:)
Posted on 10/26/2005 1:42:53 AM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
There has been an uproar in Washington, D.C., over the nomination of Harriet Miers by President Bush to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court. Miers faces charges that she is an unknown, with no judicial background and no specific qualifications to serve on the court. There's also a charge that she may be the beneficiary of "cronyism," having served as the president's personal counsel for many years — and these are the charges being made by conservatives and Republicans!
Combine those facts with the observations of some prominent Democratic senators who will also vote on her nomination — Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, that "it could have been a lot worse," and Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California saying, "I don't see anything wrong with the woman" — and clearly you might think Miers was nominated by a liberal Democratic president.
And that sums up the fear of Republicans and conservatives over her nomination. Their argument is that the president had a chance, indeed an obligation, to nominate someone who had a clear and documentable record of being almost "intractably" conservative with a "strict constructionist" intellectual approach to the court. Someone who was in the Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas mold, the sitting justices whom Bush admires the most and said represented the kind of justices he wanted to appoint to the court.
Rush Limbaugh said the "appointment was made from weakness" to avoid a fight the president's allies really wanted to have.
But the argument goes deeper than that. There is a fissure in the Republican Party and within the conservative movement over this nomination, and that fissure now has conservatives charging each other with words like "elitists" and "sexists," characterizations normally reserved for their arch enemies, feminists and the so-called "liberal elite."
The division in the conservative movement is real. Evangelical Christians and conservatives make one fundamental argument. They claim that being a "born-again" Christian, Miers can be counted on to vote the right way on social issues important to the conservative movement. Furthermore, they argue that even without a strong verifiable judicial record, as long as she votes the "right way" on the important issues, she will be fine. And, they further argue that the president's instincts should be trusted on this one.
But the other side, the so called "elitists" in this division, the group that includes George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Pat Buchanan, Brit Hume, etc., are arguing a more-reflective position. They say that it's not enough just to vote the right way and then sit there and send out Valentines and Christmas cards in between votes. They want a conservative intellectual powerhouse like the liberals had with Felix Frankfurter and Louis Brandeis. Someone who will not only vote the right way but also work hard to pro-actively mold the court and shape its agenda to further the intellectual core values of the conservative movement — in other words, an "activist judge" just like the ones they've been complaining about.
And they are concerned that over time, a nominee with no rigidly formed track record might be susceptible to voting more moderately as time goes on — despite assurances from the president that he "knows what's in her heart."
And this time, they may be right. In my study of the history of the court, there has never been a situation where a judge who was considered to be "liberal" was appointed to the court and then, over time, became a conservative.
By contrast, there are countless examples of judges who were considered or assumed to be "conservative" when they were appointed, becoming much more "liberal" over time — most recently, David Souter, an appointee of the first President Bush,who now votes regularly with the liberals; and Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan appointee who now thinks even foreign law can be used as a precedent for U.S. court decisions; and Justice John Paul Stevens, the most liberal member of the court, who was a Republican when appointed.
Let's not forget former Chief Justice Earl Warren, a Republican governor of California, appointed by President Eisenhower, who led the most liberal court we've had in the past 100 years. Only when a conservative justice is rigidly established by his track record, such as Scalia and Thomas are, can conservatives count on no wavering over time.
So, yes, they have reason to worry about Harriet Miers. I have an additional theory to submit, which I call the "process of generational moderation." If you take an 82-year-old staunch conservative like William Rehnquist and a 50-year-old staunch conservative like John Roberts, the 50-year-old will be less conservative than the 82-year-old.
Combine that with an unknown like Miers, and this president may wind up moving the court back toward the center — a net gain for the left. Perhaps President Bush wants a true legacy as a "compassionate conservative."
ping
Reminds me of an interview that I think Brit Hume did with legal expert Stuart Taylor before both Roberts and Miers were nominated. Taylor predicted that Alberto Gonzales would be the first nominee. Taylor said he didn't think Bush considered Gonzales to be all that conservative, but that Bush probably didn't care.
Now after seeing two stealth candidates nominated by the "compassionate" one - including Miers, who is known more for being chummy with Bush than chummy with the Constitution - I have to agree with Taylor.
I can't think of a single legal commentator-with the possible exception of Jonathan Turley-who performed more capably during the OIC investigation of Bill Clinton, specifically, the impeachment proceedings that would ultimately lead to his acquittal in the U.S. Senate.
That is absolute BS and spin by this guy.
This needs repeating...The democrats are well aware of this fact. Lockstep republicans are too blind to even consider it.
Her support of quotas makes here unacceptable. The law should be just, not fair.
BTTT
I really despise these broad-brush statements. I'm an Evangelical Christian conservative (who brings donuts to Sunday School, just like Harriet, is involved in missions, just like Harriet, went to a second-tier Texas university, just like Harriet, aced my LSATs, just like Harriet, and occasionally bowls, just like Harriet), but I believe the President is extremely wrong in this nomination. Oooh, hey, and guess what, so do most of my Evangelical Christian conservative friends! It's not so cut-and-dried as the media would make it appear.
She should never reach the hearings... what a joke.
Also, from the article: "Let's not forget former Chief Justice Earl Warren..."
That reminds me -- did it ever get sorted out exactly whom Miers meant when she cited "Warren" as her favorite SCOTUS justice?
Why?
I hadn't heard that. Did she really say that?
Leahy apparently asked her during their Senate interview whom her favorite justice was. Her answer was "Warren," but it wasn't clear whether she meant Earl Warren or Warren Burger. I think the clarification was that she meant Warren Burger -- but I'm not sure. Neither seems like a particularly good pick, to say the least...
Maybe it was Warren Moon. He would be better than those other two.
Hee! Here's an article with more detail about the incident...evidently the facts are in dispute about whether she first said "warren," or whether she specified
Burger right away. Either way, pretty strange.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/11/AR2005101101804.html
Libs really should not put things into print.It just shows everyone else how dumb they really are. This author's leftward tilt is so strong even the NY Times would think its slanted! Well, everyone except for Dowd and Krugman that is....
I'm not so sure about the above line. It assumes that there's no real, solid definition of conservative.
I don't think that it's possible for Miers to be more liberal than O'Connor.
:)
If you're a social conservative-and agreed with Rehnquist, Thomas and Scalia's reasoning in their scathing dissent to Romer v. Evans-then you won't be pleased with John Roberts, most likely.
How he fairs on natural rights, and economic liberty, is still open to question I suppose.
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.