Posted on 10/08/2005 10:43:48 AM PDT by nypokerface
WASHINGTON - Some Senate Democrats are jumping in the middle of a Republican fray to defend Harriet Miers from conservative criticism that she isn't qualified to serve on the Supreme Court.
That doesn't mean Democrats will vote to approve President Bush's longtime confidante for the high court or give her an easy time at a Senate confirmation hearing.
Behind the scenes, a half-dozen aides to Senate Democrats — speaking on condition of anonymity to protect their jobs — admit that they are enjoying watching the GOP's right wing beat up the president. None will say whether their bosses feel the same way — or might be insincere when they heap praise on Miers and call her critics unfair.
"All the trashing is coming from the right wing of the Republican Party," Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, said in a conference call with reporters. "I really think it's despicable what they're doing."
Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski, D-Md., accused critics of Miers' nomination of being "incredibly sexist."
"They're saying a woman who was one of the first to head up a major law firm with over 400 lawyers doesn't have intellectual heft," Mikulski said. "I find this a double standard."
More unusual is the outright praise from some Democrats for the person who would replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a critical moderate vote on abortion, affirmative action and other close rulings.
"I like what I hear so far," said Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark.
Many conservatives don't. Several columnists have derided Bush's decision, and some groups have called on the president to withdraw her name. Bush insists that Miers is worthy, citing her 35-year legal career and her service in city and state government as well as the White House.
"When she goes before the Senate, I am confident that all Americans will see what I see every day: Harriet Miers is a woman of intelligence, strength and conviction," the president said Saturday in his weekly radio address. "And when she is confirmed by the Senate, I am confident that she will leave a lasting mark on the Supreme Court and will be a justice who makes all Americans proud."
There are 55 Republicans, 44 Democrats and one independent senator, Jim Jeffords of Vermont. If six conservative Republicans vote against Miers, a united Democratic caucus along with Jeffords could defeat her nomination.
Galling to many conservatives is that Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada recommended that Bush nominate Miers and has praised her several times since then without actually promising to vote for her.
The White House enlisted many conservative leaders to testify that Miers would be a reliable vote. Sen. Patrick Leahy, the Senate Judiciary Committee's senior Democrat, tried to counter that assurance when he asserted that Miers pledged to be independent when they discussed her nomination.
"I said, 'Would you disavow people who send out assurances that they know how you're going to vote?' She said, 'Absolutely,'" said Leahy. "She said, 'I will be my own person, I will be independent. Nobody has the authority or right or ability to tell how I'm going to vote.'"
Democrats are preparing to blanket the White House with document requests to help flesh out Miers' judicial philosophy. However, her work there would fall under executive privilege or lawyer-client privilege.
Bush aides have anticipated such requests. While Miers will answer senators' questions, the White House will not provide them with "confidential deliberative documents" relating to work for the president, spokesman Scott McClellan said.
Democrats are keying on demands by conservatives that Miers be forthcoming at her confirmation hearings. Last month, the court's new chief justice, John Roberts, had solid support from conservatives when he declined to answer many questions from Democrats. This time, Democrats hope Miers will feel pressured to be more open.
"The idea that Americans shouldn't know what the judicial philosophy of the nominee to this powerful, powerful position is, is wearing thin with the American people, whether they be liberal, conservative or moderate," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.
Harkin is the despicable one. I'm sure he has no trouble trashing well-known conservative judges as racist, homophobic, sexist cave-men. Most of the conservative discontent over Miers is tame by comparison to the demagoguery put out by the Left and their Senate mouthpieces on conservative judges.
Mikulski is either an idiot, or a shameless opportunist, or both. There were at least three women appellate judges to whom the Right would have gone to war for -- Janice Rodgers Brown, Priscilla Owen, and Edith Jones -- as well as several others to whom conservatives would have at least been predisposed to support.
Looks like the Democrats have figured out that the best way to bork Miers is to support her.
One can only imagine the outcry of hysterics from the MSM and the left if it turns out that the Democrats' votes were instrumental in abolishing Roe v Wade.
Misunderestimated will become a household word!!
It's a setup.
Miers will be raked over the coals by these very same Democrats.
