Posted on 10/25/2005 11:13:38 AM PDT by jdhljc169
Blogging is not like editing a newspaper. There is a big world of important events out there--from the naming of a new Fed chairman to the passage of the Iraqi constitution, the formation of a new German government, and the fingering of the Assad family in the Hariri murder--beside the Miers nomination. But the Supreme Court is important too, a battle that must be won, and this is my place to do my part.
This morning I was on The Laura Ingraham Show to unveil the new advertisements for Americans for Better Justice (betterjustice.com). They can now be seen on the site as well. The petition begun here at NRO has also migrated to betterjustice.com.
Two further points: Hugh Hewitt is back from vacation--welcome back Hugh!--and has done some important thinking on his days away. I'm glad to see that he has backed away from some of his earlier hints that the Supreme Court does not require a first-class intelligence. "I fully understand the risks of a new SCOTUS justice who reaches the wrong decisions, or even the right decisions by the wrong path expressed in opinions that live on to influence and/or bind future judges." Well said!
Unfortunately in his time away, Hugh has developed new rationalizations that stand up to scrutiny no better than his old ones did.
First there is this: "There are a hundred motives for these attacks, but those from my friends in the conservative movement have been motivated primarily though not exclusively by the concern that Miers will get these crucial issues wrong, and yet another opportunity to redirect the SCOTUS towards its intended role will be lost. Does anyone among the conservatives really not believe that President Bush has a different concern?" That is phrased with something less than Hugh's usual clarity, but you get the idea. Here's my answer: Yes, I do believe that President Bush had a different concern in choosing Harriet Miers than Hugh would wish.
In a funny way, I think I give the president more credit than Hugh does. Hugh sees Bush as a kind of pragmatic conservative, a leader who comes as close to Reaganism as the circumstances allow. In this telling, Bush is a mere epigone, a president who stands to Reagan as Truman stood to Roosevelt or James Polk to Andrew Jackson. I don't agree with that at all. Bush has been telling conservatives since 1999 that he offers something very different. Reagan was above all a politician of ideas. Bush is above all a party-builder. As president, Reagan's top domestic priority was reducing the size and cost of government. Bush's top domestic priority has been to extend the appeal of the Republican party. I often heard him say so, and his actions support his words.
Everything Bush has done, from his carefully phrased position on life issues to his careless attitude toward spending, has been guided by his vision of a new kind of Republican governing coalition. Bush's Republicanism has de-emphasized economic issues, in large part because he is willing to accept the drift of upper-income highly educated white voters toward the new Democratic party of the Clintons.
He has emphasized social issues like stem-cell research with an eye to increasing his support among believing Catholics. (Bush and Rove were always mesmerized by the historic voting gap between Protestants who attend church at least once weekly, a group that has been solidly Republican since the 1950s, and Catholics who attend at least once a week, a group that gave a majority of its votes to Republicans only once before 2000, in 1984.)
He has worked hard to try to increase Republican support among Hispanics by favoring open immigration, by promoting new social programs like prescription drugs, and with high-profile appointments.
He has done all this because he sensed that the old conservative movement drew its support from slow-growing or declining segments of the electorate. They cannot quite be written off. But after paying them the Roberts nomination, it was natural that Bush would feel he had done enough for conservatives--and that with this second nomination, he was free to reach out to women voters, to "soft" evangelicals (an important subgroup that attends church regularly but that is not strongly ideological or highly committed to the Republican party). It was natural that he would also feel, as he often does, that having pleased conservatives with Roberts, he was now free to please himself and his wife by promoting a woman he saw as a loyal and under-appreciated family friend.
Hugh's whole position in this debate rests on the assumption that President Bush thought hard and carefully about Miers choice beforehand. This assumption rests on pure faith, and is alas not supported by experience. This president excels at offering bold visions. All too often, however, he has entrusted his vision to less than capable hands. That is how it is that we can have a promise of comprehensive tax reform--and a third-rate Treasury Secretary like John Snow. That is how we can have inspiring speeches about Middle Eastern democracy--and Karen Hughes as undersecretary of state for public diplomacy. That is how we can have a promise to appoint judges in the mold of Scalia and Thomas--and then Harriet Miers as the actual choice.
Which brings us to Hugh's second rationalization. Hugh favorably quotes a blogger who after three weeks of debate has come to the conclusion that Miers is an intellectually and ideologically inadequate choice for the court. He contrasts this hesitant person to the childish and churlish haste of those bloggers whose reaction to the nomination was immediately negative. Perhaps I should not take this personally, but I cannot help feeling he has me in mind here.
It seems to me, though, a little ungenerous to criticize me for having warned conservatives at the very beginning of facts that three weeks later are evident to everyone.
