Posted on 10/20/2005 10:02:51 AM PDT by Crackingham
It isn't just about abortion. To William Kristol, one of the nation's most influential conservatives, the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court breaks a bedrock campaign promise President Bush made to the Republican right about "the future of American jurisprudence."
If the Senate confirms the White House counsel and longtime Bush adviser to succeed Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Kristol said Wednesday, "Bush would end up not having moved the court to the right at all," despite having appointed both Miers and newly sworn Chief Justice John Roberts.
Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard and a prominent conservative commentator and political analyst, delivered a harsh assessment of Miers, and of her prospects of winning Senate confirmation, during a telephone interview before coming to Seattle for a speaking engagement tonight.
Miers' nomination has stirred outrage on both the right and the left. Conservatives have decried her lack of a record opposing abortion and on other litmus-test issues, and abortion-rights advocates are alarmed about her defenders' suggestions that she is an evangelical Christian who can be trusted to be an opponent of abortion.
"The White House has now gotten itself in the worst of all possible worlds. She's a stealth candidate, but now she's not a stealth candidate, and she's not a distinguished candidate," Kristol said.
"If you're a conservative, the strongest argument for her is, 'Trust Bush; he knows what he's doing.' I don't think that's a strong argument."
Politically opposite critics are united, too, by concern over Miers' lack of credentials for the nation's highest court and what they see as cronyism in the president's choice of a loyal acolyte over more-qualified candidates. Miers has never been a judge nor established a record of her views on constitutional issues.
Not that Miers would dare do so, given the condemnation it would engender from political moderates, but what if she were to publicly condemn Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision legalizing the right to abortion? Would conservatives decide she's OK after all?
"I don't have a problem with a candidate saying that," Kristol said. "I'd prefer that someone with a really long and distinguished record in constitutional law say that and make the case" justifying it from a constitutional standpoint. He suggested Miers would lack the intellectual heft to make a persuasive case before hostile senators.
What conservatives want, and what they feel Bush promised them in 2000 and 2004, Kristol said, was not "just a person who votes right most of the time; it's someone who can influence the future of American jurisprudence" by becoming a dominant and persuasive voice for conservative principles.
If Miers is confirmed, Kristol believes, "she would be a pretty conservative vote for Bush" for the duration of his term, out of loyalty to the president. "And then she'd be like (Anthony) Kennedy or O'Connor," two moderately conservative justices and occasional swing votes on the court. O'Connor has been a key vote for abortion rights.
"You'd end up with only two real conservatives on the court, (Antonin) Scalia and (Clarence) Thomas, and Roberts as chief."
"I hope she withdraws (her nomination), and I remain skeptical that she will be confirmed," Kristol said.
"If it actually got to a vote, I think every Democrat would vote against her as a Bush crony who showed her cards as a strong pro-lifer." And she is "vulnerable from both sides" of the Senate Republican spectrum, with conservatives who are alarmed at her lack of a clearly conservative paper trail, and with moderates who would vote against her for her seemingly anti-abortion views, her mediocre credentials, or both, Kristol said.
"The president has given Republicans a difficult vote and Democrats an easy vote."
Puke Alert !
Since when is Bill Kristol a conservative?
Kristol is entitled to his opinion, but frankly, either run for POTUS Bill, or STFU!
I want a strict constructionist on the SC, not a jurist who is dominating and persuading for conservative principles. I thought the SC wasn't supposed to be a political body?
Kristol is just as bad as liberals who want judges to advocate "liberal principles" from the bench.
Oh, and tell me. What arguments have Clarence Thomas made that have influenced the future of American jurisprudence? He usually just says "me too" when Scalia votes and writes an opinion.
And, if Scalia is such a domineering voice on the court, how come he hasn't been able to swing O'Connor and Kennedy more his way?
He's had 20 years, and they're more independent than ever.
For the Seattle PI, the "enemy of my enemy is my friend"....for now. Kristol has never been a Bush supporter but is a McLame promoter.
Conservatives have decried her lack of a record opposing abortion and on other litmus-test issues
Lameduck presidents limp out, ruptured ducks get a see you later raspberry from everyone.
Kristol loves McCain - who's not a conservative.
Kristol should love Miers.
I'm at a loss as to why he doesn't support her.
Since when is Kristol a conservative? I can't stand listening to him and disagree with his "take" almost all the time. He constantly plays devil's advocate and is a major irritation.
A strict constructionist and an originalist conservative are one in the same. Conservative principles are at the core of our Constitution.
"She doesn't have the gravitas in terms of the constitutional issues," said another senator who has been critical of Miers. The nominee, the senator said, would not answer questions about whether she would recuse herself if issues involving her work with Bush came before the high court.
That's scarey, too: she doesn't know enough about judicial ethics to know when she has to recuse herself? That's where the advantage of judicial experience comes in, boys and girls, and she ain't got it.
By all means, check out Michelle's blog today.
That's an old left-wing talking point.
I'll cite Thomas' dissent in the infamous Kelso case in New London as a case in point. It was an absolute masterpiece, and one of the best Supreme Court opinions to be issued in the last 20 years.
What makes Thomas so "undistinguished" on the Court is that his opinions tend to be very simple, but very concise -- as they should be.
"Such-and-such is a clear violation of This-or-That Amendment to the U.S. Constitution" is about as clear and concise as a formal opinion needs to be.
Are conservatives now the "feeeeeeling" type. I thought that was the domain of the libs.
I suspect Kristol doesn't support her because he's a candy-@ssed, limp-wristed, Northeastern liberal at heart who can't stand the thought of having someone on the Supreme Court with no legal background in Beltway circles or in the Marxist institutions of New York City.
What a stupid statement by you. Have you never criticized a president? What about Clinton? Carter? Were you not entitled to voice criticism, because you yourself had not "run for POTUS"? Only in a dictatorship are people not allowed to comment on what political leaders are doing. In a free society, criticism of the president is allowed, even by people who haven't run for president.
Another Kristol ping.
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.