Krauthammer: Retreat (on Miers' nomination to SCOTUS)

Townhall.com ^ | 10-7-05 | Charles Krauthammer

[cgk]

WASHINGTON -- When in 1962 Edward Moore Kennedy ran for his brother's seat in the Senate, his opponent famously said that if Kennedy's name had been Edward Moore, his candidacy would have been a joke. If Harriet Miers were not a crony of the president of the United States, her nomination to the Supreme Court would be a joke, as it would have occurred to no one else to nominate her.

[SalukiLawyer]

I don't know what he means but I'll be a bit more blunt. The forging of Constitutional Law by the best and brightest since 1939 has left us with Constitutional law resembling the innards of a deer spread on the ground awaiting burial.

Both the process and result are going to be inevitably messy when constitutional law is a mosaic built up on "a case-by-case basis" as they say. I don't think the answer is to blame lawyers; I think it is to blame those lawyers who have departed from sound principles of interpretation in order to impose their own enlightened notions on the unwashed masses. Before the Harriet Meiers nomination, conservatives could all agree that we needed brilliant, powerful, constitutional superstars like Scalia or Bork. Now, all of a sudden, traditional legal qualifications don't matter. There are some strange statements on the boards here. Some of them are just the usual bash-the-lawyers chuckleheads crawling out of the woodwork.

[jess35]

They would put out a story she is an Evangelical Christian. What infuriates me the most is that is what the White House did! They used the Christians by not telling us why she is qualified, but that we should accept her because she is in 'our club'... This is the most appalling of all.

I've seen no indications that the WH put out the "story".

[bigeasy_70118]

Thomas Jefferson's gift to the people of Virginia is not snooty and elitist? Come on, now! Both UC and UVA are state universities but they are among the top state univiersities in the country. And their law schools are far superior to SMU.

[battletank]

Thanks for that post Dat Mon. Very thoughtful and I agree completely. Very scary time for the party.

[Miss Marple]

OK..if you want substance, here is what I think. I imagine that Gonzalez is at the AG because of WOT decisions, and I believe Gonzalez was involved in those decisions. Miers seems to have spent her time in the White House going over judge appointments. I bet the cases on which she will have to recuse herself are few and far between.

Miers is a constructionist, according to the President. Other factors enter into a nomination besides that, however. One interesting fact about Miers is that she is not a party goer. She is very much out of the limelight. I imagine, when looking at nominees, that was a consideration in her favor, because she won't be susceptible to dinner invitations, cocktail chatter, or fancy parties. She won't change her view, as the President said.

My point is also pertinent, regardless of your opinion. A major consideration of this decision is whether or not Bush can persuade the squishes in the Senate GOP to vote for the nominee. If Crying George Voinovich wouldn't stand up for Bolton, why in the world would you think he would back Priscilla Owens? He would tell us all that he just couldn't bring himself to vote for her because of his granddaughter or something, while wiping his eyes.

I find it disturbing that NO analyses of the Senate has risen in any of the columns by these beltway pundits. To view a nomination as if it is made in a vacuum is simply disengenuous.

I note that Krauthammer tries to deflect the charge of elitism, but I am afraid that I don't believe him. The level of immediate outrage over this pick is mind-boggling. One would have thought some consideration of the pick would have been noted; I have seen nothing but vitriol.

I note also that Krauthammer innoculates himself from being proved wrong if Miers' testimony is brilliant. Apparently even if it is brilliant, we are still to think she is incompetent.

I hope that is detailed enough criticism for your requirements. I indeed read the article, and in fact went back twice to make sure I hadn't missed anything.

[borkrules]

Sue me.

No, thanks. I suspect you are judgment proof.

And I work in-house, corporate law, which, judging from the reasons put forward in support of Miers, puts me only a personal relationship with the President away from a seat on the Supreme Court! And if that President's name was "George W. Bush" I could fully expect a big, sloppy, wet kiss of support from the famous Howlin!

Bonus for you? I didn't go to an "elite" law school either, so you could polish that BS "anti-elitist" meme that your ilk are flogging on these pages.

I've never been anti-Bush and in the past I have found his most adamant supporters merely annoying. But you guys are really distinguishing yourselves with this "Charge of the Lightweight Brigade" in total, blind support of this nomination.

