Posted on 10/10/2005 10:42:41 AM PDT by ejdrapes
OCT. 10, 2005: WHAT THE INSIDERS ARE SAYING More talking over the weekend to more conservative lawyers in Washington. It is hard to convey how unanimously they not only reject, but disdain, the choice of Miers. One commented on this news story that Miers' favorite reading was John Grisham novels: "Look, it's inevitable these senators are going to ask you some obviously stupid questions. You just can't give them obviously stupid answers. How hard is it to say that you are reading Jean Smith's biography of Chief Justice John Marshall?" Another told me of a briefing session to prepare Miers to enter into her duties as White House Counsel. A panel of lawyers who had served in past Republican White Houses was gathered together. After a couple of hours of questions and answers, all agreed: "We're going to need a really strong deputy." It's been reported the reason Miers was named White House Counsel in the first place was that she had proven incompetent as Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy. Her boss, Chief of Staff Andy Card, badly wanted to get her out of his office - but couldn't fire her because she was protected by the president and the first lady. So he promoted her instead. Now we learn that it was Card who was the strongest advocate of moving Miers out of the West Wing altogether and onto the high court - raising the question of whether the ultimate motivation for this nomination is to open the way to hiring a new Counsel by kicking a failed Counsel upstairs. Few of the people I talk to can talk on the public record, although Judge Robert Bork has courageously done so and as time passes others may decide that they have to accept the risks of stepping forward and telling what they know. In the meantime, ask yourself this: Think of all the conservative jurists you know and respect. Have any of them had anything positive to say about this nomination? I can think of only one, Ken Starr, when he was interviewed last week on Fox's Hannity and Colmes. And even Starr confined himself to vague generalities about Miers' "track record." I've reprinted the transcript below. Notice what Starr does not say. He never says Miers possesses a deep knowledge of the law, he can muster no praise for her intellect or abilities as a lawyer, he does not say she'll be a credit the court. He doesn't even say that this is a good nomination beyond a jovial: "She's terrific." In fact, the only specific praise he offers is praise for Miers' formal statement to the press accepting her nomination - a statement that, as Starr would know, was written for her by others on the White House staff. Starr in other words sounds to me like somebody who has been deputized to go on television and find something good to say - and who is searching for a way to be kind without saying anything affirmatively untrue. So, as Ann Coulter mockingly puts it, he emphasizes "how nice, tidy, helpful, and prompt" Miers is. As tepid as Starr's endorsement was, it is just about the only endorsement Miers has received from any conservative with an established reputation in the law. James Dobson, Charles Colson, and Richard Lane of the Southern Baptist Convention have all endorsed Miers heartily. Good men all. But suppose you needed a lawyer to go to City Hall to fight a parking ticket. Would you look to Dobson, Colson, or Lamb for advice on who to hire? I very much doubt it. You'd ask somebody with knowledge of and experience of the law - right? Choosing a Supreme Court justice is a lot more important than fighting a parking ticket. And yet in this matter, almost all the people whose advice you'd want - the people who told you that John Roberts was an outstanding choice - have gone rather curiously quiet, haven't they? Here's the transcript: COLMES: Welcome back to a special edition of "Hannity & Colmes." ... Joining us now, the dean of Pepperdine University School of Law, Ken Starr. Judge Starr, good to see you. Thanks for being here. JUDGE KENNETH STARR, DEAN, PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW: Good to see you, Alan. My pleasure. COLMES: Do you believe the president when he says she is the most qualified person he could find for the job? STARR: Oh, I think she's terrific. First of all, Alan, I've known Harriet Miers for over 15 years. And so forth. And she was the head of 400 person law firm committee on which I was privileged to serve many years ago. She is enormously talented, and I must say I'm a little bit surprised at some of what I read because those who have dealt with Harriet Miers, at the local level, at the state level, she was elected to local office. And I think they're also not taking account that, for example, William Hubbs Rehnquist, now, of course renowned, and he was, of course, of course, an outstanding chief justice of the United States, went directly to the Supreme Court of the United States from an assistant attorney general position at the Justice Department. She's now counseling the president -- yes, Sean. HANNITY: Hi, Judge, how are you? Welcome back, as always, to the program. Do you have any doubts whatsoever that she's an originalist in the mold of a Scalia or Thomas? You know her. I don't know her. STARR: Yes. I don't, and I'll tell you, Sean, I was very comforted by what she said yesterday when one of the first things that she said. Obviously, she's honored, as any lawyer would be. But one of the things that she invoked was a founding vision of the role of the judiciary. And one of the great and burning issues is who decides these tremendous issues such as the Supreme Court had before today, an end of life kind of issue. I think she means what she says when she says, "I respect the founding vision of a limited judiciary. HANNITY: The president believes that -- because remember, the president ran two elections saying that he would appoint people in the mold of a Scalia or Thomas. And I believe the president believes she fits that bill or he wouldn't have done it. I believe he's a man of honor and integrity. I don't question that in any way, shape, manner or form. I guess what I'm hearing from a lot of conservatives, Judge Starr, is that they feel they've been burned, that there are important questions here. Too much is at stake right now. Seven of the nine justices prior to John Roberts were appointed by Republicans, and many of them were disappointments. And you know, there's no track record here and they are very, very concerned. STARR: But there is a track record of, I think, extraordinary service in the practice of law and in doing things in a way that did... HANNITY: But what is her judicial philosophy? STARR: I think we know that by virtue of the fact that she has been very clear, certainly in her opening statement, or I should say, when she was first asked what does this mean to you? And when she invokes 1787 and 1789, I think that shows us the right kind of instinct. Now has she been a judge? No. But there are many justices of the Supreme Court who have not been judges. And I think we've gotten a little bit overly accustomed, frankly, to say that unless you bring your robe to the confirmation hearing, somehow there's a question about it. But I think we also need to bear in mind she has been the counsel to the president of the United States and served in other very high White House positions. COLMES: We thank you for being with us tonight. Good to see you. STARR: Oh, my pleasure, Alan
I trust neither Bush nor Frum. There's really little room for trust in politics. SHOW ME THE MONEY!
