Posted on 04/19/2007 11:49:23 AM PDT by Rick Vassar
‘The 5-4 decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion…’ -Associated Press April 19, 2007
“It's ready for a retarded president, why wouldn't it be ready for an African American president?’ -Chris Rock, Life Magazine 2007
President Bush’s management strategy is a thing of beauty.
Walk around, act sort of absent-minded, mix up your words here and there, and people begin to lower their expectations – and their defenses. In an unguarded moment, something slips out, and allows you the opportunity to make decisions with much more information on what the other side is thinking.
Some people say he’s not too smart. Some say much worse. Many of those who say such things have strong egos and truly believe that they can clearly express their thoughts, but the president is too vacant to understand them.
That’s a big mistake.
There are many markers on President Bush’ tenure that will define his presidency. The 2000 election, 9/11, and Iraq are just a few. However, the day that should be remembered as the defining moment of Mr. Bush’ presidency is October 3, 2005, when he nominated Harriet Miers for the United States Supreme Court.
First, some history:
July 19, 2005 - Mr. Bush nominates John Roberts to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor September 3, 2005 – Chief Justice William Rehnquist dies. Mr. Bush moves Roberts’ nomination over to replace Rehnquist as Chief Justice September 29, 2005 – Roberts confirmed as Chief Justice and sworn in October 3, 2005 – Mr. Bush nominates Harriet Miers for the Justice O’Connor vacancy October 28, 2005 – Miers, under a firestorm of criticism, withdraws her nomination October 31, 2005 – Mr. Bush nominates Samuel Alito January 31, 2006 – Alito is confirmed
Everyone assumed after Mr. Bush was re-elected in 2004 that he would have at least one Supreme Court nomination in his second term, and perhaps as many as three or four, depending on the health of the members of the Court.
The first good move was the nomination of John Roberts to replace the retiring Justice O’Connor. Roberts was a judge for the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia since 2003. He had been nominated in 2001, but the nomination was held up by Democrats in the Senate Judiciary Committee and never came to a vote. In 2003, he was confirmed by voice vote.
The significance of this is clear – had the Democrats not held up Roberts’ confirmation, they would have had two years of judicial review that may have lent credence to his conservative leanings. Since he had been approved for the appeals court, the Senate really had only the two previous years in which to attack his record.
Now, with the Court split 4-4 on ideological grounds, the left knew that the real fight would have to be with this next vacancy. If the Bush administration got the conservative voice it desired for the Court, it could radically alter the social agenda for years to come. The stakes were high, and the left came loaded for bear.
So, on October 3, 2005, President Bush gave them Harriet Miers.
I can just imagine the conversation at the White House: Harriet, we need to send you out there as the nominee. You’re going to get skewered for a month or so, and then you’ll withdraw, and we’ll send in Sam Alito before the opposition can reload. Then you just come back over here to the White House.
Besides, think how good it will look on your resume…
And that’s exactly what happened. Both sides of the aisle voiced vehement opposition to the nomination, and many indicated that Mr. Bush had finally lost it. When Justice Alito was nominated, the left was depleted and done. They had attacked Mrs. Miers primarily on qualification and not ideology. When Justice Alito was nominated, he was clearly qualified, and the opposition could not overcome its own arguments. Mr. Bush now had the conservative Court he so desired.
Genius, I tell you. Mr. Bush set a political trap, and the opposition fell for it hook, line and sinker.
And they know it, too.
Yesterday, the Court upheld the ban on partial birth abortion. The left is outraged. It has always felt that the right to choose was a constitutional right, and any restriction erodes that right. Let’s face it, any right that involves the sacrifice of another life is no right at all, and should not be protected.
The left also says that this does not take into consideration the life of the mother in critical circumstances. It appears that this court disagrees. If you are concerned the blanket "right to choose" is going away, your concerns are valid.
This Court seems to be leaning towards a full ban on abortion, which will then allow the debate to center around exceptions, especially in the area of the protection of the life of the mother. The left, since 1973, believe that this is an all or nothing fight. In their minds, the right to an abortion is and should remain constitutionally guaranteed.
Remember, the conversation does not have to be all or nothing.
It just has to be 5-4.
I definitely do not think that the Miers nomination was an intentional ploy. However, Bush recognized the error and quickly recouped with the Alito nomination.
Would that something similar had happened in the Reagan Administration.
I don’t know. I mean, he did what he was supposed to do, he nominated conservatives to the bench. That is a good thing, and it is a good thing that neither Gore nor Kerry is president. I suppose, I don’t think he deserves extra credit for doing the bear minimum that a GOP president ought to do. Don’t forget, if he had his way Harriet Miers would have been on the court.