[jwalsh07]

Here's my problem. You have just given a ringing endorsement to a brilliant man Robert Bork. I don't want Robert Bork on the Supreme Court. I want somebody who reads the second amendment and understands that the plain meaning of the amendment acknowledges a right to keep and bear arms.

The problem in a nutshell of the best and most brilliant. They can't help themselves.

[glory2]

Doctor Dobson's being contacted by the White House and his statement after their discussion.

[Howlin]

If you don't mind, I prefer that the Judiciary Committee do the vetting instead of a bunch of "principled" Bush bashers.

[safisoft]

Yet again you feel the need to denigrade anybody whose principles you think aren't the same as yours.

I am genuinely confused. Why do you think that my saying you are principled in being loyal to the President is a BAD thing? How did I denigrate you in that? >

So loyalty to the President IS a bad thing? Or are you merely being contrary?

[Iwo Jima]

I share your concerns about Bork and largely due to his opinions about the 2nd Amendment (that and his "ink blot" statement). That's why I am asking everyone I can for some solid proof about Ms. Miers' stance on the RKBA.

[jwalsh07]

"The same liberties that ensure a free society make the innocent vulnerable to those who prevent rights and privileges and commit senseless and cruel acts. Those precious liberties include free speech, freedom to assemble, freedom of liberties, access to public places, the right to bear arms and freedom from constant surveillance. We are not willing to sacrifice these rights because of the acts of maniacs." Harriet Miers

[blackie]

Roger that ~ ya got it! ;)

[over3Owithabrain]

Thanks for the thoughtful analysis, Marp. I don't agree entirely but you make good points. FWIW, I will support Meiers through the nomination process unless I see hints or evidence that she is more liberal than W is suggesting. I don't like the pick but unfortunately we are where we are.

[Kryptonite]

If you found this piece intriguing, you might think the same thing about The Recusal Trap, from the American Prowler.

When Miers was first announced as the nominee, I immediately thought about the recusal issue in a discussion with some colleagues. It's an important issue for people like me who are concerned about our ability to protect ourselves from terrorists.

I wish everybody here would address the issues raised instead of just avoiding the discussion because it's coming from someone who did something naughty once, twice, etc...

The recusal point is valid. Miers will have to admit that she will have to recuse herself in any matter that she either worked on personally or in which her office had the responsibility to work on. A lot of those matters involve issues of national security.

I said last night that the irony is that Miers the Justice may not be able to protect us precisely because of her prior efforts to protect us as Miers the Counselor. It's a legitimate concern.

[Howlin]

Why don't you find somewhere I've supported her? All I've done is ask people to WAIT for the facts.

But you, being an attorney, know it all. I've worked with your kind for 25 years.

You're part of the problem, in law and in politics.

[TSchmereL]

Krauthammer PING!

[dirtboy]

Before the Harriet Meiers nomination, conservatives could all agree that we needed brilliant, powerful, constitutional superstars like Scalia or Bork.

Well, let's see what those two have done lately.

Scalia ruled with the majority in Gonzales, thereby missing a chance to vote for a decision that could have seriously wounded Wickard. So he succumbs to temptation to be activist when it suits him.

And Bork? He's dissed the 2nd Amendment. We don't need no steenkin' judges dissing the 2nd Amendment - we need judges who understand the line "shall not be infringed."

So do we really need another Bork or another Scalia on the court?

Or another Thomas?

[cochino]

O.K., so Krauthammer is against her, too. That's a surprise. The piling-on continues. I think we need to keep our eyes on the ball, here. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to have faith that the Senate will get through a openly conservative nominee. I've seen best case scenarios of a 50-50 split with Cheney casting the deciding vote. That's pretty tight. And that's assuming there is no filibuster or the Republicans can actually get together and change the rules (not something I would exactly consider a "lock" either). The most important thing in this situation is to get a well-qualified, conservative (which I think we assume is the case) on the bench.

[TSchmereL]

"But you, being an attorney, know it all. I've worked with your kind for 25 years. You're part of the problem, in law and in politics."

Did you know Harriet Miers is also an attorney?

know it all . . . part of the problem . . .