Posted on 10/06/2005 8:33:48 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob
My favorite supporting character in the legendary strip, “Peanuts,” is Pigpen. His unique trait is raising a cloud of dirt everywhere, even on a clean, dry sidewalk. Pigpen came to mind when I saw the White House Press Corps’ question President Bush Wednesday on his nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.
First, the status of the nomination. Monday afternoon, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid held a nearly unprecedented press conference with Harriet Miers, just hours after her nomination. Reid said that she was an “exceptional” candidate, and “the sort of person who should be nominated.” In short, the leader of the opposition all but endorsed the nominee.
What’s the consequence of that? Slam dunk. A home run in the bottom of the ninth. Game, set and match.
When the general of the other side stands down, the battle is over. To be sure, leading Senators is like herding cats. Seldom will members of either caucus follow their leaders unanimously. Continued opposition is to be expected from Senators Kennedy, Schumer and Durbin.
But with Senator Reid withdrawing from the fray, Harriet Miers will be comfortably approved by Judiciary Committee, and confirmed with at least 70 votes in the Senate. Everyone who can walk and chew gum knows that this is true, as of the Reid statements on Tuesday afternoon.
So, how did many reporters react in the President’s press conference the next day? They became political Pigpens, raising clouds of dirt on a dry sidewalk. Questions about the Miers nomination dominated the conference. Here are three representative ones:
“Q: ....Many conservative women lawyers have expressed their extreme distress that you chose as a woman nominee for the court someone whose credentials did not come close, in their view, to the credentials of John Roberts. They feel as though it's, kind of, old-fashioned affirmative action, women don't have the same credentials.”
“Q: You said several times now, sir, that you don't want a justice who will be different 20 years from now than she is today. Given that standard, I wonder in hindsight whether you think the appointment of Justice David Souter then was a mistake.”
“Q: Some conservatives have said that you did not pick someone like Scalia and Thomas because you shied away from a battle with the Democrats. Is there any truth to that? And are you worried about charges of cronyism?”
These and similar questions introduced all of the themes which Democrat Senator outliers began to raise Monday in a speech by Senator Schumer (perhaps prepared in advance). Those themes have continued to date. But after Senator Reid’s comments on Tuesday, they are irrelevant to the outcome.
The press had made much of the opposition of the likes of Eugene Delgadio and Pat Buchanan. I know both these gentlemen who are off the reservation on the hard right. Their remaining supporters, combined, are insufficient to sway the vote of a single Republican Senator. It’s just Pigpen journalism.
The first question above is an insult to all women lawyers, all women judges, and the two women who have served as Justices. It is Pigpen journalism.
The third question assumes Harriet Miers is not like Justices Scalia and Thomas. Yet as the President patiently explained, repeatedly, on Tuesday, he knows Miss Miers well and worked with her on legal issues for ten years. He knows she will “follow the law” and not “legislate from the bench.” Pigpen, again.
The “Souter” and “cronyism” are inversely related. The first President Bush nominated Justice Souter, who turned out the opposite of what he expected, on recommendations by Chief of Staff Sununu and former Senator Warren Rudman. Those recommendations were dead wrong. But this President Bush is not relying on recommendations.
Anyone with an ounce of managerial experience who’s worked with someone for ten years, WILL know their basic philosophy. Miss Mier’s philosophy is that judges should respect and enforce the law, not rewrite it from the bench. And that is the philosophy of Scalia and Thomas. Again, Pigpen.
Last is the cronyism charge, based on the fact that the President has known the nominee a long time. “Crony” is a charged word, one step shy of being a henchman of a burglar. Would one entrust ones money to a crony of Ken Lay of Enron? Of course not. But what about a crony of Warren Buffett of Berkshire Hathaway? That way leads to wealth and success. Again, Pigpen journalism.
Harriet Miers will be comfortably confirmed. She’ll serve with distinction for a generation. And the false sniping of the press will prove meaningless.
About the Author: John Armor is a First Amendment attorney and author who lives in the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina. John_Armor@aya.yale.edu
And here's my column on this subject.
John / Billybob
Good stuff John, thanks.
Me, I'm not comfortable, but there's nothing I can do about it so I may as well hope for the best.
Thanks, Congressman Billybob. I appreciate your thoughts more than you can know.
It's not just those two who have raised opposition. I'm hard-pressed to think of a single prominent conservative commentator who's supported this pick. This is most definitely not confined to the "fringe".
Kudos.
BTTT
That's pretty ironic, given that you are responding to a seasoned FR commentator who has argued before the Supreme Court - and he has supported this pick.
James Dobson and Chuck Colson support this pick. They don't come any more prominent than those two on the Christian Right. It's just that the Secular Right folks are not fully on board.
I hope you are correct. Unfortunately, I have no judicial record to observe and thus no evidence on either side of the argument.
I am, however, uncomfortable with appearance of cronyism. There are many people more qualified than Miers with solid conservative credentials.
The decision to nominate Miers was too cute, and too calculated.
What about Fred Barnes, Dr. James Dobson and Ken Starr?
What are they, chopped liver?
Nice article. Thank you.
Support for her seems to come from people who have actually worked with her as opposed to pundits. Perhaps that is the source of the disagreement.
If you listen to their complaints, it's a combination of the fact that Miers doesn't have the DC credentials THEY think are suitable, and because they don't get to have their big battle with the Democrats that they've been wanting since Clarence Thomas.
You are correct it is the DC beltway right wing elitists from neo-con to paleocon.
DC political pundits hate her, I see that as a good sign.
IMO Bush knew he couldn't get someone like JRB through the Senate in the Group of 14 environment. And he acutely does not want another Souter. So if you want someone that doesn't present a target to the Dems for a filibuster, but want a literalist conservative who you can trust not to change their views, doesn't it make sense to pick someone you know well and trust? Souter, after all, was the pick of advisors - and Bush the Elder didn't know him at all.
I'm not doubting his impressive credentials, but I think we can all agree that he's hardly a household name.
Ah, so that's what it's about. You need name-brand commentators to make you feel better!
I'll take the input of freepers over TV talking heads any day of the week. The talking heads first and foremost are interested in getting on TV and promoting their punditry. Freepers are interesting in beating the truth out of a story.
This is my favorite complaint Bushbots have raised. We're talking about people who've spent the last several years attacking his critics as irrelevant, even when he's gone against the views of the vast majority of the public. And now these supporters of the son of one of the most politically connected families in the country are complaining about "elitists".
You just can't make this stuff up!
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.