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
I could do that. Bill Kristol resents the hell out of not being invited to have some sort of "insider role" in the Bush administration. He fancies himself as a GOP seer, what with his insight into geopolitics (he wants the US to impose Democracy everywhere we can) and his keen political advice (Kristol thought Bush ought to pick Colin Powell for his VP choice back in 2000).
So, yeah. I could go through the rest of my life and never have anything good to say about Bill Kristol again.
Prejudging before the facts are all is a quality that we would IMPEACH a sitting judge for...why should we allow it before we hear all the facts?
Let the period of discovey work and the hearings take place. Then let the emails rain and phone calls rain down on your Senators for a fair up or down vote. It she blows it...and is not confirmed, the President can nominate someone else.
Of course the furor over the next nominate is already waiting in the wings. I can't imagine many people would even accept the nomination because of all the BS that they have to take. Especially if they take it and don't get confirmed!
Bill Kristol is no great sage...just another opinion with a taller flag pole. Remember he supported a loser in McCain...so his instinct and judgment are not infallible.
Finger slip:
Annoring=Annoying.
But this is a moment where it is more important that conservatives stand for core principles than that they stand with the president.
Your side has been reduced to idiotic, unserious comments. You got nothing.
"There has been an extraordinarily energetic and vigorous debate among conservatives"
You mean like calling anyone who disagrees w/ Bush's pick a DUmmie troll?
Because his nomination of Miss Miers shows we shouldn't have trusted him enough to vote for him?
She is the most qualified!
Bush necessarily knows more than you.
Bad spelling is anoring too.
Agree 100%. This debate has revived and strengthened a conservative movement previously listless and disspirited because it was torn between dismay over GW's unconservative ways and its deep sense of loyalty to someone who owes his election and re-election to his overtures to conservatives. It has not hurt the conservative movement at all.
She has no judicial experience, you do not have to have experience to be nominated to the Supreme Court.
How about taking an oath never to rely on anything mentioned by anyone else that does not support Miers? Why not cry out for a purge of FR and the party of anyone who is against Harriet?
"Do you think Mc Cain would ahve been as conservative as GWB?"
Actually, I'm not a McCain supporter, but in retrospect, Yeah. I think he would have.
But he's not. He appointed a judge, and I think he's done pretty damned well at that in the past, so maybe you might give, or maybe just loan, him the benefit of the doubt? Or is that too much to ask?
Kristol is a McCain loving,elitist, sexist Bush hater...to heck with him-no interest. You are not President Kristol- run for the Presidency and if you win you get to pick the judges.
Unfortunately, I don't think the Dims will threaten a fillibuster. The list of Dims supporting the Miers nomination reads like the who's who? of the liberal movement - Susan Faludi, Harry Reid, and Feinstein among others. The Dims are waiting for this nomination to implode.
I think from now I'll restrict myself to echoing your side's sillier statements.
Or is that too much to ask?
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.