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
Or everyone who thinks he might actually know what he's doing a Bushbot? C'mon, you know you're standing on quicksand with that pathetic retort.
What Is To Be Done?. . . about the Harriet Miers nomination?
Well, William, your options include:
Happy pills,
Hiri Kiri,
Have Hillary undergo a sex-change operation to turn her into a woman and propose her for the SCOTUS position.
Get used to it.
Pres. Bush might have to withdraw her nomination, but if he does I think we all know that he will then strike from every judicial list every candidate put forward by the right, pundits and Senators.
In other words, they will like her replacement considerably less.
He might even decide to guarantee republican control of the whitehouse in '08 by nominating Hillary for the court and thus taking her out of the running for president.
And yes, a monolithic block of democrat Senators and a handful of RINOs would confirm her.
So9
"Actually, the best scenario is for the Democrats to threaten to fight the nomination via filibuster "
I don't think they (the Dems) will oblige him on that though. I don't think they're seriously against her.
No he doesn't.
Apparently, I knew enough to realize what an extremely idiotic idea it was to name your crony to a seat on the Supreme Court, but this rather elementary insight was lost on Bush.
Why would the Dems be unsuccessful? They would filibuster the next pick and the next and on...you underestimate the Dems. Face it, with 7-8 Rinos in the Senate Miers is the best we can do because she is a stealth conservative. Bush doesn't have the votes to pick a fight with Democrats. Reality bites sometimes.
Yeah, yeah. Sorry, oh Sultan of Spelling.:)
I think this nomination is good for the conservative movement in the long term. Right now there is a groundswell of opposition to this nomination (and rightly so!!). Pres. Bush miscalculated his base's loyalty.....he probably thought they had no choice but to vote for Republicans. The Laura Bush comment was the last straw.
Nah. I want you guys to be here when Miers is confirmed, and when she issues her first few opinions.
"Why not cry out for a purge of FR and the party of anyone who is against Harriet?"
I'm sure if he could, he would.
"If we trusted President Bush enough to vote for him, why can we not trust his nomination of Miss Miers?"
How about... because we voted for Bush because the alternative was John F. Kerry, not because we trust him.
neither am I impressed by the lynch squad from the right. I am amazed at how many people don't like it when the left is off the wall but think it's ok to be off the wall as a far right conservative
I have to tell you that being a conservative does not necessarily mean agreeing with the far right who right now are using the same tactics against this nomination as they would scream very loud if the liberal left were doing the same.
Also I might add that many of the far right act as if they are the only base the president have. That's wrong, but most of us don't go whining every time things may not go our exact way about abandoning the party.
On balance I'm not the least bit impressed with the arguments I have heard here against Harriet Miers.
But I am convinced that many of the people here who are against her have such narrow views of how we should be governed that they could never carry an election without us center right people.
And I'm even less impressed every time I read another one of the temper tantrums.
No he doesn't.
Apparently, I knew enough to realize what an extremely idiotic idea it was to name your crony to a seat on the Supreme Court, but this rather elementary insight was lost on Bush.
Yes he does, only you're too egocentric to see it. How many meeting did you have with the members of the Judiciary Committee?
Insiders and friends of the administration have been named to the Court, and diplomatic posts since the beginning of the republic, this is nothing new. Except to those like yourself.
Don't tell me you object to the term BushBot, do you? I've seen some here actually brag about it. And why not? Those who are proud of it have apparently looked within themselves and are ready to admit that "Yes" they will agree with absolutely anything he does.
I'll give 'em credit for honesty anyway.
But now as for the DUmmie troll monicker: Do you really think that's even remotely accurate? Honestly?
Or is it in fact the only thing your side can think of when someone points out how bad Bush sucks?
That's exactly what some of us conservatives have been saying from the get-go, Mr.Kristol. Some conservative pundits have shown that they don't abide by the old axiom, patients is a virtue. Instead, they opine to adnauseam how the Miers nomination is a deathblow to the conservative movement. Ridiculous! Granted Miers is no Scalia, Thomas or Luttig, but she is qualified to sit on the high court. She is a pro-life conservative who believes as a justice of the SCOTUS, she would be responsible to uphold the original intent of the Founding Fathers, as it is written in the US Constitution. Let's see what is revealed about Miers in the Senate hearings before we ask for her head on a platter. So far, so "okay".
-Fortas
-Goldberg
-Those two flaming mediocrities that Truman named to the bench, but who are such an historical footnote that I can't even recall their names
-John Mitchell
-Michael Brown
-Ron Brown
-Julie Miers
-Craig Livingstone
-Bruce Lindsay
-Alberto Gonzales
Need I continue enumerating the specific names of those vivid illustrations of the efficiency and good government that rampant cronynism promotes?
No. But if I said what I really wanted to, I'd be banned.
How do you solve number 1 without number 2? I guess you could hire a bunch of illegals to construct your wall. Save a bunch of money. Ironic, no?
Same reason why his father's choice of Souter shouldn't have been trusted and Reagan's choice of Kennedy shouldn't have been trusted and Ford's choice of Stevens shouldn't have been trusted and Nixon's choice of Blackmun shouldn't.....and all of those looked more trustworthy than this Miers.
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.