Posted on 10/12/2005 3:09:32 PM PDT by indcons
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."
Do these things matter at all when it comes to her qualifications for being an Associate Justice on the United States Supreme Court? Yes. They speak to her character. And in matters of justice, matters of character count.
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
Please remember Kristol was (is) a McCain supporter. Nuf said.
Wonder if there was another consideration and they refused the nomination? Possible don't you think?
Who would you pick and why? And what if they didn't get the fair up or down vote? Ya know, the Dems are just too darn quiet.
1.)Personally,I want to hear what the lady has to say before passing judgement.
2.)It is the Presidents pick to make.I will defer to him.IMHO,He has made plenty of good judical picks.
3.) There is no Constitutional requirement that the nominee be a judge.I belive a normal non-judge lawyer can bring plenty of good perspective to the Supreme Court.
4.)I keep getting this feeling that GWB and KR are just feeding the Lefty's rope once again.
5.)Work hard at electing more Conservatives to the Senate.
GWB may get a hat trick to the Supreme Court.
No, CU is more like one big "DUmmie FUnnies" (and I know I'm not doing the site justice by saying that's all they are, because there is more to it). They collect DU posts and make fun of them. There are several people who are members both here and there.
I see your point and don't disagree one bit. But concern over Miers nomination, shouldn't lead to so many conservative pundits opining for a public lynching. President's Nixon, Reagan and Bush41 did a good job nominating Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas, respectively. Some picks haven't worked out that well for GOP presidents. Understood. But so far all the evidence shows that Miers has a soild legal track record, just not as a judge. Political associates and personal friends have said Miers is pro-life. Miers is a self professed supporter of the Founders idea of original intent. If there is anything detrimental in Miers past, the Senate hearings and ongoing media anal exam should reveal it. Even with giving the benefit of the doubt to both Bush and Miers, nothing is for certain in this world. Especailly not GOP nominees to the SCOTUS.
By the way, what does "BOHICA" stand for?
She did not graduate from a Eastern liberal school, so what.
By the way, what does "BOHICA" stand for?
Also unfortunate, I agree with you on that point.
Was it so hard for the Whitehouse to pick a real conservative? At least someone who can get the endorsement of the FRC, Brownback, or Santorum? (Talk about shooting himself in the foot.) That said, I can be content with the nomination, say if the FRC ultimately goes for it.
Agreed, thank you and I like your tagline.
Thanks!
Kristol is the same dour-faced elitist that didn't like Bob Dole and looked like a prune on election night 2004. Unless you've gone to the right schools and can quote Ayn Rand verbatim, you don't qualify.
Any of ya play football? When a play works, you stick with it and keep doing it all day up and down the field untill it stops working.
Bottom line - If Bush had picked a real Conservative and he/she got fillibustered, no one would blame him..the Dims would have been blamed. Time for us to "grow some"
Ha! ha! Silly wabbit!
Speaking generally in #114
I am willing to give the President the benefit of the doubt on this. However, the fact that Kristol may have supported McCain does not vitiate his comments, especially when you consider people like George Will and the staff of National Review, both reliable supporters of the President, have made similar comments.
LOL! Hilarious; you nailed it, AC.
It may be--we can certainly hope--that Miers will be very impressive ...
And would Kristol apologize for the unfounded accusations and hateful rhetoric he's spewing at Miers?
I love it! Keep the pies going.
And likewise, my critique wasn't directed at you, per se...but at the hypothesis. :-)
It has, perhaps, emboldened both left and right, but that's no consolation either, if the right supposedly already has control. Demonstrating such weakness rather than confidently confronting the opposition is what has allowed such a counterattack from the left recently.
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.