Posted on 10/06/2005 8:33:48 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob
My favorite supporting character in the legendary strip, “Peanuts,” is Pigpen. His unique trait is raising a cloud of dirt everywhere, even on a clean, dry sidewalk. Pigpen came to mind when I saw the White House Press Corps’ question President Bush Wednesday on his nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.
First, the status of the nomination. Monday afternoon, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid held a nearly unprecedented press conference with Harriet Miers, just hours after her nomination. Reid said that she was an “exceptional” candidate, and “the sort of person who should be nominated.” In short, the leader of the opposition all but endorsed the nominee.
What’s the consequence of that? Slam dunk. A home run in the bottom of the ninth. Game, set and match.
When the general of the other side stands down, the battle is over. To be sure, leading Senators is like herding cats. Seldom will members of either caucus follow their leaders unanimously. Continued opposition is to be expected from Senators Kennedy, Schumer and Durbin.
But with Senator Reid withdrawing from the fray, Harriet Miers will be comfortably approved by Judiciary Committee, and confirmed with at least 70 votes in the Senate. Everyone who can walk and chew gum knows that this is true, as of the Reid statements on Tuesday afternoon.
So, how did many reporters react in the President’s press conference the next day? They became political Pigpens, raising clouds of dirt on a dry sidewalk. Questions about the Miers nomination dominated the conference. Here are three representative ones:
“Q: ....Many conservative women lawyers have expressed their extreme distress that you chose as a woman nominee for the court someone whose credentials did not come close, in their view, to the credentials of John Roberts. They feel as though it's, kind of, old-fashioned affirmative action, women don't have the same credentials.”
“Q: You said several times now, sir, that you don't want a justice who will be different 20 years from now than she is today. Given that standard, I wonder in hindsight whether you think the appointment of Justice David Souter then was a mistake.”
“Q: Some conservatives have said that you did not pick someone like Scalia and Thomas because you shied away from a battle with the Democrats. Is there any truth to that? And are you worried about charges of cronyism?”
These and similar questions introduced all of the themes which Democrat Senator outliers began to raise Monday in a speech by Senator Schumer (perhaps prepared in advance). Those themes have continued to date. But after Senator Reid’s comments on Tuesday, they are irrelevant to the outcome.
The press had made much of the opposition of the likes of Eugene Delgadio and Pat Buchanan. I know both these gentlemen who are off the reservation on the hard right. Their remaining supporters, combined, are insufficient to sway the vote of a single Republican Senator. It’s just Pigpen journalism.
The first question above is an insult to all women lawyers, all women judges, and the two women who have served as Justices. It is Pigpen journalism.
The third question assumes Harriet Miers is not like Justices Scalia and Thomas. Yet as the President patiently explained, repeatedly, on Tuesday, he knows Miss Miers well and worked with her on legal issues for ten years. He knows she will “follow the law” and not “legislate from the bench.” Pigpen, again.
The “Souter” and “cronyism” are inversely related. The first President Bush nominated Justice Souter, who turned out the opposite of what he expected, on recommendations by Chief of Staff Sununu and former Senator Warren Rudman. Those recommendations were dead wrong. But this President Bush is not relying on recommendations.
Anyone with an ounce of managerial experience who’s worked with someone for ten years, WILL know their basic philosophy. Miss Mier’s philosophy is that judges should respect and enforce the law, not rewrite it from the bench. And that is the philosophy of Scalia and Thomas. Again, Pigpen.
Last is the cronyism charge, based on the fact that the President has known the nominee a long time. “Crony” is a charged word, one step shy of being a henchman of a burglar. Would one entrust ones money to a crony of Ken Lay of Enron? Of course not. But what about a crony of Warren Buffett of Berkshire Hathaway? That way leads to wealth and success. Again, Pigpen journalism.
Harriet Miers will be comfortably confirmed. She’ll serve with distinction for a generation. And the false sniping of the press will prove meaningless.
About the Author: John Armor is a First Amendment attorney and author who lives in the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina. John_Armor@aya.yale.edu
Thank you for confirming everything I said. To you, there's no such thing as a reasonable disagreement. That means that rational argumentation is a foreign concept to you.
I have rational discussions with people I disagree with here ALL the time.
It's just your unappeasables and malcontents I don't give a damn about.
Right. The planets line up once in a while as well. I think 1980 was about the last time.
"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:449
Just thought we should remind ourselves of this Founders' concise definition of her role as we evaluate her words over the next weeks. What the pundits say doesn't matter. What she says does.
I'm with you Billybob ~ well stated!
Arguing with the Miers critics is turning into an exercise in futility.
They're determined to sink her nomination because Bush hurt their feelings by not giving them a big, stinking fight we can't guarantee to have won. As it is, this nominee isn't a guarantee either because there is enough evidence that she is a conservative, and if the nay sayers have their way - they'll give the RINOs the excuse they need to vote against her.
My tennis analogy is that the nay sayers are giving up on the point before the ball has touched the ground.
The most rational dissent I've heard yet is from those who disagree with the President but since there is nothing they can do about it, they'll get behind it and hope for the best.
Your type of reasoning cuts both ways. Some support this and some don't. If the ones that support it are all Bush bots then you must have a phone call from Howard Dean on hold.
