Posted on 10/08/2005 9:27:54 AM PDT by RWR8189
IT'S BEEN A BAD WEEK for the Bush administration--but, in a way, a not-so-bad week for American conservatism. George W. Bush's nomination of White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court was at best an error, at worst a disaster. There is no need now to elaborate on Bush's error. He has put up an unknown and undistinguished figure for an opening that conservatives worked for a generation to see filled with a jurist of high distinction. There is a gaping disproportion between the stakes associated with this vacancy and the stature of the person nominated to fill it.
But the reaction of conservatives to this deeply disheartening move by a president they otherwise support and admire has been impressive. There has been an extraordinarily energetic and vigorous debate among conservatives as to what stance to take towards the Miers nomination, a debate that does the conservative movement proud. The stern critics of the nomination have, in my admittedly biased judgment, pretty much routed the half-hearted defenders. In the vigor of their arguments, and in their willingness to speak uncomfortable truths, conservatives have shown that they remain a morally serious and intellectually credible force in American politics.
One should add that some of the defenses of the president have been spirited as well--and in fairness to the defenders of the Miers nomination, they really were not given all that much to work with by the White House. Consider this game effort from one former Bush staffer:
Harriet used to keep a humidor full of M&M's in her West Wing office. It wasn't a huge secret. She'd stash some boxes of the coveted red, white, and blue M&M's in specially made boxes bearing George W. Bush's reprinted signature. Her door was always open and the M&M's were always available. I dared ask one time why they were there. Her answer: "I like M&M's, and I like sharing."
Well, it can be said, such anecdotes speak to the character of the nominee. And in matters of justice, character counts.
So what now? Bush has made this unfortunate nomination. What is to be done? The best alternative would be for Miers to withdraw. Is such an idea out of the question? It should not be. She has not aspired all of her life or even until very recently to serve on the Supreme Court. And her nomination has hurt the president whom she came to Washington to serve. Would a withdrawal be an embarrassment to the president? Sure. But the embarrassment would fade. Linda Chavez at the beginning of the first term, and Bernard Kerik at the beginning of the second, withdrew their nominations for cabinet positions and there was no lasting effect. In this case, Miers could continue to serve the president as White House counsel. The president's aides would explain that he miscalculated out of loyalty and admiration for her personal qualities. And he could quickly nominate a serious, conservative, and well-qualified candidate for the court vacancy.
Failing that, we are headed towards hearings that will in no way resemble the recent triumph of John Roberts. These hearings will not be easy for Miers, as she will have to at once demonstrate a real knowledge of constitutional jurisprudence, reassure conservative constitutionalists, and presumably placate Democrats as well. Conservative senators will for the most part withhold judgment until the hearings are completed. Many have already said as much, leaving open the possibility of a no vote in the event things do not go well. It would be awkward, of course, if a combination of conservative and Democratic votes defeated Miers. But this is a moment where it is more important that conservatives stand for core principles than that they stand with the president.
It may be--we can certainly hope--that Miers will be very impressive and that conservatives can support her in good conscience. But if not, they will be doing a favor to the conservative cause, the Republican party, and--believe it or not--the final three years of the Bush administration by voting no on Miers's confirmation. Conservative congressional opposition to the 1990 budget deal was a key to Republican success in 1994--and the absence of such opposition would not have helped the first President Bush in 1992 anyway. Conservative opposition to Nixon's policy of détente was crucial to laying the groundwork for Ronald Reagan's success in 1980--and didn't appreciably hamper Gerald Ford's already uphill struggle in 1976 in any case. This is a time when loyalty to principle has to trump loyalty to the president.
President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers was an out-of-the-blue act of loyalty to a longtime staffer. Is it too much to hope that she might reciprocate by withdrawing, thereby sparing her boss the chance of lasting damage to his legacy that her appointment to the Supreme Court may well represent?
-William Kristol
"These hearings will not be easy for Miers, as she will have to at once demonstrate a real knowledge of constitutional jurisprudence, reassure conservative constitutionalists, and presumably placate Democrats as well."
The fact that Kristol automatically assumes Meirs can't do this says more about his biases than about her abilities.
For FReepers, knowledge is power.
