Not all conservatives are upset by the Miers nomination. NDLS’s own Rick Garnett says the Right should trust Bush on this one:
President Bush and his advisors — his advisors who are, it should be remembered, entirely committed to constitutionalism in the courts — believe that Ms. Miers is a judicial conservative.I yield to no one in my respect for the “farm team” — McConnell, Alito, Luttig, etc. — but I am also surprised that some are so quick to assume that this President, who fought hard to get home-run judges Pryor, Owen, Colloton, Brown, McConnell, Sutton, Roberts, etc., confirmed to the courts, would suddenly drop the constitutionalism-ball just to be nice to an old friend or to satisfy those demanding another female justice. This is a White House — and, more particularly, this is a White House Counsel’s office — that is well stocked with very smart conservative lawyers, who understand that few things are as important to a President’s sucess, and few tasks are as central to his constitutional obligations, as judicial nominations. Whatever our complaints might be about some of this President’s decisions, I do not think he has ever given conservatives anything to complain about when it comes to judges and Justices. …
President Bush clearly believes that Harriet Miers is a conservative, who does share the commitment of Justices Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist, and Roberts to a democracy-respecting understanding of the Constitution. This is not a case where those of us who believe strongly in the rule of law are being asked to rely on the vouching of Sununu and Rudman; this is a case where an Administration that has consistently — uniformly — picked solid judges is holding out a nominee who, the Administration reports, is every bit as solid.
Mark Levin is unconvinced by Garnett’s argument. Levin isn’t willing to just trust the Bushies; he wants “some evidence that Miers is sound philosophically.”
Hugh Hewitt, however, is also sounding the “trust” theme:
Harriet Miers isn’t a Justice Souter pick, so don’t be silly. It is a solid, B+ pick. The first President Bush didn’t know David Souter, but trusted Chief of Staff Sununu and Senator Rudman. The first President Bush got burned badly because he trusted the enthusiams of others.The second President Bush knows Harriet Miers, and knows her well. The White House Counsel is an unknown to most SCOTUS observors, but not to the president, who has seen her at work for great lengths of years and in very different situations, including as an advisor in wartime.
He expands from there on the “wartime” theme, arguing that Miers is a good pick precisely because she has experience in the executive branch during the war on terror.
The Anchoress also “disagree[s] with the hysterics coming from the right, today” and thinks this is the ultimate rope-a-dope:
When I saw her name being floated - she who has no record on the bench, who, in 1988, contributed to some Democrats (ahem - just as I and many others did - good lord half of the conservative blogosphere are former Democrats), who is a winner of the Sandra Day O’Connor award for Excellence in Lawyering, or whatever that award is…my first thought was - she’s an ardently pro-life churchgoer who is going to confound the Democrats, who will really want to hate her but will find themselves unable to credibly do that. And she’ll outrage the right (until they begin to start thinking) which will help her get past the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Along the same lines is this post from NRO:
Bush knows she’s a hard-a**, he knows she will be tough on Roe, marriage, etc. But he’s not going to tell anyone that, he’s doing what in football is called a draw play. He’s blunting the dems; the groups can’t figure her out and don’t want to be too kooky (relying instead on conservatives to bash her), and she scoots right onto the bench. Once there, her real self appears — GOPers are happy; dems are, once again, left scratching their head.
Perhaps.
Getting back to The Anchoress… later in the same above-linked post, she brings up an entirely different possibility:
She may not make it to the Supreme Court. Bush may not even intend for her to get there. She may be, rather than the ‘misdirection’ many expected, an out-and-out decoy, floated to allow both the liberals and the conservatives to blast her out of the water so that Bush can then put up another candidate that both left and right - after having behaved very badly over Miers - will get behind.
I’m still finding that “throw Miers under the bus” theory hard to believe, but who knows? Only time will tell, I suppose.
Oh, and Professor Bainbridge is not pleased, not pleased at all.
Okay, lunch break over, back to work.
P.S. Heh.
|
Categories: Uncategorized
|
October 3rd, 2005 at 2:37:03 pm
Bring Bork Back!!!
Run that man until he gets on!
He is even better looking than Miers.
