The Miers Support Team: Gloomy and Demoralized [Byron York]

The Miers Support Team: Gloomy and Demoralized Now they’re discussing stopping her visits to the Senate.

Strategists working with the White House in support of the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers are becoming increasingly demoralized and pessimistic about the nomination's prospects on Capitol Hill in the wake of Miers's meetings with several Republican and Democratic senators. On a conference call held this morning, they even discussed whether Miers should simply stop visiting with lawmakers, lest any further damage be done — and so that time spent in such get-acquainted sessions will not cut into Miers's intensive preparation for her confirmation hearing.

The strategists discuss issues on a twice-weekly conference call led by Leonard Leo, the executive vice president of the Federalist Society who has taken leave to help the White House shepherd the nomination through the Senate. A number of people who have taken part in the calls described the conversations to National Review Online. None wanted to be identified, because they do not want to openly oppose the White House or defy loyalists like Leo who are trying hard to defend Miers. Nevertheless, they paint a grim portrait of morale among those close to the nomination.

"The number of participants is declining," says one knowledgeable source. "With Roberts, these calls occurred five or six or seven times a week. Pretty early on, the calls on Miers were scaled back to twice a week. That says something in and of itself."

"It's been a gradual descent into almost silence," says a second source of the calls. "The meetings with the senators are going terribly. On a scale of one to 100, they are in negative territory. The thought now is that they have to end....Obviously the smart thing to do would be to withdraw the nomination and have a do-over as soon as possible. But the White House is so irrational that who knows? As of this morning, there is a sort of pig-headed resolve to press forward, cancel the meetings with senators if necessary, and bone up for the hearings."

"They are going to be keeping the meetings that they've already scheduled," says a third source. "But they have scheduled murder boards today from 12 to 5. She has to focus on her hearing. And the questionnaire that wasn't filled out, to me that's an indication [the White House] hasn't done the vetting. She has to spend a lot of time discussing stuff that should have been done before. So between those two things — finishing the questionnaire and preparing for the hearing, which is going to be make or break — they prefer to put her time into that."

"In the early days, there were people on the call who tried to give facile defenses of Miers, and they were immediately shot down," says a fourth source. "And by the way, those defenses weren't as insulting as the White House line — no way would they have done the 'sexist, elitist' line."

In summary, says the first source, "People have been looking for ways to support this. There are a lot of us who would like to find a reason to be encouraged. Every time I try to accommodate myself to this nomination, folks at the White House say idiotic things that piss me off, like that spin on Rove's part about her supposed deep involvement in judicial selection for three years, which is just not accurate."

"Demoralization and pessimism?" the source continues. "That's been a constant. We're in the various stages of grief."

Hey, what R Senators do YOU think will vote against Miers?

I think she will leave committee without recommendation.
I think every Democrat, including ol' Dirty Harry will vote against her.
I don't know which Republicans will join them. It could be pro-choice Republicans or principled conservatives who expect better. My guess is a combination of both. I won't speculate on specific names.

You need to keep in mind that Senators ultimately make political calculations. An unpopular nominee with very little popular support is not likely to entice a "yes" vote out of a Republican facing a tough re-election in a blue state. There's a hint for you. A staunch conservative in a solid red state also will not feel obligated to vote for an underwhelming nominee who hasn't captivated the base. If he has presidential aspirations, he may even find it advantageous to vote against such a weak nominee to set himself apart and show he doesn't support the status quo. There's another hint for you.

The worst part is that the GOP senators will vote for confirmation just to be loyal to the party and avoid a party civil war.

No matter which way they vote, the civil war is on. Their better approach is to come up with a reasoned justification for their vote, based on thie perception of how closely the nominee hews to original intent. All GOP, I think, value and prefer that SCOTUS Justices hew to that line. And to be a principled decision, they should use the same criteria that Harriet applied whrn vetting other candidates.

"We'd be talking about somebody's background," said Leonard Leo, now on leave as executive vice president of the Federalist Society, the conservative group whose headlined speakers have included Supreme Court justices and Bush administration official.
"There would be a moment of silence when she was clearly thinking about what was being said and then she would challenge it, asking, 'But what specifically in those opinions strongly suggests that this is someone who ascribes to judicial restraint?'" Leo said.
53 posted on 10/15/2005 6:41:58 PM EDT by AmericaUnited

The Senator would ask, "What specifically (generalities, like "strict constructionist" with no more, are not specific) in Ms. Miers' opinions (they won't be judicial, but that's okay - any writing, transcript of speech, etc. will do) strongly suggests (this admits a slight amount, but not much ambiguity) that she is someone who ascribes to judicial restraint?"

No more than you're parrotting the President, which is sort of redundant, since he parrots himself most times by repeating the same talking point over and over. In any case, in her 35 or so years as an attorney Ms. Miers has demonstrated no evidence of a judicial philosophy, be it conservative, liberal, minimalist, originalist or expansive. Her cases have been narrow in scope and do not demonstrate the breadth of knowledge of Constitutional issues one would have expected of a nominee to Associate Justice of the Supreme Court (they are thin even for a nominee to a district court). She has no law review articles (or even a simple op-ed column in 60 years of being a brilliant, detail-oriented attorney that espouses a view of any type on any Constitutional issue. (Previous nominees with little or no judicial experience have had either a record of writing such articles or a long policy record by which at least some opinion about the way in which they viewed the Constitution might be discerned.) Her monthly essays as Texas ABA president do not express opinions about legal issues and thus do not illuminate her method of interpreting the Constitution.

Judicial philosophy is a rather important consideration to most people other than the President, apparently. If you've got a consistent philosophy regarding the way in which to interpret Constitutional questions of law, you are much less likely to insert your own opinions or policy preferences in making decisions from the bench, a quality that the President supposedly values. Instead, we are being told that she's a good nominee precisely because she supposedly (again with only second or third-hand testimony to support the contention) holds certain personal or political views.

Those same aforementioned essays also are of rather low quality, belying the spin that she's somehow this brilliant thinker. Being a Justice on the Supreme Court involves a little more than just voting on a particular case. You must also actually be able to persuasively show the basis of your legal reasoning. You are, in essence, explaining the ramifications of the law to the courts and lawyers that make practical use of it on a daily basis. It seems rather silly to nominate someone that will have to have that explained to her first before she can write it down for herself. (I find the latest spin on this to be rather amusing.....we're being told that such a qualification is irrelevant since that's why judges have clerks. It is amusing because it admits that the original criticism that she doesn't possess the qualification is a valid one. If this is true, why don't we just skip the middleman and actually nominate the clerk. At the least, we'd be saving on one government salary! Of course, as with judicial nominations being based on actual qualifications rather than hero worship, fiscal restraint would be a bit too much to expect of the Administration.

Ms. Miers cluelessness on Constitutional issues has been reinforced by her recent statements to various Senators (occasioning the poor souls tasked with selling this empty suit to the Senate to consider ending her meetings with Senators to forestall further embarrassment) as well as in her own poorly reasoned and written responses to the Senate questionnaire.

What do you put forward as qualifications to this lifetime appointment (other than third hand testimony and her bowling skills or love for M&M's)?

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.