Proponents of the Miers nomination have repeatedly offered this argument: Since Miers is unknown, we should trust the judgment of the president and await Senate hearings. But while Miers has failed to achieve a public reputation, she is not quite an unknown quantity. Many people have worked with her in Washington over the past five years. I've talked to a dozen such people, I am one myself, and the verdict on her is almost unanimous: For all her fine personal qualities, Harriet Miers is not Supreme Court material. Marvin Olasky makes much of the fact that most of these people prefer not to be quoted by name. That is an audacious argument! The White House threatens retaliation against anyone who opposes its nominee--and then Miers supporters wonder why the critics demand anonymity? Still, anyone following this debate should have a pretty clear idea by now that the preponderance of expert conservative legal opinion opposes this choice equally for reasons of ideology and of merit.
Those of us who spoke up early were not trying to deprive anyone of a fair hearing. We weren't trying to harm a president or conservative movement we support. On the contrary, I think we've shown more concern for the conservative movement and also President Bush by our attempt to head this nomination off before it exploded into a national embarrassment. We had the duty to say what we knew--and that knowledge has been confirmed and confirmed again as others learned for themselves what the early warners had said from the start.
This nomination is heading for withdrawal or defeat. And if it does somehow scrape through the Senate, we all know enough by now to predict that it will disappoint and discredit conservatives and this president for years to come. What good does it do to prolong the misery? Even the best presidents make mistakes, as Americans for Better Justice say in their new television ad. Bernie Kerik was a mistake--and President Bush rectified it within 48 hours without inflicting lasting harm on himself. What would have been accomplished by sending Kerik up to the Hill? Why give Democrats an opportunity to question the president's judgment? Why leave Republicans for days and weeks in a position where they must choose between their president and their principles? Faith, hope, and charity are wonderful elements of a religious creed: They are not adequate defenses of a visibly unqualified nominee to the swing seat on the Supreme Court. The only haste that those of us who have opposed this nomination are guilty of is haste to put our knowledge at the service of our party and the public.
And if it does somehow scrape through the Senate, we all know enough by now to predict that it will disappoint and discredit conservatives and this president for years to come.
ping
The Constitution does not explicitly establish any qualifications for Justices of the Supreme Court. In fact it does not even specify citizenship or age as it does for the executive and legislative branches. However, Presidents normally nominate individuals who have prior legal experience. Typically, most nominees have judicial experience, either at the federal or state level. Several nominees have formerly served on federal Courts of Appeals, especially the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which is often considered a stepping stone to the Supreme Court. Another source of Supreme Court nominees is the federal executive branch—in particular, the Department of Justice. Other potential nominees include members of Congress and academics. On the current Supreme Court, seven Justices previously served on federal courts (including three on the D.C. Circuit); two served on state courts; three were former law school professors; and three held full time positions in the federal executive branch.
Good job on the petition and on Laura's program AND on this article.
The best of President's make mistakes and this is a mistake. If something isn't done soon, it's one we may have to live with for the next 15 or 20 years. Anyway you look at her, Miers is a disaster in the making.
"But while Miers has failed to achieve a public reputation, she is not quite an unknown quantity. Many people have worked with her in Washington over the past five years. I've talked to a dozen such people, I am one myself, and the verdict on her is almost unanimous: For all her fine personal qualities, Harriet Miers is not Supreme Court material."
--Frum's Diary, NRO, today
"DARK HORSE ...
"... in the Supreme Court sweepstakes: Keep an eye on Harriet Miers, White House counsel. Miers was the first woman president of the Texas Bar Association, a co-managing partner of a 400-lawyer firm in Texas, a one-time Dallas city councilor, and by the by, the personal lawyer to one George W. Bush. She joined his staff as governor, served as staff secretary (Richard Darman's old job) in the first administration, and now oversees the White House's legal work. She is quiet, discreet, intensely loyal to Bush personally, and - though not ideologically conservative - nonetheless firmly pro-life. Plus she's a woman. Double plus - she'd be a huge surprise, and the president loves springing surprises on Washington and those pundits who think they know it all.
"There are minuses too of course, beginning with that same discretion that recommended Miers as counsel: Supreme Court justices are often expected to have achieved a certain public profile before their appointment, while Miers has gone out of her way to avoid it.
"But if the nomination process bogs down - or if President Bush's first choice of nominee should somehow stall or fail - then Miers might well be his back-up nominee. Scoff if you like. But if it happens, please remember that you read it here first."
--Frum's Diary, NRO, July 4
That sound you hear echoing off the walls of the arena of ideas is the horn blowing as Dave Frum bangs another one in...on his own goal.
Well, at least most people who've been paying attention.
"The Constitution does not explicitly establish any qualifications for Justices of the Supreme Court."
You're trying to sell *that* to the conservative movement? I guess you think those who are a part of it are kind of stupid. They knew crap when they see it, my friend.
Bush is not interested in steering the supreme court away from its quasi-legislative role in the modern era.
He is not a conservative.
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.