A large part of the skepticism and disappointment over the President’s choice is that we don’t really know what Harriet Miers thinks and whether she has a developed judicial philosophy. Nor will we know. Indeed, it’s entirely possible that SHE doesn’t know. This is not to disparage the career she has had, which has included some impressive jobs (such as the one she has now). It is simply to say that she does not appear to have had the sorts of jobs that force a lawyer, regularly, to think through to settled positions on complex constitutional (and other) issues – in the face of withering pressure from the best the face the opposing viewpoint has to offer.Paul Diegnan nails it:
Harriet Miers is many things, but she is not a Constitutional scholar, well-seasoned in elective office, or someone who has made many public speeches or presentations on the workings of government. She is an unknown and unproven functionary whose chief virtue is the one virtue that we must reject--a strong tie to a particular chief executive.At best, Miers is Gonzales without the torture.
I was enthusiastic about John Roberts both because of his conservative legal views and because my pride in his achievments made Roberts easy to defend. Like David Frum, I expected more of the same for O'Connor's seat:
On the nation's appellate courts, in legal academia, in private practice, there are dozens and dozens of principled conservative jurists in their 40s and 50s unassailably qualified for the nation's highest court. Yes, Democrats might have complained. But if Democrats had gone to war against a Michael Luttig or a Sam Alito or a Michael McConnell, they would have had to fight without weapons. The personal and intellectual excellence of these candidates would have made it obvious that the Democrats' only real principle was a kind of legal Brezhnev doctrine: that the Court's balance must remain forever what it was in the days when Democrats had a majority of the votes in the U.S. Senate.Comparing Miers and McConnell before the nomination, Mickey Kaus asked rhetorically, "Assume they're both fine people. If you had to make a snap decision, which one should be on the United States Supreme Court?"
Harriet Miers is no conservative. She previously donated to Al Gore, Lloyd Bentsen, and the Democratic National Committee. She supported U.S. participation in the International Criminal Court. The President insists he "know[s] her heart," which is another way of saying "trust me." The last time Presidents named Bush said that, we got Putin and Souter. What happened to the venerable Republican philosophy "trust but verify?"
Unless new evidence appears, I agree with John Hawkins: "This is undoubtedly the worst decision of Bush's entire presidency so far."
(via Instapundit)
3 comments:
Carl - I sympathize. I am afraid this was created by the perceived need to put a woman in the post. I don't agree with that. I think opting for the best would have been better.
But I don't think Bush had the Republican support for one of those other picks. McCain and Specter - no way. Once two bailed at least 4 more would have. Remember, Specter wanted him to postpone the whole thing until next year.
I think they wanted a woman. I think Bush tried to pick one he thought would be reliably conservative and get through.
I would prefer very much that Bush had said to hell with it, and had tried to pick the best person he could find. But I don't believe that he believed that he could get such a nomination through the Senate. I doubt he could have.
Remember, the senators fumbled the ball on the earlier conservative females. The Dems would have had a field day with a man or an actual conservative judge. They hate conservative women. They hate them.
I think M.o.M. over-estimates the democrats, but maybe I am just overly confident. After Roberts got through, I thought another true conservative, relatively spotless, could have made it, even if by a single vote. Diddos, Carl. Without miraculous info about Miers, W. really screwed his base.
Stan, no. It's not the Dems - it's the Republicans. Go through the list, and it's not clear that Bush could count on breaking a filibuster for a conservative woman with the current team.
You have to understand that the senators are interested in their own futures first and our priorities second. The last thing in the world probably 10 or 12 of them wanted to do was to have to fight a Democratic agenda in 2006 saying either that the Republicans are anti-woman or that Republicans are ruled by the religious right.
Post a Comment