From Beldar Blog:
A Westlaw romp through Harriet Miers' record
Critics of SCOTUS nominee Harriet Miers make much of the fact that she hasn't argued a case in the United States Supreme Court. And in fact, they've been pretty harsh, some of them, in characterizing her record as a practicing lawyer.
What's up with that? Anything to it? Well, heck, let's find out shall we? Ever since Al Gore invented the internet, we've been living in the Information Age, so let's get some information!
A search on Ms. Miers' name, run in a Westlaw database containing both state and federal court reported decisions from Texas, pulls up 19 separate cases dating back to 1974 in which she's appeared among counsel of record.
Eight of those represent not appeals, but published opinions written by federal district judges. But such opinions are generally only published when the authoring judge recognizes that his ruling constitutes an important or new precedent, and they usually reflect a level of briefing by the litigants and writing by the judge that's essentially indistinguishable from an appellate proceeding. Another four are decisions from various of the intermediate-level appellate courts in Texas. The remaining seven are published opinions from decisions in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Now, the way these things work, this database won't show any of the state-court cases that Ms. Miers has handled, even if they were tried to a verdict, unless one side or the other took an appeal. (Texas state-court trial judges don't publish written opinions, and don't very often write them at all.) And this database almost certainly won't show but a tiny fraction of the cases she worked on that settled before trial, which is what happens to 95+ percent of all cases everywhere. So there are are definite limits to what we ought to expect from this romp. At best, it's going to give us her appellate cases, plus a tiny snapshot of a few trial court matters. She's mostly been a trial-court lawyer, not an appellate specialist like John Roberts, so this search is going to leave out anywhere from, I'd guess, at least 50 maybe up to 90 percent of her actual career experiences.
Still, it ought to be interesting to look at these cases. Just for grins.
That M&M's snark is priceless. =)
Kristol had the "bad week" by making a rediculous fool of himself on national tv and newsprint.
You should love this then, go to the site... it has links within:
Bush Failed to Ask 'What Would Kristol Do?'
by Scott Ott
(2005-10-07) -- President George Bush today acknowledged that before appointing Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court he failed to ask himself the question that he habitually applies to such decisions: 'What would Kristol do?'
William Kristol, the neo-conservative editor of The Weekly Standard, has led the Republican outcry against a nominee who, conservatives fear, secretly favors abortion kiosks in shopping malls, and who may view the Constitution as metaphorical poetry.
The president, who wears a WWKD reminder bracelet, said, "I guess I got caught up in the moment, and tempted by the allure of appointing a justice who actually speaks in language I can understand."
Upon hearing of the president's remark today, Mr. Kristol said, "Acknowledging your sin is only half of repentance, but I stand ready to graciously forgive if the president will turn and follow me."
Yes, I agree in a way, but this nominee does need to prove her bonafides right away. I think she can do it but if she can't then she will be forced to withdraw or be voted out and I have no problem with that.
In the vigor of their arguments, and in their willingness to speak uncomfortable truths, conservatives have shown that they remain a morally serious and intellectually credible force in American politics.
-----
Absolutely. The real issue gets down to conservatism and originalism relating to the Constitution. From issues ranging from the blatant disregard for the breaking of our immigration laws and violation of our soverignty, to the excessively important content of the SCOTUS, TRUE CONSERVATIVES are standing up, voicing their GENUINE CONCERNS FOR THE INTEGRITY OF THE REAL AMERICA, and not what Washington is working hard to pervert America into...true American patriots, real conservatives who want to preserve what AMERICA REALLY WAS INTENDED TO BE, AND WHAT HAS MADE IT GREAT, are now no longer silent.
This is very healthy for America and why I agree with Kristol regarding the "win" for conservatism in this time of important decision and lack of action and responsibility in Washington.
Bill Kristol wouldn't know anything about conservatism if it hit him right in his pointy nose that's in the air.
Makes one wonder why Kristol is really opposed to Meigs. Bush probably crossed him some way and this is how he applies the bit. Kristol has never impressed as a conservative.
That's enough material for its own thread and should be discussed separately... why don't you do that rather than spam other threads with it.
Kristol needs to post his articles on DU and switch parties.
Agreed. I care little about Harriet's background. It's her votes that are important, and she shows every indication of voting conservative.
Good.
F bill kristol.
Ping, read again.
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.