I know it makes conservatives feel better and angers the Bush Derangement Syndrome sufferers (always good in my book) to say that the Miers thing was a head-fake, but I’m pretty sure it wasn’t. Both Republicans and Democrats acted like Miers was an idiot. Would she really sacrifice her reputation for a SCOTUS head-fake?
Strategery...
An interesting take on the situation. I’m not convinced Miers was a fake-out, but it would be nice if it turns out she was.
Would it happen in the Reagan Administration... no, he nominated O'Conner and Kennedy.
Interesting.
I think that is a good representation of Bush’s style all along. Even his support of more spending, in his mind, is couched in spending more, but less than what the dems would do. Not saying I agree with that, but in his mind he is making it lower than it otherwise would have been. Same with specific legislation. He has always been better as a counter puncher. I think after 2004 they lost their way in terms of PR because with the GOP in control, they lost the ability to counterpunch when Kerry wasn’t around stepping on his own tongue.
Also I think it will be revealed in future years that there was a far more complex plan afoot with Iraq in regards to Iran. I think he will be proven right on the War on Terror, even if its after he is dead.
I can argue with him over the way afghanistan and Iraq were prosecuted technically, but as a broad strategy I think its brilliant. A sitting president can never voice anything remotely resembling the “flypaper” strategy. Its just unseemly in this political environment. But I hope that the bravery of our Armed Forces will be held in high regard by future generations, despite the popularity of the President.
The biggest crime of all is that the hideous left is succeeding in, temporarily I hope, painting our fallen as WASTED lives. That does them an injustice.
It was God’s plan - no more, no less
Harriet Miers fiasco was not intentional and this Court is at least 4-5 for Roe v. Wade. Kennedy is on record supporting Roe, and we still aren’t sure if Alito and Roberts would go that far. We still need to replace one liberal justice to have any shot at putting a stake in Roe.
Unless the right was in on it (in strategically prudent offices, of course)...
They certainly weren't in on it here at FreeRepubic. Those were some nasty days.
Yeah, I don’t think the selection of Miers was a head-fake, either (simply because I think Bush would’ve been happy to see her confirmed), but the response and result to/of her withdrawal was definitely good. I saw enough of “adapt and overcome” to make me happy.
and Rehnquist and Scalia.
Wonder how she would have fallen on PBA?
Interesting that the left completely misses the point; interesting, not surprising. The court is really saying that abortion is a legislative issue. The Constitution is silent on the matter. If nothing else, yesterdays decision and the comments by the Dems illuminate the fact they believe the Supreme Court Justices are indeed legislators.
I was in on it and the nastiness was just part of the plan.
I don’t know that the Miers nomination was a ploy that in depth on W’s part, however, I do think he’s a very shrewd operator and recognized an opportunity which he wisely took.
Always Right, you magnificent bastard. :-)
Dear Friends, We already knew how important this election was for every American. Yesterday, the Supreme Court raised the stakes even higher.
The Court took a dramatic departure from decades of rulings that upheld a woman's right to choose and recognized the importance of women's health. Let's be clear: this allows the government to dictate to women what they can and cannot do about their own health.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg disagreed with this decision and warned, "This cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this court -- and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women's lives."
When the Senate debated the nominations of Samuel Alito and John Roberts to the Supreme Court, I spoke out on the Senate floor about the danger they posed to our constitutional liberties, including the right to choose. I urged my colleagues to reject them, and I voted against both of them. Yesterday, unfortunately, we saw the consequences of failing to stop their confirmations.
The decade of work that the far right has done to chip away at our rights was paid off in this Supreme Court decision. They worked hard to gain the presidency and the Senate so they could shape a Supreme Court that rewarded them by putting a narrow ideology above our constitutional rights. In their ruling, the conservative majority even used right-wing code language, referring to obstetricians as "abortion doctors."
There's one way we can respond: redouble our efforts to win the White House and more seats in the House and Senate. We need a president who understands that the best way to protect women's health and reduce the number of abortions is to expand access to family planning -- not to threaten doctors and patients. We need a Congress that will say no to rolling back the rights of women.
And here is my promise to you: As a senator, I will do everything I can to make sure women can protect their health, and when I am president, I will treat the health and well being of women and our constitutional rights once again as true American values.
I hope you'll pass this message along to your friends and talk with them about why this issue is important to you. I'll follow up with you soon with ways you can take direct action to protect our right to choose.
Sincerely,
Hillary Rodham Clinton
But we would need to recover the Senate to do it.
Under the circumstances, Bush probably got the two best justices confirmed he could have. I really don't think Roberts and Alito are in the mold or Thomas and Scalia, but they should be reliable on conservative issues as Reinhquist. I really wished Bush has tried to get a more staunch conservative like Janice Rogers Brown first arguing we are just replacing a conservative with a conservative. Roberts and Alito are brillian enough and have such an outstanding judicial record that it would be hard to block their confirmation under any circumstances.
