Posted on 10/20/2005 10:02:51 AM PDT by Crackingham
It isn't just about abortion. To William Kristol, one of the nation's most influential conservatives, the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court breaks a bedrock campaign promise President Bush made to the Republican right about "the future of American jurisprudence."
If the Senate confirms the White House counsel and longtime Bush adviser to succeed Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Kristol said Wednesday, "Bush would end up not having moved the court to the right at all," despite having appointed both Miers and newly sworn Chief Justice John Roberts.
Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard and a prominent conservative commentator and political analyst, delivered a harsh assessment of Miers, and of her prospects of winning Senate confirmation, during a telephone interview before coming to Seattle for a speaking engagement tonight.
Miers' nomination has stirred outrage on both the right and the left. Conservatives have decried her lack of a record opposing abortion and on other litmus-test issues, and abortion-rights advocates are alarmed about her defenders' suggestions that she is an evangelical Christian who can be trusted to be an opponent of abortion.
"The White House has now gotten itself in the worst of all possible worlds. She's a stealth candidate, but now she's not a stealth candidate, and she's not a distinguished candidate," Kristol said.
"If you're a conservative, the strongest argument for her is, 'Trust Bush; he knows what he's doing.' I don't think that's a strong argument."
Politically opposite critics are united, too, by concern over Miers' lack of credentials for the nation's highest court and what they see as cronyism in the president's choice of a loyal acolyte over more-qualified candidates. Miers has never been a judge nor established a record of her views on constitutional issues.
Not that Miers would dare do so, given the condemnation it would engender from political moderates, but what if she were to publicly condemn Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision legalizing the right to abortion? Would conservatives decide she's OK after all?
"I don't have a problem with a candidate saying that," Kristol said. "I'd prefer that someone with a really long and distinguished record in constitutional law say that and make the case" justifying it from a constitutional standpoint. He suggested Miers would lack the intellectual heft to make a persuasive case before hostile senators.
What conservatives want, and what they feel Bush promised them in 2000 and 2004, Kristol said, was not "just a person who votes right most of the time; it's someone who can influence the future of American jurisprudence" by becoming a dominant and persuasive voice for conservative principles.
If Miers is confirmed, Kristol believes, "she would be a pretty conservative vote for Bush" for the duration of his term, out of loyalty to the president. "And then she'd be like (Anthony) Kennedy or O'Connor," two moderately conservative justices and occasional swing votes on the court. O'Connor has been a key vote for abortion rights.
"You'd end up with only two real conservatives on the court, (Antonin) Scalia and (Clarence) Thomas, and Roberts as chief."
"I hope she withdraws (her nomination), and I remain skeptical that she will be confirmed," Kristol said.
"If it actually got to a vote, I think every Democrat would vote against her as a Bush crony who showed her cards as a strong pro-lifer." And she is "vulnerable from both sides" of the Senate Republican spectrum, with conservatives who are alarmed at her lack of a clearly conservative paper trail, and with moderates who would vote against her for her seemingly anti-abortion views, her mediocre credentials, or both, Kristol said.
"The president has given Republicans a difficult vote and Democrats an easy vote."
Somebody posted some stats yesterday on how often any two justices have agreed with each other. The Thomas-Scalia combination ranked only about 7th with about 70% or so of their decisions matching. I personally think Thomas is the better of the two.
Miers ping #2.
Kristol is not a conservative, and doesn't speak for me on Miers. He is a whiny little wimp who like his candidate McCain takes whatever position will get him into the newspapers.
To say he just says "me too" when Scalia writes an opinion shows your ignorance of Supreme Court jurisprudence. Scalia and Thomas have different views of Constitutional law and disagree on many cases. Scalia is a textualist and Thomas is an originalist. Thomas has written many powerful dissents, such as the U. of Mich case this year.
And, if Scalia is such a domineering voice on the court, how come he hasn't been able to swing O'Connor and Kennedy more his way?
You love to base arguments on speculation, don't you? How do you know that in the cases he votes with Scalia, they wouldn't have voted the other way but for his convincing? You also need to start thinking long term. It isn't all about convincing fellow judges on the SCOTUS. It is also about presenting intellectual arguments to change the course of thought in legal acedemia. Without Scalia or Thomas on the Court, law students (i.e. future judges) would hear the rantings of Ginsberg and Souter with no intelligent counterargument and become Ginsbergs and Souters themselves.
