President ought to take mulligan on Miers pick

Respectfully — and mindful that you have made it a point of personal pride throughout your administration never to admit a personal mistake (I know you said recently that you "take responsibility" for problems encountered during the federal response to Hurricane Katrina, but that's not the same as admitting you made a mistake) — I urge you to pull the nomination of White House counsel Harriet Miers to serve as a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

I accept your characterization of Miers as a smart lady. But come now, Mr. President, can you really continue to claim that of all the nearly 300 million people in this country (including millions of illegals who you refuse to take serious steps to round up and deport), Miers is really the single most qualified to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor?

I listened carefully when you said you had spoken with many U.S. senators, and some, so you claimed, suggested it might be cool (I know you didn't use that word, but it's what you meant) to appoint someone who lacked judicial experience.

This would, I suppose, be sort of like a manager picking someone who had never pitched in the majors to pitch the opening game of the World Series.

As a former owner of a major league franchise, you can relate to that analogy. The problem is, while it might be interesting — even fun — to try a move like that, it virtually guarantees you won't attain your goal, which is winning.

I know there have been lawyers who have served with distinction on the Supreme Court — men like Lewis Powell, Abe Fortas and even the outstanding Louis Brandeis — whose first judicial job was on the U.S. high court. The parallels really don't hold up well, Mr. President, because all of those justices actually had well-known records of serving in professional and academic venues in which they were called on repeatedly to issue opinions on complex matters involving constitutional and judicial issues.

Miers, despite have blazed a pioneering trail as the first woman head of the Texas Bar Association, is not possessed of such a record. Indeed, even though her defenders in your administration have noted that her duties as White House counsel necessarily include dealing with matters involving constitutional issues, you have already made it clear you will refuse to allow public or even Senate access to White House documents relating to her official duties.

Thus, even if there existed a paper trail irrefutably establishing that Miers' legal reasoning were every bit as profound as Justice Brandeis', we'll never know, because you refuse to show us the proof.

Moreover, the issues on which your counsel's constitutional bona fides might be established necessarily would relate to a fairly narrow range of matters, and all would necessarily involve justifications for your exercise of certain powers (torture, suspension of habeas corpus, defense of executive privilege). After all, that's what White House counsels are paid to do — find ways to justify whatever power a president wants to claim.

We know also, Mr. President, that you are possessed of an uncanny ability to look into and know men's souls (and women's, of course). While I am sure your many years of knowing Miers has imparted to you an extremely detailed picture of her soul, frankly, we've heard that refrain before. Need we remind you that you weren't exactly on the money in deciphering Vladimir Putin's heart, or that of your friend south of the border, el Presidente Vicente Fox?

Perhaps most important, Mr. President, the one thing that appears to be at the core of your decision to nominate Miers is the single most critical reason she should not serve in that capacity. You obviously have picked her because she believes the sun rises and sets around you.

While such blind loyalty might constitute an understandable reason why you would want her or someone else to serve as one of your close advisers, it is most decidedly a quality none of us should count among the desirable attributes of any judge, much less a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Please, sir, would you not agree that judges should be critical thinkers; capable of objectively looking at different sides of often-complex issues; and then reaching a correct decision based on a sound and consistent judicial philosophy and temperament? Do these qualities not perfectly describe Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, two current Supreme Court justices you have said you admire? Were these not among your stated reasons for nominating Chief Justice John Roberts to that post?

Please then, Mr. President, pull this nomination and give us a truly qualified nominee. We won't even demand that you admit you made a mistake.

Bob Barr, pimp and whore for the ACLU carries zero weight with most of us.

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011936.php

Who's Cracking Up?

Liberals everywhere are convinced that their hour is at hand. The latest voice of left-wing triumphalism is Newsweek's Howard Fineman, who announced "The Conservative Crack-up" today:

The “movement” – that began 50 years ago with the founding of Bill Buckley’s National Review; that had its coming of age in the Reagan Years; that reached its zenith with Bush’s victory in 2000 — is falling apart at the seams.

Fineman's theory is that one by one, the "constituent parts" of the conservative coalition are "going their own way," which is to say, turning their backs on the Bush administration. He goes down the list; in most cases, however, his analysis is dubious at best:

About religious conservatives, Fineman writes:

The Harriet Miers nomination was the final insult.***[W]hat really frosts the religious types is that Bush evidently feels that he can only satisfy them by stealth — by nominating someone with absolutely no paper trail. It’s an affront. And even though Dr. Dobson is on board — having been cajoled aboard by Rove — I don’t sense that there is much enthusiasm for the enterprise out in Colorado Springs.

I expect that any GOP 2008 hopeful who wants evangelical support — people like Sam Brownback, Rick Santorum and maybe even George Allen — will vote against Miers's confirmation in the Senate.