Is the head of the Federalist Society a conservative lawyer, because he said good things about Miers.
Leo something?
You're right about the tepid comment. That's ridiculous. LOL!
He's conservative and his endorsement is a good thing for Miers. It's just waay too little.
I largely reject the pro-miers complaint that all the opponents are elitists. But I do want to point out that quotes like this one are what give rise to the complaint. And the complaint is not totally without merit, apparently.
I presume they aren't saying she should lie about what she is reading just to score points, so they must be complaining that she doesn't read the "right" books.
It does make you want to go, Hmmmmm.
Count on it; they've all made outlandish statements and claims and now they have no choice except to "go deeper" to prove themselves right.
Bush has clearly insulted the conservative base. The selection of Miers is not only a political and judicial mistake but an EMBARRASSMENT. Bush ignored a host of conservatives who have judicial temperaments, constitutional expertise, and solid track records for a third rate crony who will need on-the-job training. The best minds of the conservative movement -- George Will, John Fund, David Frum, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, to mention only a few -- rightly see this nomination as an indefensible joke. What little we know about this cipher is all bad - a Dem who supported Gore and other liberal candidates. Pat Buchanan is right in stating that for 40 years she has had no known position on ANY of the issues over which conservatives have struggled to triumph. Bush's sole response: trust me. Doesn't that remind us of someone who once said "read my lips"? Bush has failed to seize an opportunity that comes once in a generation -- to restore the balance of the Court in an originalist direction. He's also hurt the party for the coming '06 election.
Something is going on here we don't understand, I'm convinced of it, outside the nomination itself.
At first I thought it was pre-positioning for 2006 and 2008, but, FGS, it's SO personal and vitriolic.
I'm beginning to think the neocons are upset because they were left out of the process. What else could explain Bill Kristol's "Anderson Cooper" moment on Fox News Sunday yesterday?
Andy Card wants her fired, so he pushes her to become Supreme Court Justice. The logic being she is too incomptent to be White House counsel but compentent enough to be appointed for life to the Supreme Court. a little "tinfoil" hat logic.
I like the direction your inquiry is taking!!
Is that a macro?
There in lies the problem ... you want the fight, not a judge. For the President to nominate a known conservative with a paper trail a mile long, would be to solicit a fight. It would not be a win - just a fight.
Just because 55 individuals have an R inserted after their name, does not mean the Republicans control the Senate or anything else for that matter.
There are 14 SINators controlling the agenda and the country right now, along with the judicial tyrants scattered across the country. Until everyone understands that, nothing will be resolved as we continue blathering about nothing.
Sounds much like a Seinfeld episode..
I was right, Frum is delusional. His latest theory is Miers is being given a Supreme Court nomination in order to remove her from the WH, such a disaster is she.
Good grief.
We can draw straws to see who gets to beat up Frum.
Oh, puh-leeze. Those in the anti-Meirs crowd who bristle at the "elitist" accusation should listen to themselves. The snobbery just DRIPS from this anonymous carper -- Miers doesn't read the right books. Grisham novels, how vulgar of her. Worse, this critic reveals him/herself to be utterly dishonest as well: his/her advice is to LIE. Which comes easily ("How hard is it...?") Disgusting.
I also think that now that there is no re-election for Bush, he stands alone. This might have happened much sooner if he hadn't had the benefit of John Kerry running for the job. I didn't even vote for GW in 00, but I did in 04. It was a post 9-11 vote.
But I think he's basically wearing out what's left of his welcome. It's probably a bit of second term-itis. But it's definitely unleashed a lot of feelings that were probably lurking there anyway. I never thought GW was much. He's a mediocrity in my book. So there's not really far to fall when he finally screws up the one last thing I was hoping he might get right.
But, hey, I allow for the fact that I could be wrong. I could look back one day and think I had it all wrong. But I think my feelings might be similar to some others going around. but then, I'm a 1% (libertarian.)
You can take him, he's a wimp.
I agree with you. Frum seems mean spirited and like he has a giant axe to grind. I'm not happy about the nomination, but Frum comes accross like a spoiled brat.
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.