Bush on the Edge ("There is Almost No Enthusiasm for Her [Harriet Miers'] Nomination...")

Washington Times ^ | 10/26/2005 | Tony Blankley

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

< /snip>

Those who claim that it is only Washington eggheads and activists who are disillusioned, misunderstand and underestimate the consequences of such Washington-based problems. The current Washington Republican negativity to Mr. Bush is as a stone thrown into a lake -- it will ripple outward until it causes waves on the distant shores of the heartland.

< / snip>

More importantly, the president is perilously close to duplicating the estrangement his father experienced from his congressional allies when George H.W. Bush raised taxes in 1990. Just a year out from congressional elections, Republican congressmen and senators are in the process of making the practical judgment whether to distance themselves from the president to save their skins. I don't blame them. (After all, it's not as if he is currently championing their principles and policies domestically.)

If they decide in the affirmative, their constituents will hear criticisms rather than support of the president for the next 12 months. The most dangerous time for any politician is not when his opponents say rude things about him, but when his own partymen do. They will start out respectfully disagreeing, but will build to more flagrant rhetoric as their Democratic Party opponents start raising and spending more money and start rising in the polls.

< /snip>

First, withdraw the unfortunate nomination of Harriet Miers. Not only is there almost no enthusiasm for her nomination, I have never seen as much outright hostility and even anger at an appointment from a president's own party. Replace her with a highly qualified, full-blooded, proven conservative nominee. (Any number of his appointments to the courts of appeal will do.)

Then he can have a principled fight between conservatives and liberals...

< /snip>

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

No kidding, W.

The people who worked so hard to put you in office want a fight. We want to drive leftists under their beds with fear, to trounce them soundly in political debate.

We aren't the spineless middlings in both houses that just want to get along with those who hate us.

Pick a judge that has a proved record of being a Constitutionalist and lets throw down when the left fights him or her.

[kjam22]

You missed the point. There is no way to know if a person will vote "with Thomas and Scalia" unless you have a lot of judicial rulings to analyze.

I'm not sure that's really a good way. So a judge rulled one way 5 years ago. So what? He could rule however he wanted next year. You may think you have an idea... but maybe he had a death in the family and it changed his outlook on life. Maybe he gets a drinking problem. Maybe his wife scolds him everyday. Who knows.

Actually, the best way to know how a person will vote 10 years from now is to actually know the person for a long time. Not just read about them.

[You Dirty Rats]

Sununu knew Dave Souter, and recommended him to GHWB. Think on THAT!!

[sinkspur]

But that's all right for you, Bush is worth it, yes?

Bush got more votes in 2004 than any president in the history of America.

I'll stick with him, for now.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

But the keen intellect need not be on Constitutional issues.

Excuse me?

That's precisely what it HAS to be.

The Supreme Court is the final arbiter on what is and isn't Constitutional.

Stating that someone's knowledge of the Constitution-and thus far, Harriet Miers hasn't demonstrated even a rudimentary grasp of the basics of Con law-is not material to this discussion is so bizarre, and counterintuitive that it strains credulity.

That would be the equivalent of saying, "well, we're looking for a custodian, but prior experience in maintenance isn't necessary."

Really, so I guess that an MFA from Julliard is sufficient if you're looking for someone to fix a boiler, hunh?.

Do you realize how inherently ridiculous that statement is?

[You Dirty Rats]

There is no way to know if a person will vote "with Thomas and Scalia" unless you have a lot of judicial rulings to analyze.

Even that won't necessarily help. A Circuit Court judge cannot overrule established SCOTUS precedents.

Once a person is on SCOTUS with a lifetime job and no further promotion ambition, and 1/9th of ultimate power, the thought process can change.

[JeffAtlanta]

I'm not sure that's really a good way. So a judge rulled one way 5 years ago. So what?

That's why you look at a long term track record. If a guy has been basing his rulings on an originalist judicial philosophy for 10 years, then the odds are pretty high that he will continue to do so.

I think you are still stuck on individual rulings like "did she rule against gun control" or something like that. It doesn't matter if the result of the case seemed to be for or against conservatism, it only matters how the person came to the decision.

This is why republicans are baffled when a guy that ruled against abortion 5 years ago and then makes a ruling seemingly favoring it 5 years later. The cases are different. It's entirely possible to give a seemingly pro-abortion ruling if the laws of that state are clearly in favor of it. Parental notification laws are an example of this. A judge has to go by the laws of the state even if they disagree with them personally. To do otherwise would make him a judicial activist.

Republicans just want to look at the results of a few case - "she has ruled for the 2nd amendment several times and against abortion 3 times" - and try to use that as some sort of predictive tool. It's very naive, as the relevant laws must be considered in every case.

[kjam22]

You're operating under the old paradigm. It's a nice thought, but unfortunately... the guys with the most votes on the court get to have their way. That's the reality.

[gogogodzilla]

Look to the future, not the past.

I wonder why Republicans are distancing themselves from Bush, considering the 2006 elections are coming.

According to you he received more votes than any president in history, so why would they do that?

[MarcusTulliusCicero]

In trying to think like a Miers supporter (sort of a contradiction in terms), it has finally occurred to me that this whole nomination is a brilliant piece of strategery requiring literally years of planning. It is January 2002 and President Bush is determined to fulfill his campaign promise to appoint Justices to the Supreme Court in the mold of Thomas and Scalia, but he doesn't think he can get one through the Senate. So, he calls the Vice President and has him ask the CIA to get to the bottom of these rumors that Iraq had attempted to buy uranium from Niger, KNOWING that the Democrat-infiltrated CIA would try to sabotage the intelligence by sending someone sympathetic to their views. Of course, now we know all about how Valerie Plame lobbied to send her husband to investigate these rumors. Then, when Wilson went public, he knew that loyalists in the Administration would want to try to point out Wilson's obvious Democrat sympathies by exposing his wife's status in the CIA and that it was simply a crony appointment (in this case, a BAD thing). He KNEW even at this early date that it would result in the appointment of a special prosecutor, namely Fitzgerald (who is rumored to be somewhat conservative) and that this prosecutor would become the darling of the Democrats and the media establishment.