Guess they must not of been paying any attention to 9/10th of what the "Conservative Pundits" have been saying for about the last year. Beating up Bush is the new favorite pastime of NRO, Novak, Wills et all. Guess they do not realize THE Punditry has absorbed the same sneering elitist mindset of their Hysteric Leftist colleagues. Apparently they feel they no longer need the base cause they are "stars". I am betting they are going to find out what happens to "Conservatives" who sell out the base to suck up to the Hysteric Left. Ask Buchanan, Hagel or McCain how well that works out.
Of course not.
Yes. We would have been far happier with Brown or Owen or Jones. But the Senate Weasles would not have been happy with them, and each nomination would have gone down in flames.
LOL!
It seems to be possible to see the situation either as you put it, or alternatively to see the conniption fit of the social conservatives as a Rovian ploy to tame the savage Democrats. Either way, the ironies are exquisite.
Senate Dems defending Meiers.
Does no one else see what is wrong with this?
If this turns out that way , the Democrats will cry foul and say " Hey ? the Republicans tricked us, HEY THATS NOT FAIR ! , we need a recount "
Well I was simply pointing out the absurdity of Mikulski's implication that some conservatives oppose Miers primarily because she is a woman. I'm sure many (or most) conservatives would have favored at least two of the women I cited over John Roberts.
I'm not so sure that they would have gone down in defeat. At least two (or three???) of the GOP members of the Gang of 14 have promised to break ranks and rejoin the effort to pull the nuclear/constitutional option should their Dem counterparts reject a candidate for purely ideological reasons. And Brown and Owens have already been deemed not 'extraordinary' once, so it would be hard to justify a change of opinion even though it is a higher level. And though it certainly wouldn't stop them from trying, it would be harder for wretched creatures like Ted Kennedy to successfully demonize a woman, especially a black woman who rose from poverty.
Its a different time from Bork. If we aren't at least willing to try and get more of a sure thing with our current majority, and with alternative media to fight back, then will we ever?
But if Bush is right about Miers, and she is closer to Scalia and Thomas than O'Connor and Souter, then I guess all is well that ends well. Hopefully Miers will be able to issue opinions on some hot-button social issues before the mid-terms next year. Then we'll have a good idea as to whether or not Bush was right, and then the base will either have something to get energized about or disillusioned over.
It seems that there are two central camps:
1. Those who see this as the best chance to engage the enemy head on, draw copious quantities of blood and leave the enemy utterly vanquished. Or, willingly die on the battlefield content that they've sacrificed themselves for a noble cause.
2. Those who see the war as a war and are not yet ready to define it in the terms of a single, bloody battle; regardless of the momentary satisfaction of bloodlust it may bring.
The scope and extent of the arguments of generals rarely are shared with battalion commanders, platoon leaders, sergeants and corporals. Yet, when the generals decide, the rest of them must go forward. Front line grunts may disagree with the choice made, but forward they go.
Active debate between the blood spillers and the decision makers is a healthy thing, in the main. However, there is always a small, quite vocal at times, minority - both generals and corporals - for whom the immediate battle both defines the war and determines its outcome; usually due to the inability to shift from the narrow focus of the task at hand to the overall stratgey required to triumph in the end; for a variety of reasons not all of which either are explainable nor are logically evident.
The logical conclusion in this instance seems to be to maintain the ability to constructively and realistically criticize the process by which this decision was made. However, any specific, personal criticisms of the nominee's abilities, capabilities and probable future performance cannot logically be done until more insight is gained; which will only occur during the hearing process. Only then, will it be possible to render a cogent, logical decision; unless of course, one is in the habit of making such decisions from a foundation of emotion rather than logic.
Here's another interesting variable to throw into the argument. I wonder how many of the senators who may vote "No" on this nominee, yet who voted "Yes" for Ginsburg (and also, those senators' supporters who continue to vote for them in election after election and are FR posters) - knowing that they fundamentally disagreed with her ideology, her beliefs and her general world-view - will be able to logically justify that "No" vote if this nominee's positions more closely mirror theirs.
Anybody notice that at his press conference on Tuesday Bush said IF Meirs is confirmed
With Roberts If I remember correctly it was WHEN he is confirmed
This may be the only time I ever agree with Schumer about anything at all.
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.