If Bush had nominated Brown, the chances of the Democrats losing the fight would have been at least as great as the chances that Miers is any kind of solid constitutionalist. How would the Democrats, along with the Gang of Seven RINOs, have justified calling it an "extreme circumstance" after they had just finished confirming her? How would they be able to justify the "outside the mainstream" label against someone who generally does not favor coming up with creative excuses to strike down democratically enacted laws? They would be seriously up the creek. Bush blew an opportunity that just does not come around very often.
You know we would at least ask that of the Democrats let alone our own party.
In your opinion Miers might not be the strict constructionist that Bush believes she is.
Your analysis is devoid of any weight which Bush's personal experience and professional involvement with Miers might have.
It would be like hiring an investment advisor with a good track record and then ignoring their advise. Bush has a good track record when it comes to picking judges. He has a good track record for making the Democrats eat their boots. Discount the President if you wish, but you do so at the peril of your own ego.
He doesn't have a terribly impressive one when it comes to actually getting them appointed.
And the fact is, even if I did have reason to trust Bush generally, I'd still be at least very uneasy about a nominee who:
-was recommended by Harry Reid
-was a politically active Democrat who never gave a solid reason for switching parties
-whose solution to crime problems involves mostly touchy-feely "it takes a village"-type hooey
-and most of all, who does not represent any kind of effort to expose the Democrats' constitutional illogic for all to see.
I feel that Bush is just like the Republican gang of 7 that when we finally had the judicial nominating process in our grasp, they blocked us. Bush had the opportunity with these two picks to finally give the conservative base what they have been so unselfishly working toward for 20 years.
I am one former Bush backer who is not ashamed to say I am totally disappointed and disgusted by Bush's leftward veering on nearly all issues (except the war on terror). I have written to the RNC and all of the Senate Republicans I have donated to over the years to say I am taking a hiatus from donating until the Republicans and Bush stop taking their hiatus from clear conservative policies.
He had trouble getting conservatives through the Senate. Are you proposing sending a conservative through the Senate, knowing that we don't have a strong enough majority to win that fight? The perfect candidate for all the nay sayers would've been a losing proposition. A good enough candidate that gets confirmed with minimum fuss is a small victory. Choosing between a big loss and a small victory, I'd have to say I'd go for the small victory every time. A small victory with Miers will piss of the Democrat base and eventually soothe the hurt feelings on the Right, as she is a conservative.
-was recommended by Harry Reid
I think Reid is regretting this point at the moment. We'll have to see if he actually votes for her, considering doing so will probably make his base angry.
-was a politically active Democrat who never gave a solid reason for switching parties
Like many conservative Democrats, the Democratic Party left them when it went Liberal all the way. So she's now a Republican with many contributions to Republicans, and she's most certainly a Christian, social conservative. You want more of a reason to like her, but if the kind of information you want were public knowledge, she wouldn't have been nominated in the first place.
-whose solution to crime problems involves mostly touchy-feely "it takes a village"-type hooey
Please provide your analysis of her position on this, complete with context.
-and most of all, who does not represent any kind of effort to expose the Democrats' constitutional illogic for all to see.
Using this last criteria, I don't think we could find a viable candidate for the Supreme Court... ever. The keyword being "viable".
Excellent column. Thanks.
I reject the premise of that question. This is a winnable fight, if Republicans would get around to focusing public attention on it. When all they do is complain about the Democrats using the filibuster, without addressing the warped logic they use to oppose the nominees themselves, the public gets turned off. That also has partly to do with the fact that the public generally doesn't care about lower court appointments all that much. Supreme court appointments are a very different story.
There would be nothing better for the Republicans than to force a Democrat to publicly explain what he means when he calles a constitutionalist judge an "extremist". Because what they're really saying is that a judge is "outside the mainstream of American values" when he upholds a democratically enacted law. Why are Republicans so squeamish about putting the Dems on the spot like that?
I think Reid is regretting this point at the moment.
I think there's a common mistake on FR that assumes that because a politician is a liberal, he's therefore a political klutz. Reid didn't get to where he is by being clueless about how politics works. I'd venture to say that he has more experience and inside information that pretty much anyone you run into on FR.
You want more of a reason to like her, but if the kind of information you want were public knowledge, she wouldn't have been nominated in the first place.
Then how did it become your knowledge?
Please provide your analysis of her position on this, complete with context.
There really isn't all that much to analyze, just to read. Here is the section that I'm referring to:
We will be successful in solving our massive crime problems only when we attack the root causes....Further context can be found here. It's true, as the link notes that she mentioned gun rights in that piece as well. But as the commentator there notes, there's no way of knowing if she was simply referring to the more explicit gun protections in the Texas constitution, and in any event, it was far from being the focus of her piece.We all can be active in some way to address the social issues that foster criminal behavior, such as: lack of self-esteem or hope in some segments of our society, poverty, lack of health care (particularly mental health care), lack of education, and family dysfunction.
The best thing written on the nomination BUMP.
I made up my mind about Harriet Miers Monday night.
Since then it's just been fun watching the show.
She will be just fine. President Bush has honored his pledge.
FRegards
I'm a Miers skeptic, and have the instinctive view that she's another O'Connor not a Thomas (let alone Scalia), but I always respect your viewpoints. You make a convincing argument and some good points. Thanks.
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.