Then, when the O'Connor seat opened, he appointed a well-qualified, nominally conservative judge named Roberts, knowing he would move him to Chief Justice when Rehnquist died. When, that actually happened he then tapped his dear friend Harriet (in this case, crony appointment equals GOOD thing!), knowing she would provoke his actual conservative base, since her only qualifications appear to be that she writes at an 8th grade level, is a heck of a bowler and likes M&Ms. Oh yeah....and she loves affirmative action, gay rights and one or two other liberal pet causes. He also realized that the special prosecutor would be wrapping up his investigation at this time and that one or two aides might wind up being indicted.

Now we get to the real brilliance of the plan. By this time support for Harriet has dwindled to about 12 people. So, he pulls the nomination and offers it to Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald who, coincidentally lets the grand jury expire and issues no report other than that there was no underlying crime. Fitzgerald will be confirmed since conservatives will be relieved that they actually have a nominee somewhat to the right of Mao Tse-Tung and Democrats won't be able to object since they have been singing his praises for 2 years.

We really should have just trusted the President!

[kjam22]

If you really want to "change" the court... you have to do that with congress. Your Senator needs to become convinced that the court is out of control, and to ammend the constitution in a way that brings it under control.

Until that happens... we need 5 votes there.

[JeffAtlanta]

Even that won't necessarily help. A Circuit Court judge cannot overrule established SCOTUS precedents.

True, but he can ignore them and inject his own beliefs. Those are the ones that should be automatically eliminated from consideration.

If a person has a long term track record (10+ years) of following an originalist philosophy and deferring to supreme court precedents when applicable then the odds are good that he will continue to do so.

What is certain is that once a judicial activist, always a judicial activist. Even one that tends to lean right will not be a reliable vote and will eventually veer to the left as all activists do.

Weed out the judicial activists and any who don't have enough of a track record to make an informed judgment. Sure, this may have eliminated Rhenquist and Thomas, but they were not the only originalist or textualist judges on the planet to choose from. This would have also eliminated Souter, O'Conner, Stephens and Blackmun.

I have strong feelings that Kennedy would have also been eliminated as I doubt his record was really as stellar as we are led to believe. He was probably just a judicial activist that tended to lean to the right at that time.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

No, the Supreme Court it isn't anything like a city council.

I can't speak for yours, but my city council does not operate like the Supreme Court.

First of all, there are over four dozen ELECTED members, not nine who were appointed.

Secondly, they are limited to eight years in office, and have to run for re-election every two years subsequent to their initial election, whereas jurists on the Supreme Court never have to run for election, and are appointed for life.

What this means is that they are permanent fixtures until they either retire-which is unheard of-or more frequently, die.

The New York City Council holds PUBLIC hearings, which anyone from the five boroughs can watch, if they have a cable box.

The Supreme Court bars any cameras-and until recently, any tape recordings-from its chambers.

In other words, my city council-as awful and radical as it is-is at the very least accountable to the liberal schmucks that elected it, unlike the SCOTUS.

[JeffAtlanta]

You're operating under the old paradigm. It's a nice thought, but unfortunately... the guys with the most votes on the court get to have their way. That's the reality.

It's always been that way. It's not like the court just started using a majority voting system last year.

You want a "yes man" because you feel it is expedient. The problem is that "yes men" can't be trusted.

[kjam22]

My city council has 9 members. Well 8 + a mayor. I stipulated that the only real difference is that a SC justice is there for life. But other than that... it's just like my city council. They argue all day about things, but in the end the established "sides" vote in block. And the only way to change that is to get someone elected that will vote with your block.

And that's where we are with this court.

If you really want to "change" the court ideologically..... you need your Senator to sponsor a constiutional ammendment taking it's power back.

Until that happens.... we need 5 votes..... just like my city council needs.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

Or in this case, a "yes" woman.

[kjam22]

The problem is that "yes men" can't be trusted.

And that's the bottom line. Maybe W felt like he could trust Miers more than he could trust the writings of someone he didn't know? (and maybe W is just lying to us)... I don't know. But by all practical appearances, he's nominated a crony who he really believes will vote the way he wants them to. That's pretty much what we need in my mind.

[JeffAtlanta]

I stipulated that the only real difference is that a SC justice is there for life.

That is not a trivial difference at all. If you elect the a bad guy for the city council, it's not the end of the world as he can be voted out next year. You can't do that with supreme court justices.

The lifetime appointment changes everything. That is why you have to nominate someone with a very proven track record.

If you were going to hire a football coach for life, would you go with a person with no head coaching experience or one with a stellar track record as a head coach. Would you hire a man without any coaching experience just because a buddy recommended them and has known them for a long time?

I know you think you are being realistic and we are being idealistic, but it's quite the opposite.

[kjam22]

That is why you have to nominate someone with a very proven track record.

Or a really good family friend that you trust.

[kjam22]

If you were going to hire a football coach for life, would you go with a person with no head coaching experience or one with a stellar track record as a head coach.

:) You're asking the wrong person that. OU hired Bob Stoops with no headcoaching experience.... and that's worked out pretty good :)