October 3rd, 2005 at 2:39:56 pm
Once again Bush has thrown conservatives over-board for political expediency.
When are you conservatives - fiscal, Christian, compassionate, whatever - going to realize this guy has one priority - getting money to his political cronies. Bush does not care about Jesus, fiscal responsiblity or any of that stuff. It is all window-dressing to get you right-thinking Right Wingers to shout “praise the Lord” and let him ram another $200 billion bill through Congress on the credit lines of your children, grand-children and great-grand-children.
Bush is RINO, plain and simple
October 3rd, 2005 at 2:44:20 pm
Where’s Leahy on this one? I wanna hear his take.
October 3rd, 2005 at 2:44:45 pm
I agree Bush is a loser.
So just give me a pro-life Democrat, ANY pro-life Democrat, and I will vote for him.
October 3rd, 2005 at 2:46:11 pm
A pro-life Democrat will be both anti-abortion and anti-death penalty. Are you ready for that?
October 3rd, 2005 at 2:46:32 pm
YES!
October 3rd, 2005 at 2:46:58 pm
Champion-
Leahy is gone forever. Brendan banned him for making very personal and hurtful remarks. I don’t blame Brendan at all for banning him.
October 3rd, 2005 at 2:49:12 pm
WTF?? I go away for a week and the only person more reviled than myself is banned? Damnit, that’s what I get for taking my eye off the ball.
October 3rd, 2005 at 2:49:55 pm
Anonymous-
Gee whiz! Is there such an animal? I thought only Bill O’Reilly (who is insane on most issues) took the pro-life position to its logical conclusion.
If innocent life is sacred, and there is no way to be 100% sure a convicted murderer is not innocent, then how do you support Capital Punishment.
To put it another way, if a governor could bow to political pressure to execute an innocent man 2,000 years ago in Judea, what is to prevent that from happening now in, I don’t know, Texas?
October 3rd, 2005 at 3:37:41 pm
If innocent life is sacred, and there is no way to be 100% sure a convicted murderer is not innocent, then how do you support Capital Punishment.
How about, it is absolutely 100% certain that a fetus is innocent, whereas there is probably a 99% chance that a convicted murderer is guilty.
I’m not saying that therefore that position is correct, but the notion that the two are mutually exclusive drives me nuts.
October 3rd, 2005 at 3:55:58 pm
At the risk of getting back on topic, what’s the chance that Ms Miers will be confirmed, then step down ‘for personal reasons’ in 6 months - leaving enough time for a replacement still during Bush II Part 2 ?
If there’s a big nomination fight from the Democrats over Ms Miers, they prove beyond the proverbial shadow of a doubt that *ALL* they care about is being anti-Bush … (and remember that I don’t use the “ALL” word lightly) …
If the Dems let her in easily, then they position themselves for a situation where, if they fight against an even vaguely reasonable replacement, they can be charged with Election year posturing …
Before being so hypercritical, ask yourselves what *valid* reasons might exist for having Ms Miers nominated …
(btw - Macchiavelli is a rank amateur when compared to low Highland cunning !)
October 3rd, 2005 at 3:58:23 pm
I would argue that there are no absolutes. Juries are fallible, and even if a person is 100% guitly of a crime, that doesn’t mean that they are 100% evil. I personally have no problem with the idea of the death penalty, I do, however have a problem with how it is applied. I think that your 99% certainty rate is a bit naive, but for the sake of argument, let’s say that it’s accurate; how would you feel if you or a loved one happened to be in that 1%? Even a rate of 1% execution of innocents is too high.
What’s contradictory in the anti-abortion pro-death stance is all of the grandstanding about the sanctity of life. If you truly believe in the sanctity of life, at what point does a life become unsanctified and therefore takeable?
Also, I would argue that not 100% of fetuses are innocent. Have you seen The Bad Seed? Some kids are just evil from the get-go.
October 3rd, 2005 at 4:04:58 pm
F*ck you, Alasdair. Were you aware that Leahy was banned? Did you have a hand in this?
