by being so instant, so sure and so intolerant. Saying Laura Bush played the sexism card is inaccurate and unnecessary.
-snip-
Alamo Nation said: "I have disagreed at different times to one degree or another with other conservatives, elite punditocracy or otherwise. But I have never before felt the disconnect that I've felt over the last ten days with these people. Now don't get me wrong — it's not like I am leaving the party. I don't want anyone thinking that. But suddenly I do find myself longing for fresh faces on the conservative scene and not the same old tired, elite punditocracy we've listened to for years."
-snip-
Some bloggers have given up. The Fat Guy said: "Gawd. I think the Harriett Miers nomination is the perfect storm that has sunk the blogosphere for me. First, you have all the instant experts spouting nonsense they picked up Lord knows where about qualifications for what makes a good Supreme Court justice. Then you mix in the gasbag pundits who got a job in the Olde Media early and spew for a living who get quoted by the interweb blowhards. Add in a bunch of lawyers and law professors typing into the internet in an effort to impress other lawyers and law professors with their brilliance. Flavor with party hacks who feel “cheated” somehow because their boy/girl, on whom they’d pinned their self-esteem and personal well-being, didn’t get the job (most of these can’t spell or punctuate to save their fookin’ life.) What an obnoxious bunch of blowhards. If I walked into a room full of them, I’d run screaming through the closest wall to get away."
-snip-
Stop the ACLU: "Apparently it isn’t enough for the “Coalition of the Illin” to bash GWB. It looks like they’ve decided to move on to Mrs. Bush now. Sinking to talking about her horse jokes? Michelle Malkin says that Mrs. Bush used the sexism card. What actually happened was Matt Lauer asked her if she thought sexism was part of the reason why some people were opposing her. All Mrs. Bush said was, “It’s possible.” C’mon folks! I respect Michelle Malkin ALOT, but I have to say she’s stretching it on this one. Isn’t this starting to get out of hand?"
-snip-
(Don Surber in Don Surber’s blog, October 12, 2005)
To Read This Article Click Here
That's a scurrilous charge, and what's ironic about it is that this kind of opprobrium should be saved for those who would demonize conservative allies simply for disagreeing.
With that title, the author becomes exactly what he sets out to criticize. My God, the irony!
David Warren very neatly sums up how I see this nomination. I was quite upset at first (I wanted JRB) but I now feel that Bush made a very clever decision and I don't expect to have to regret it.
its like rain on your wedding day.....
God, i am so tired of all this.
That scurrilous charge is courtesy of quidnunc, not the author. But it is typical of the discourse of the nomination's supporters.
Yes. Now conservatives who still have questions about Miers are being lumped in with terrorists. I didn't think it could get much worse.
Excellent. Wahabbi was over the edge, but otherwise excellent.
LOL
I would be surprised if any of the best-qualified conservative judges would allow themselves to be nominated under the present circumstances.
Are you trying to be funny? Simply disagreeing? Try, "Bush is an idiot", "Bush has abandoned his conservative base", "This nominee is a disaster", "Bush is a disgrace", "Miers isn't qualified to be a dog catcher", "We've been betrayed!!!", "Bush should resign!"
.....and the list goes on. If there had actually been some coherent and constructive disagreement, perhaps the author of this piece wouldn't have such an excellent point.
They're doing much, much more than just disagreeing. Calling Miers a "paper stapler," and a "cleaning lady," both said by loudmouths whom many around here respect, has set the stage for the general condescension that has been shown to Miers and to Bush ("they're both too damn dumb to know what they've done.")
I know the 'aginners don't like it, but they are doing they're damndest to make the "elitist" charge stick.
"they're" = "their."
Exactly: this is my great fear. Not that Meirs will not give us a conservative vote on SCOTUS, but that Pub-Rightists will be so divided that Hillary and her clients will win in 2006-0. Without the Right, the Pubs cannot stop her. That is the real problem.
Shall I dig up the "discourse" of some of the 'aginners?
Red-faced rage often interferes with rational thinking. The writings of the Conservative pundits' have been below par as they sought to outdo each other in bashing Bush and Miers..
Truly this was
They are correct to be concerned, their "victory" is elusive. For some reason, they came to the conclusion that Corporate America has their values at heart, and would be partners in their moral crusade. The religious right put their political capital behind tax cuts, corporate rights, erosion of workers's protections, halting minimum wage increases, etc., and thought that, in return, "big money" would help them ban abortions and gay marriage. "Big money" could NOT care less about these issues, and in many instances (e.g., Disney), openly support gay partnerships.
This is behind the concern over Ms. Miers. Her background is in corporate law, nothing wrong with that. She has also been a Bush loyalist, nothing wrong with that either. But those who have fought the culture wars for decades, aren't hearing what they need to hear from her - and are beginning to feel understandably duped.
This is an out-and-out lie. That is NOT all Laura Bush said about the sexism issue.
She also said: "I know Harriet well, I know how accomplished she is, I know how many times she's broken the glass ceiling herself. She is a role model for young women around our country" and "I think people are not looking at her accomplishments and not realising that she was the first elected woman to be the head of the Texas Bar Association, for instance, and all the other things. She was the first woman managing partner of a major law firm"... as though these are somehow relevant qualities for a SCOTUS 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.