The Miers Blunder

Wall Street Journal ^ | October 21, 2005 | Editorial

[Cboldt]

He made a specific promise and must be held to account.

There are two irreconcilable camps regarding interpreatation of "the promise."

Did Bush promise to appoint a Justice like Scalia? <- long discussion

I believe the research shows no direct quote attributable to GWB that makes this string ..."I promise to nominate strict constructionst judges in the mold of Thomas and Scalia." However, Bush has said that he would nominate strict constructionist judges. Bush has advanced Scalia and Thomas as benchmark examples to define "strict constructioninst."

Further, VP Cheney was invloved in the following exchange ...

HANNITY: So in that sense, the President's promise, you believe, has been fulfilled, and that is that she fits the mold of a Scalia and a Thomas?

CHENEY: I do.

240 posted on 10/15/2005 8:46:22 PM EDT by newzjunkey

The distinction between a verbatim quote (that doesn't exist), and a Bush promise to nominate strict constructionists does not mean he didn't "make the promise." As a matter of disambigating "strict constructionist," Bush asserted that the examples of Scalia and Thomas were appropriate.

So, Bush DID promise a strict constructionist, and the benchmark that I was led to use to disambuiguate the two words "strict constructionist" were Scalia and Thomas.

I am saying Bush "made the promise."

Vice President Cheney seems to agree with that construction.

In the alternative, one could argue that he did not make the promise -AT ALL-, or ... (see below regarding timing of delivery of the promise)

The ramifications of that, in the minds of some people, would be twofold. First, they themselves are being called liars, and second, that President Bush is not honoring a promise. Those senses strongly undermine the call to "trust him."

The one area that I see being exploited by opposing sides (and discussion of this has the effect of driving the wedge deeper), is to argue the timing of knowledge of the nominees judicial conservatism. Pro-Miers people taking the side that if she acts as a strict constructionist after being seated, the promise has been met. The dark side says "wait a minute, show us first," and as a result is labeled disloyal, untrusting, etc.

And so, the two sides are right back to the "trust me" argument when it's all done. And in that argument, there is no room for dialog.

[alcuin]

I fail to understand how someone whose job was to protect the President can allow herself to become the lightning rod for this kind of attack against him by his own base.

What is the root of all indiscretion?

Vanity.

[alcuin]

Harriet: The WSJ coming out against me, is that bad?

Andrew Card: Uh, well....yes....

Harriet: Perhaps I should talk to them.

Card: Mmm . . . no.

Harriet: Does anyone want some coffee?

[republicofdavis]

"This has nothing to do with Miers and the Court. It has everything to do with the Anti-Miers being mad at Bush."

This is a lie

[rogue yam]

One reason given for it being "somebody worse" is that the President will be angry with the opposition to Ms. Mires nomination, and will strike out to get even. I.e., spite.

And some of the folks who so characterize the situation say that therefore we should "trust" the President. It's like sombody's handing out crazy pills or something!

[IndyTiger]

...squandered opportunity after opportunity to make any real difference on the court.

While I supported Roberts going on the court, I would have preferred that Bush not have moved him into Rehnquist's position as Chief Justice, and promoted Scalia instead to CJ. Promoting Scalia to Chief, replacing O'Connor with Roberts, and selecting a solid proven conservative (JRB, Owen, Luttig) to fill the open seat would have definitely moved the court to the right. This was a major reason why I voted for Bush.

[chris1]

Yet the Bushbots continue to repeat their moronic statements in support of this obvious mistake.

[Cicero]

This is looking worse and worse every day. Just about the only conservatives who support it are Pat Roberts, who is not really the brightest bulb in the pack, and a couple of others who are terribied of displeasing the President.

The longer it goes on, the worse it gets.

A few Bushbots have been saying that if we manage to shoot the Miers nomination down, he will put up Gonzalez, who is even worse. Well, I'm not sure if Gonzalez is worse. They are both terrible choices, who would never have been considered if they hadn't been presidential cronies.

If Bush pulled Miers and then went forward with Gonzalez, forget it. He would never recover. His next three years would be treading water, and his political reputation in history would be mud.

[The Man]

Look,

Whether or not Baker v. Carr was wrongly decided, there has been quite an extensive development of Supreme Court and lower court caselaw on the one man one vote principle. As a result of this caselaw, state legislatures are required to draw districts of almost equal population. This is what Ms. Miers appears to be talking about.

Your comment implied that Ms. Miers was making something up or talking about something she didn't understand. I didn't think that was fair to her, since this is in fact a very significant and substantial line of caselaw. I also found it odd that you stated you taught constitutional law and seemed to say that you were not aware that this caselaw existed.

Anyway, have a nice day.