I voted for the President twice, and I’m not going to sugar coat it, he’s been a disappointment in his second term in my view.
Harriet Miers marks the moment the wheels came off.
That said, his Presidency will be treated kindly by historians a few decades from now, when the aging liberals rants won’t penetrate six feet of dirt above their heads.
And no matter what any of us think, he’s changed the USSC from left of center to right of center.
Not bad, not bad at all.
Great article.
It has been reported that Bush could skin his frat brothers alive in poker, and that he could bluff like B’rer Rabbit. I choose to believe this Harriet Miers head-fake in light of that. I also love the way the White House releases thousands and thousands of documents on Friday evenings whenever the Dems are demanding substantiation. They really know how to ruin a staffer’s weekend.
He wanted Miers on there.
Harriet Myers is really karl rove in drag. If you want a liberal opening, stop whining, either wait until one dies, or...
Right on all counts.
I was in on it and the nastiness was just part of the plan.
Always Right, you magnificent bastard. :-)
_______________________________________________________
Great job, Always Right! I wish I was a Magnificent Bastard like you. My wife says I’m half-way there, though.
....Now if I could only figure out how to be magnificent too.
1. Roberts promised a more deliberative body.
2. Kennedy was an individual who could be turned by a good argument.
It's a mind thing. If you're good at what you're do, and believe your cause is just, then a couple of bad days are just an opportunity to win by coming at it from the other side, rather than some inevitable downfall.
It seems to have been hatched by Bush loyalists who couldn't bear the thought that the outcry from the right sank the Miers nomination and gave us Alito.
All the same, even with Miers I believe the President was clumsily trying to keep faith with pro-life voters. His fear of another Souter led him to pick someone he knew well and believed he could count on to vote against Roe.
He just got complacent. Also, unlike John Kerry and Al Gore, it was never his lifelong goal to become President. He’s never had any sort of “grand vision” for transforming the country. He ran as a “compassionate” conservative, not a traditional conservative. And that’s pretty much how he’s run his Presidency. Miers was a Rovian plot, not bush.
I love how Dingy Harry is fit to be tied by political means, over this ruling, which he voted for in the first place.
I do think it was an intentional ploy.
John Roberts was the President’s first man. Obviously, while he was vetting Roberts, he was keeping in mind other candidates to be the next nominee.
That said, how do you go from Roberts to Miers?
7-2 would make me happier.
Same here.
The first part of the decision describes the procedure. I am unable to read it.
Rehnquist was put on the Court by Nixon in 1972 as an associate justice. Reagan appointed him to Chief Justice in 1976.
bump for later reading. I’ve often admired GWB’s strategic approaches.
Ann Coulter should be ashamed of herself for her vicious attacks on the Roberts nomination in light of recent SCOTUS decisions.
As far as Miers is concerned, I think that was intended to be the real pick and it was made for the exact reason Reagan selected Sandra Dee O’Connor — because it was, to quote Dirty Harry in “The Enforcer”, stylish.
I was eventually glad to see Miers replaced after all of the information came out, but I was disgusted by the horrible, vicious attacks on the President over the Miers nomination. He deserved to catch flak for that awful pick — but some went way too far.
Amen.
That's true, but that's only part of the story.
President Bush has a history of successes from ousting Governor Ann Richards to beating VP Al Gore to defeating Senator Kerry to passing tax cuts and deploying our national missile defenses to winning the *first* federal ban on abortion.
...and he's so successful because he acts 3 dimensionally instead of 2 dimensionally.
You see, in the case of Harriet Miers, President Bush *did* want her on the Court, but he also knew that he could put another conservative onto the bench who he wanted if things didn't work out for Miers.
Which is to say, GWB was happy either way, whether Miers made it to the bench or not.
The article for this thread, in contrast, illustrates two-dimensional thinking. The author has recognized that GWB set up the Left with Miers in order to win Alito's confirmation...but the author doesn't recognize the more savvy point of GWB's strategy: that Miers would have worked, too.
So it's not that Miers was a headfake, it's that Miers was *both* a serious nominee *and* a headfake.
President Bush was going to win either way.
You can see the same effect on war funding, on voting to go to war against Iraq, on national missile defense, on partial birth abortion (think: Congress had to *pass* that ban before it even got near the Supreme Court).
In all of those cases above, and in many, many more instances, President Bush would win if the issue passed Congress or was voted down by Congress.
Democrats are only now beginning to grasp the most rudimentary aspects of this grand strategy on their effort to cut off President Bush's emergency spending bill for our troops in Iraq...that GWB wins if they pass it and that GWB wins if they don't.
He wins either way because he's properly framed the debate and fight.
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.