October 3rd, 2005 at 4:18:07 pm
“How about, it is absolutely 100% certain that a fetus is innocent, whereas there is probably a 99% chance that a convicted murderer is guilty.”
What if there is an 80% chance the convicted murderer is guilty? Or 50/50? Does that change things? How do you know for sure? Doesn’t God say, “Thou shalt not kill?” Who are WE to act as God?
If you want to take a strict moralistic approach to this, then you have to say ALL killing is wrong. War may be exempt because you can argue self-defense, but it is not self-defense to execute somebody who is behind bars.
I don’t believe you should be able to have it both ways. If you are pro-life (which I am) you need to be pro-LIFE.
October 3rd, 2005 at 4:19:35 pm
I’m pro-death. I think everyone should be killed. There, I said it.
October 3rd, 2005 at 4:27:07 pm
Champion-
At least you are consistent.
October 3rd, 2005 at 4:30:13 pm
Confirm Them has been fun to watch. Less than enthusiastic, I’d say.
Orin Kerr points out these domains are open, just in case confirmthem.com gets to be too confusing.
October 3rd, 2005 at 4:30:35 pm
Aye, that I am. If I could execute Alasdair for what he did to Leahy I wouldn’t hesitate for a second.
October 3rd, 2005 at 4:37:58 pm
I agree that ‘life is life’ should not be treated as a given and their are certainly key differences between abortion and the death penalty that prohibit them from necessarily being bundled.
“All life in precious”, be it fetus or murderer is, however, a vaild position that one could chose to take.
October 3rd, 2005 at 4:44:47 pm
Champion, Alasdair had nothing to do with why Brendan banned Coach. If you want to know the details, email Brendan, he has offered to elaborate on his reasons for those interested.
October 3rd, 2005 at 4:47:13 pm
Thanks Bea, but I am conducting an independent investigation into the matter.
October 3rd, 2005 at 4:54:43 pm
Leahy! You out there? If so, please email me about the matter in question. It would certainly help further my investigation to get your unbiased version of the story.
October 3rd, 2005 at 4:55:42 pm
Hey, how come my email link isn’t coming up? MEDIC!
October 3rd, 2005 at 4:55:59 pm
About as independent as having Brown investigate FEMA’s failures….
October 3rd, 2005 at 4:57:22 pm
Fine, saboteurs be damned. Leahy, email me: champ_sound@yahoo.com
October 3rd, 2005 at 4:59:27 pm
Champion, if you email Brendan and hear his explanation, you will then be able to confirm his explanation independent of what Brendan will tell you is his reason. I suggest you go directly to the webmaster for clarification on this matter.
October 3rd, 2005 at 5:04:16 pm
Bea, it’s certainly not that I don’t trust Brendan’s decicion in the matter, or need to have him defend it, I’d just like to hear the Coach’s side as well.
October 3rd, 2005 at 5:14:25 pm
I get a kick out of Bush detractors that give him all sort of credit for nefarious scheming.
Stains on his legacy will include the following: the Superdome, lack of post-war planning in Iraq, an unfocused Social Security reform message, unwillingness to take a nuanced approach on taxes, disappearance on stem cell research when faced with valid questions, etc. etc. etc.
His supporters point to decisiveness, while opponents cite some sort of evil conspiracy. But look at that list again, and you may conclude that his soured legacy is not a result of some neoconish knavery, but rather plain old indifference.
Why the inexplicable Harriet Miers choice? Maybe because she was just familiar enough that he would be able to remember the talking points and still make it to sleepytime by 9:15 PM.
Path of least resistance, people - that’s your President’s MO.
October 3rd, 2005 at 5:41:37 pm
i just want to tell y’all that life is precious, and god and the bible.
October 3rd, 2005 at 6:07:53 pm
Coach,
If Leahy has been banned, what good do you think it will do to post YOUR e-mail here? I’d guess he is not likely to be hanging around on the comments if he can’t post himself. E-mail Brendan and my guess is he will give you Leahy’s address as well.
October 3rd, 2005 at 6:13:49 pm
David,
Somehow, I FEEL Leahy is still here. Call it his spirt, his ghost, or perhaps the man himself, but it’s a real presence and no one can tell me otherwise.