No Supreme Court justice has to recuse themselves on any case. Look at Scalia. The only cases he has recused himself on is one or two that may have mentioned his son.
He didn't recuse himself from the case about Cheney's energy committee, even though liberals (and some conservatives) were saying he should because he goes duck-hunting with Cheney every year.
Recusals are at the discretion of the justice.
Percentage of cases in agreement in the 2004 term:
Souter/Ginsburg - 85%
Rehnquist/O'Connor - 79%
Rehnquist/Kennedy - 77%
Stevens/Souter - 77%
Ginsburg/Breyer - 77%
Thomas/Scalia - 73%
You may not like it, but its a careful and well reasoned remark. You act as though this is the first post I've made on the subject matter. Well, it isn't.
Kristol has been out there opining since he first heard that Bush`s pick was Miers. Along with other so-called conservative pundits, Kristol's endless criticism of both Bush and Miers has reached the point of serving no good purpose. They're now just senseless attacks that only give the Demlibrats ammo to shoot the the Prez and his nominee. In fact, it undermines the process and shows a total lack of resepct for the President's decision. Bush has a good track record of nominating/appointing solid conservatives to the federal courts. At this point, why not give Bush and Miers the benefit of the doubt, and allow Miers her opportunity to speak out in the Senate hearings.
These are strange times when M. Malkin recommends a NYSlimes editorial.
Surely H. Miers didn't really believe that the 14th Amendment requires "proportional representation".
She might make a great justice, but if she says things like that in the hearings Leaky and Co. are going to grab a leg and make a wish.
(I know: 'Don't call me Shirley.')
Now adding Clarence Thomas to the long list of conservatives getting trashed by Bush/Miers supporters. By the time this is all over, it will be Bush/Miers = Good, All Other Conservatives = Bad.
Oh, stop crying! Thomas was viewed as a blank slate who had worked at the EEOC when he was named to the court in 1991. National Review said he "appeared more Souter-like."
But, I'm not one of those who wants a legal colossus on the Supreme Court as long as she votes the right way.
You didn't get my point---I said "judicial ethics," didn't I? It is unethical for a judge to hear and determine a matter on which he/she has rendered advice to one litigant---that's a clear conflict of interest. Maybe Miers won't have the backstop of a rule preventing her from hearing cases on which she has an obvious conflict---and maybe that's one of the reasons Bush picked her---but that sure doesn't prevent the Senators that have to pass on this nomination from finding out how she intends to "exercise her discretion," now does it? And if she doesn't answer---and so far she's not answering---that's another damn good reason to turn down this nominee.
Telling Kristol to STFU is a well-reasoned remark?
It sounds more like an angry, knee-jerk response to a pundit/columnist who is expressing an opinion that you don't like, and therefore, think he should be silenced, with the gratuitious 'he's entitled to his opinion' thrown in to make you look reasonable.
Your tagline about sums it all up. It's sad what this issue has done to us. I thought we were all better than this.
Yeah, well deacon, since you have been here I have noticed that your "right way" takes a lot of opportunistic left turns.
Kristol, the butt boy of John McPain, has been peddling his slander about the President to whomever will listen. He is a pathetic ninny.
Bush would end up not having moved the court to the right at all,"
How does he KNOW this? I understand those who fear this because we don't know enought about her, I agree that we don't know, and I want to know.
But how does he not only KNOW what her philosophy is, but also KNOWS that it isn't to the right of O'Conner?
Yes, I guess he does fit the NE liberal at heart category.
Last night Krauthammer seemed to be backing off and saying that anyone who deosn't think Bush is a conservative is foolish, and that he continues to support the president. Perhaps Krauthammer looked around at the people he is running with and had second thoughts. At least it seemed to me that while he was still critical of the nomination, he wasn't going to jump off the cliff with Kristol and Frumm.
DITTO!!!! AND AMEN!!!!!!!!!
Interesting you should say that about Krauthammer. I posted a message last week criticizing all of these "professional pundits" like George Will and William Kristol for their nonsensical/hypocritical opinions on this issue, and I made sure to include a caveat about Krauthammer. He may be a "professional pundit" by trade, but he does have a medical background and therefore doesn't really belong in the same category as some of those others.
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.