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."
"Puke!"
Yeah, what you said!
Because of the unseemly comments by these people, there is ZERO chance that the nomination will be withdrawn, and therefore I am waiting for the hearings. It is my opinion that the main reason for this nomination is the total lack of backbone shown by the Senate. Given their refusal to make the democrats behave as a minority party, this is probably the best we could hope for. In that spirit, I hope Miers proves to be much better in her testimony than anyone expects. And I still support the President, just like Krauthammer.
That's a revelation that seems to be striking many a political celebrity groupie recently.
Groupie? Name names, buster.
Miers will be forced to defer to her colleagues on the court who actually know the constitution, and there's no telling where she'll end up ideologically once her constitutional apprenticeship is completed some years hence.
Her nomination is a bad joke. She's the very definition of an unqualified mediocrity, chosen, quite aptly, by a mediocre president.
"It isn't just about abortion."
Who said it was? Only the MSM who feels the need to make every Supreme Court story about abortion, as if that's all there is, because they think that's the reason people will be afraid to embrace an originalist judicial philosophy. So keep 'em scared about abortion.
Completely wrong. Thomas was well known for his libertarian leanings before he was appointed as a Federal Judge, let alone when he was headed for the SC.
No nominee has ever completely blind-sided the legal community as much as Harriet Miers. No one ever considered her a serious candidate for ANY POSITION of importance. She is where she is only because she was once Laura Bush's college buddy.
The nomination is a scandal -- corrupt cronyism at its worst.
Oh, you know, those who would engage in superficial political soap opera tripe rather than participate in legitimate and republic preserving political discussion out of sheer terror that their adopted political fantasy heros will suddenly be turned into goats.
Is that why The National Review feared that he was another David Souter?
Obviously you didn't read what I posted. I'm not angry at Kristol and his fellow outraged Republicans. I'm just fed up with their whining. This angry Republican outrage started almost immediately after Bush picked Miers. IIRC, that was Oct 3rd. Instead of measuring their criticism against Bush, some rightwing pundits have instead chosen to condemn the President and Miers before she even has her hearings. I don't call that fair. For someone who wanted Bush to pick Michael Luttig, I'm very disappointed. I'm also disappointed with remarks from Kristol, who I don't especially care for, and Fred Barnes, who I usually do enjoy listening to. If you're looking for me to be politically correct, you're barking up the wrong conservative.
What I hate about this whole thing is that the excessive rhetoric of the pundits has spilled over into FR, and the bottom line is this is not good for anyone except the democrats. <
Couldn't agree more.
Kristol, a legend in his own mind!
You got the rest of that deck of cards with you?
Oh, boy. LOL!!
GOP groupies have a lot of boogeymen but sooner or later they are going to come to the realization that the GOP has been commandeered by socialist political opportunists and is nothing close to conservative.
Their purpose is to confuse, demoralize, and anger the true conservatives.
Hey, wake up! That is exactly what the national GOP is doing.
:-D
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.