Harriet Miers: Should we Trust Bush?
For ongoing coverage, I recommend National Review's Bench Memos; RedState.Org; ConfirmThem.com.
Note: This round-up will be updated over the course of today / tomorrow. Stay tuned.
I'm disappointed because I expected President Bush to nominate someone with a visible and distinguished constitutionalist track record--someone like Maura Corrigan, Alice Batchelder, Edith Jones, Priscilla Owen, or Janice Rogers Brown--to say nothing of Michael Luttig, Michael McConnell, or Samuel Alito. Harriet Miers has an impressive record as a corporate attorney and Bush administration official. She has no constitutionalist credentials that I know of.I'm depressed. Roberts for O'Connor was an unambiguous improvement. Roberts for Rehnquist was an appropriate replacement. But moving Roberts over to the Rehnquist seat meant everything rode on this nomination--and that the president had to be ready to fight on constitutional grounds for a strong nominee. Apparently, he wasn't. It is very hard to avoid the conclusion that President Bush flinched from a fight on constitutional philosophy. Miers is undoubtedly a decent and competent person. But her selection will unavoidably be judged as reflecting a combination of cronyism and capitulation on the part of the president.
I'm demoralized. What does this say about the next three years of the Bush administration--leaving aside for a moment the future of the Court? Surely this is a pick from weakness. Is the administration more broadly so weak? What are the prospects for a strong Bush second term? What are the prospects for holding solid GOP majorities in Congress in 2006 if conservatives are demoralized? And what elected officials will step forward to begin to lay the groundwork for conservative leadership after Bush?
The Weekly Standard is the mouthpiece of the Straussian Neoconservative Cabal, if you believe the fevered conspiracy-theorizings of some on the left. As I remarked to one friend, look on the bright side: this is a sign of hope that Bush has liberated himself from the neoconservative spell. ;-)
Executive editor Fred Barnes is not so dour, cautioning:
The president and others at the White House have had long discussions with her about judges. She and Rove were involved in questioning at least five candidates for the court vacancy Roberts has filled. From those talks over the months, I'm told, it became clear to Bush that she had exactly the philosophy of judicial restraint he favors and that she wouldn't "grow" as a justice and turn into a swing vote or a liberal.Also, I'm told, the president is fully aware of the stakes in this nomination. Roberts's replacement of William Rehnquist as chief justice was simply a conservative replacing a conservative. But Miers would succeed a swing justice. With her, I'm told further, Bush believes he would be altering the ideological makeup of the court, moving it to the right. . . .
why did Bush choose Miers? For him, these nominations are quite personal. He wants to feel comfortable with his nominee, confident his pick will be a conservative now and conservative 20 years from now. Bush picked Roberts after being impressed while interviewing him. His doubts were erased (and there were initial doubts about Roberts). My guess is with Miers his doubts were washed away too.
Bush has managed to create an almost perfect storm of contempt for his base, coupled with ongoing contempt from people who will always loathe him. This is more than mere bungling. This is active stupidity. Stupidity that may come only once in a generation. Stupidity that works on so many levels. You almost have to admire the sheer elegance of the stupidity. It tempts you to believe in Stupid Design Theory. A magnificent, towering monument to the ability of a single man to do so much wrong with so little effort. . . .If Miers turns out to be Souter in a dress, I think this will go down in history as the moment when the pro-life movement finally sez "Go to hell" to Republicans who have played them like fiddles, kept them at arms length, made empty promises and lied them onto the reservation for 25 years. For my money, I'm done with the GOP unless, by some miracle, this unqualified crony turns out to be some sort of wonderful SCOTUS judge. But I doubt it.
That's in 1989, when the big shift was going on in Texas and after she had donated to Democrats. If you're looking for an issue that may have pushed Miers to the GOP, abortion seems to be it. Her donation record from 1992 forward is straight GOP. It was in 1993 that she argued that the ABA allow its members to vote on the group's abortion stance. And she's a member of an evangelical church in Dallas. Dallas area evangelical churches are overwhelmingly pro-life.Miers wouldn't be the first Democrat to switch sides, or to do so because she was specifically repelled by her former party's subservience to NARAL and a pro-abortion platform.
"what is known, through official and unofficial channels, paints a picture of a conservative Texas lawyer with rock-solid beliefs on life, strong religious convictions, and a modesty that should allay fears of a renegade Justice determined to remake society through the courts. John Roberts was the silver-tongued, inside-the-Beltway pick for the Court; Miers is the plain spoken red stater."
As the conservative backlash against the Miers nomination continues to grow the party faithful (company men) keep proclaiming that she is an evangelical Christian who subscribes to conservative positions on issues such as abortion and, therefore, we have nothing to worry about. That silly response to conservative criticism of the Miers nomination absolutely misses the point. We don’t simply want a nominee that broadly holds conservative political opinions or might vote in a particular way on a particular issue. We want someone committed to a METHODOLOGY of interpreting statutes and the Constitution consistent with the ORIGINAL INTENT of those who framed them. We are not simply looking for good results, i.e. cases with decisions we like, but rather judges who consistently use the originalist method of statutory and constitutional interpretation.There was a time in this country when jurists of all political persuasions adhered to the originalist methodology. It is an unfortunate sign of the times that such a position is now considered an exclusive position of the right. In reality, originalism is a politically neutral approach that seeks to stay true to the intent of duly enacted laws while keeping the personal preferences of the judge, who is not a legislator, out of the equation.
Posts
Following the 2004 Presidential election, we've expanded our discussion to cover the public policy decisions of Catholics in public service on both sides of the political divide.
|