October 3rd, 2005 at 6:21:05 pm
David, Champion has Coach’s address now.
October 3rd, 2005 at 6:27:20 pm
We are in touch and my invetigation is proceeding apace.
October 3rd, 2005 at 6:36:11 pm
While I have you here Bea, as a conservative and a woman, what is your take on the latest nominee? Does it matter to you that she is a she? Do you have an opinion on her qualifications? I really know nothing about her so I am curious what people on both sides think since she seems to have been a bit of an odd choice.
October 3rd, 2005 at 7:16:41 pm
I know nothing about her, at all, so I cannot make an educated comment on whether this is a good choice or not at this time.
I can tell you that yes, I am happy to see she is a woman, because I always like to see competent women in leadership and prominent positions, which is not to say I like women nominated simply because they are women, but that I like to see women suceed in areas that have historically been male-dominated, and suceed on their own merits. However, if Bush had picked a white male who was a good choice for the job, I would not be upset that he did not pick a minority. I have several issues with Bush and his administration, but I think he has done a good job of appointing women and minorities to prominent positions, and those who barked at him for not nominating a woman when he nominated Roberts, or those who dismiss those minorities appointed by Bush as mere uncle toms because they happen to think that being a minority and not being liberal is like a crime agaisnt humanity, do a diservice to their cause and to the American people.
Who knows what Miers will turn out to be, and if a lot of her work will be protected under attorney-client priviledge, we might not be able to get a full idea of who this woman is, and will have to trust that the president knows what he is doing. This will be hard for both liberals and many conservatives. However, I am very happy with Roberts for Chief Justice, because he seems very competent, and I think he will be fair and will do a good job, and feel a little more inclined to trust the president’s choice thus far. As of right now, that both the right and the left have demostrated somewhat of a knee jerk opposition to her leads me to think I will like this pick. As you know David, I am fiscal conservative but not a social conservative, and I am not looking forward to the kind of nominee that the social right wingers might be rooting for. I am not ready to dismiss someone as a right winger simply because they feel Roe v Wade was a poor decision (one can be pro-choice and not conservative and think it was a poor decision, even if one is happy with the outcome, for example). I am also not ready to dimiss as a bleeding liberal someone who chooses to follow Roe v Wade as presedent if the rst of his or her actions and decisions have a conservative flavor. All in all, I do not think Roe v Wade is the litmus test that it has become, and I surely think there are greater issues facing this nation that whether or not Roe v Wade is overturned. Personally, I am more troubled by Kelo v New London than by Roe v Wade, one of the reasons being, I do not think overturning Roe v Wade would mean time travel back to the pre-Roe v Wade era, and I think states would be able to handle the abortion debate (I am one of those state rights people). I do not wish to have a Roe V Wade debate , I just wanted to point out how things other than Roe v Wade are what concern me most.
I also think the cronysm criticism is a little premature. Brown was an example of a political apointment that should not have been, and I fault the president for appointing someone who apparently did not have the skills and experience necessary to carryout the job (I say apaprently because I have not followed that story closely enough, but from what I have read it does seem to me that Bush made a mistake in appointing Brown). Miers must be a dam good lawyer to be White House Consel, and until someone shows me she is a sucky lawyer, I will not call it cronysm. After all, if you get the chance to appoint someone to one of the most important posts in the land, will you not perhaps consider a qualified employee who has demostrated her excellence through the quality of her work? Why would the person being close to you because of the nature of her job be a disqualifier? Incompetence, lack of skills for the task at hand, those are the reasons to not pick someone. Knowing them personally or having had them work under you is not one of them. Perhaps Miers, perhaps is not quite that great, but until we know, dimissing her simply for her close times to the president is dumb. I am no Bush fan, but until more details come to light, I am willing to give the president the benfit of the doubt, which is more than I have given him on most every other ocassion :)
October 3rd, 2005 at 7:45:29 pm
Hey, if I am to be executed, it should be for something waaaay more important than calling a standby a standby !
Now, my puns - ah, the joys of a well-executed pun - some of *those*, at least, are worthy of execration, even if not, perhaps, execution …
(contented grin)