With all due respect to Mr. Fineman, this is the dumbest bit of political analysis I've seen in a long time. I am not aware of a single religious leader who has in any way objected to the Miers nomination or called it an "affront" to religious people. I know a great many religious conservatives, and not a single one of them adopts this view.

The idea that "religious types"--do you get the feeling that Fineman is writing about a group with whom he has little personal experience?--are "frosted" because Miers is a "stealth" candidate with "absolutely no paper trail" is mystifying. Miers has no paper trail as a judge or legal scholar because she has spent her career as a (circumspect) practicing lawyer, but one area where she is anything but "stealthy" is her religious life, about which a great deal--too much, in my opinion--has been said.

So Fineman's analysis makes no sense, and is supported by no data or even anecdotal observation. Here's a prediction, the exact opposite of Fineman's: not a single Republican Senator--least of all a Senator associated with the religious right--will vote against Miers.

The second group Fineman addresses is "corporate CEOs," who, he says, consider the federal government's response to Hurricane Katrina "a mortal embarrassment to their class." Huh? This rather weird claim is supported by a single CEO whom Fineman met at a "typical CEO haunt." I suspect, however, that a large majority of CEOs understand that the federal role in disaster response is limited. In any event, if Fineman thinks that top corporate executives constitute a major part of the Republican Party, he hasn't been paying attention.

So far, we have two categories of people who supposedly have abandoned the President, with the evidence adduced consisting of exactly one human being. Fineman's next group is "smaller government deficit hawks." Here he is finally on to something, although "spending hawks" would, I think, be more accurate. There are two significant issues on which the Republican base is upset with the administration: illegal immigration and out-of-control domestic spending.

But does Fineman seriously think that small-government types will start turning to the Democrats? I don't. And he may not have noticed that, while the administration is still AWOL, Republicans in Congress seem to have gotten the message from the party's faithful, and serious efforts to cut Katrina spending, and find offsets elsewhere in the budget, are underway.

Next, "isolationists," who Fineman says "are back." Nonsense. Fineman's claim that concern about illegal immigration is the new cause of the "isolationists" is a complete non sequitur which is supported only by Fineman's reference to Pat Buchanan, one of the few actual isolationists who is, or once was, a Republican. Virtually all actual isolationists--bring the troops home from Iraq now, and who cares about the consequences?--are already Democrats.

Next, "neocons," by which Fineman apparently means anyone who supports the war in Iraq. These people, Fineman asserts, "seem to have given up on the ability of the Bush Administration to see that vision through."

Again, this is an assertion with no apparent support, save for a reference to the Weekly Standard. As a contributor to the Standard, I will say that if Fineman actually believes that magazine's writers and editors have abandoned the administration, let alone jumped ship to the Democrats, he is deluded.

And finally: "supply siders," Fineman acknowledges, "have yet to be disappointed" by the administration. However, he predicts that the President will call for a tax increase, thereby making the conservative crack-up "complete." I think the chance of that happening is close to zero, and I think Fineman and many others underestimate the depth of support among Republicans for a President who cuts their taxes.

The question remains, though, what is fueling this liberal triumphalism? The answer, no doubt, is President Bush's falling poll ratings. Another one came out today, showing the President at a record low for his Presidency. It seems that Bush's poll numbers have been in a steady decline almost from the day of his second inauguration. This, fundamentally, is what has the left dancing in the streets.

But are Bush's numbers really that bad? His current Real Clear Politics average stands at 41.7% approval. That is at or about the low point in nearly five years in office. How does it compare to other presidents' lowest poll ratings? Actually, it's not bad. Here are the low approval ratings for the last seven presidents:

*Johnson: 35%
*Nixon: 24%
*Ford: 37%
*Carter: 28%
*Reagan: 35%
*Bush I: 29%
*Clinton: 37%

Yes, that's right: Every president since 1963 has had approval ratings, at one time or another during his administration, at least five points lower than Bush's current nadir.

Objectively, the evidence for a "conservative crack-up" is thin, at best. The reality is that the Republican base is holding remarkably firm, in the face of a media onslaught against the Bush administration that has no parallel in modern history, and following months of little but bad news: gas prices, hurricanes, and casualties in Iraq (the only news most people hear from that part of the world).

Things could change, of course, but my guess is that the next year's news will be better for the administration and for Republicans than the past year's. The price of gas has likely peaked; Iraq will continue to stabilize, and troops will come home; absent more natural disasters, the economy will resume its steady growth; Harriet Miers will be confirmed and start voting with conservative majorities on the Court. Most likely, liberal dreams of the end of the conservative era will have to be deferred again.

Posted by John at 07:41 PM | Permalink

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.