Posted on 10/18/2005 7:38:33 PM PDT by jdhljc169
It seems that the pro-Miers forces really are bent on burning down the village in order to save it.
White House and pro-Miers bloggers are trumpeting the revelation that Harriet Miers as a candidate for municipal office in Dallas checked the box on a questionnaire declaring herself in favor of a Human Life Amendment to the US Constitution.
This news is supposed to reassure conservatives. But think for a minute about the wound the pro-Miers forces have just inflicted on conservatism.
John Roberts at his hearing refused to answer questions about his personal views on abortion. He argued - as other Republican judicial nominees have argued before him - that he should be judged on his legal philosophy, not his private religious and moral convictions.
This is the right and wise response from a juridical point of view. It is also by the way very important from a conservative point of view. The fact is that 40 years of liberal legalism have filled the law with liberal decisions that conservative judges may personally disagree with - but that do carry the power of precedent.
Liberals have tried to exploit this advantage to bar conservatives from judgeships as "out of the mainstreaml," as "ideological." And too often it has worked - especially when Democrats hold a majority in the Senate, as they may well do again after 2006.
So for both philosophical reasons and for reasons of self-protection, judicial conservatives have argued that nominees should be judged not on their inward conscience, not on their religion or their personal views of abortion, but on their judicial philosophy and their record. This stance has served both the nation and conservatism well. Now in an effort to salvage the Miers nomination, the White House is jettisoning it.
In its eagerness to regain faltering conservative support for the Miers nomination, the White House has suggested that her religion and her personal views on abortion be treated as relevant information. Indeed, since there is so little else to recommend Miers, the White House is arguing that Miers' religion and personal views on abortion be treated as the most relevant information.
But if this information is relevant for Miers, it is relevant to all judges. Which would mean, if this unwise nomination goes forward, that from now on, every Catholic nominee, every Evangelical nominee can legitimatly be quizzed about their faith and their personal views of morality. And it won't be just abortion that will be fair game. They can in that case be expected to be asked about their view of homosexuality, their attitudes toward prayer, and on and on.
With every passing day, this nomination is laying down precedents that conservatives will regret for the next half century. Conservatives have put themselves on record saying that brains don't matter on the Supreme Court, but religion does; that judges should not be evaluated on the basis of their knowledge of constitutional law, but can be evaluated according to whether their position on abortion accords with that of the current majority in the US Senate.
This is reckless and self-destructive folly. The arguments used today to put Miers on the Court will be gleefully exploited by Democrats tomorrow to keep religious Catholics and Evangelicals off.
In its effort to carry this nomination past an unwilling Senate and an increasingly skeptical country, the Bush White House is surrendering principles conservatives have fought courageously to defend and offering concessions that conservatives will rue for years and decades to come.
It is still not too late to turn to a wiser course. Please join me in urging the president to withdraw the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court by signing the petition here, as 1,000 NRO readers have done each day since October 13.
Ping.
There are some extremely good points here.
Very good read. Thank you.
"In its eagerness to regain faltering conservative support for the Miers nomination, the White House has suggested that her religion and her personal views on abortion be treated as relevant information. Indeed, since there is so little else to recommend Miers, the White House is arguing that Miers' religion and personal views on abortion be treated as the most relevant information."
A most excellent point.
First of all, Frum is entirely wrong. Catholics and Evangelicals are questioned or at least judged by their faith in these hearings. Secondly, Frum's answer is to send up a different kind of stealth candidate who shouldn't be questioned about every hot issue of the day? Why not, why shouldn't these candidates be heard and asked to reconcile their personal and constitutional views? This is what the general public would understand...but Frum advocates the information be guarded and we all accept his, Kristol's, Coulter's, etc, "trust me."
Really Mr. Frum? How about our anti-Miers brethren? OK I think no one is trying to burn down the village and at the end of the day the vast majority of the anti-Miers conservatives brethren will remain very faithful to the Republican party.
It bears repeating. I already signed this petition, and I emailed to all my friends. Miers must be stopped!
No. His answer is to send up a nominee with a track record that demonstrates a solid, originalist judicial philosophy.
Did you even read past the title? The article has nothing to do with the backlash. It talks about the bad precedents that the nomination sets.
The Frum jihad rolls on. But, he seems to be reconciled to the the inevitable, that there will be hearings.
I wonder what she things of state sponsored gambling that hits women and minorities the hardest (don't laugh!)
The WH could just follow the same protocol that it did for the other nominees.
There is a reason the other nominations were stellar, I offer one of the criteria the WH used to vet those candidates. It isn't asking too much to apply similar criteria to her, that she applied to the previous.
"We'd be talking about somebody's background," said Leonard Leo, now on leave as executive vice president of the Federalist Society, the conservative group whose headlined speakers have included Supreme Court justices and Bush administration official."There would be a moment of silence when she was clearly thinking about what was being said and then she would challenge it, asking, 'But what specifically in those opinions strongly suggests that this is someone who ascribes to judicial restraint?'" Leo said.
53 posted on 10/15/2005 6:41:58 PM EDT by AmericaUnited
If this nominee (Ms. Miers) has been vetted to the same degree that supports the excellent track record that President Bush has demonstrated so far, what specifically (that means generalities, like "strict constructionist" with no more, don't count) in Ms. Miers' opinions (they won't be judicial, but that's okay - any writing, transcript of speech, etc. will do) strongly suggest (this admits a slight amount, but not much ambiguity) that she is someone who ascribes to judicial restraint?
Every day it seems, Mr. Frum, we get a new argument from you, or at least, re packaged arguments. You get more frantic as the hearings get closer. Your whole world now revolves around this and, worse, its continued existence rests upon you stopping the evil Miers monster before she even has a chance to speak for herself at the hearings. And now you blame those who want to give her a chance for the disruption of conservatives these past few weeks.
You are quite a spectacle.
He does, indeed, raise some points that haven't been considered up to now. I have the feeling that they thought they could get all the Evangelicals on board the first day, which they pushed very hard to do, and then move away from the religious issues to something else. Where they screwed up is that they thought these people were like pet stooges, who would believe whatever assurances they were given and never ask any questions.
That's the way they played the five people who were coopted to chip in with recommendations when the original announcement was made. But it backfired, so they have had to keep going back and forth trying to reinvent themselves.
Why are you so supportive of this nomination? Would you have advised that she be chosen above all the distinguished judges who have been groomed for the position?
I adamantly oppose short-circuiting the process.
ping
Sinkpur, you keep invoking "hearings".
Face it. There is no good, objective reason why Harriet Miers should be on the Supreme Court ahead of scores of judges vastly more qualified than her. You can come up with no reason why she should have been chosen.
Your "wait for hearings" is another way of saying, "maybe something will turn up". I am not impressed by that level of decision making.
On immigration issues I have not the least confidence in the motives of Jorge Bush. Why should I be so trusting on a matter of such crushing importance as the Supreme Court ?
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.