Glad not to be the President in re Harriet Miers
Given a similar educational background to GWB, as well as a certain amount of executive experience, we approach all things Bush from the following analytical framework: what would we do were we in his place?
So far, there hasn’t been all that much that we would have done differently, truth be told. Not on the biggest things: tax cuts, 9-11, GWOT, Iraq. We hate the “new tone” business, but understand the importance of the vast middle, even with conservatives outnumbering liberals 3 to 2. We understand that the MSM are in decline and the New Media have been ascendant for fifteen years, but that old megaphone’s power still has to be respected. We think that McCain-Feingold should have been vetoed, but we marvel at how it has destroyed the Democratic Party.
Today we come to Harriet Miers. From an executive perspective, Miers, whom we (in the role of Bush) have known for years, is not a bad choice: solid conservative, level-headed, grounded in the practical world, religious and respectful of religion, smart, a good lawyer by all accounts, superb in her advice on Supreme Court nominees. She may be AA or AAA compared with some of the major league players like Michael McConnell, but she can be trusted. (McConnell, highly praised in the blogosphere and elsewhere as an exceptional Supreme Court nominee, just might not give good TV, by the way.)
Aside from the facts that lawyer Miers is neither an academic nor a judge, there are so many possible reasons for us to choose Miers for the O’Connor seat:
– more solidly conservative woman than O’Connor
– she’s on Reid’s list of acceptable candidates, probably as a bit of flattery and condescension in the presidential advisory process, but what a way to stick it to the Dems
– limited paper trail on Roe v. Wade matters, though clearly anti-abortion
– non-threatening to some Democrats since she made Reid’s list, which is important because:
(a) — avoids defection of liberal Senate Republicans
(b) — does not encourage the aged and sick John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg to hang on to their seats by their fingernails; ergo
(c) — the Miers pick helps get potentially two more nominees pre-2008
– Miers is insulated against too much criticism from the Right because of the brilliant and credentialed Roberts, and the judges put through by the Gang of 14, all evidence of the absolutely consistent Bush philosophy on judicial appointees
– finally, we know we are going to have the Gunfight at the OK Corral when a McConnell or Luttig or Brown is nominated, but that will be a fight of our own choosing, at our own time: namely, in election season
The only point above that we really question is the last one. Bush has shown himself to be non-confrontational to a fault on some issues, and here is the nub of the problem as we see it. Conservatives, now outnumbering liberals 3 to 2 in the country, are spoiling for a fight, because they think they can now win — and Bush has not been willing to let them have the debate and the fight, at least to date. Is this cowardice and bad judgment on the part of the Bush/Rove team, or are there real electoral consequences to be feared from picking the wrong battle at the wrong time?
Are the “fighting mad” conservatives right? Or are they foolhardy? Are the DJ Drummonds, Bruce Keslers and Hugh Hewitts correct, or are their pugilistic counterparts? One thing appears clear from the choice of Harriet Miers and the conservative outcry: if Bush’s third Supreme Court nominee comes up in 2006, it will have to be a distinguished conservative jurist with a long paper trail, or else. The Miers pick has ensured that the next time, there will be no shying away from battle: Bush will have full-scale, take-no-prisoners, war, either with the Democrats or with his own party.
UPDATE
For support of our thinking, read Jack Kelly and Mark Steyn. Steyn argues that the Bush approach is consistent incrementalism, constantly chafed at by the right, and pretty consistently electorally successful, for all its lack of emotional catharsis. Kelly’s balanced reasoning would prefer the Big Battle, but understands the positive elements of the way that Bush has chosen to approach the war against the left.
October 9th, 2005 at 8:34 am
Hi Dinocrat,
It seems to me that your recent entry regarding Harriett Miers begs the crucial question, i.e, that she’s a “more solidly conservative woman than O’Connor.” How do you know this? What is the basis for your confidence that this is true?
After all, there were many issues — involving criminal procedure, federalism, and various non-hot buttom questions — where O’Connor voted with the conservative bloc (Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas). True, O’Connor voted to affirm the constitutional right to abortion, but at the time of her nomination she stated that she was “personally opposed” to abortion — as, indeed, almost all politicians say they are. Yet when the issue was presented to the Supreme Court, O’Connor lacked the jurisprudential acumen and personal courage to rule in accordance with the Constitution.
Miers completely lacks any record — judicial, academic, or professional — with respect to these sorts of issues. She has never taken a public position on the constitutionality of abortion or affirmative action or gay marriage or any other of the issues on which, presumably, she will vote “more solidly conservative” than O’Connor. Why do you believe that she will demonstrate more backbone than O’Connor did? I certainly have no such confidence.
The pressure on Supreme Court justices must be incomprehensively immense. They, essentially, decide how the rest of us will be allowed to live. To ask a justice to buck the prevailing liberal ethos — one that is backed by existing Supreme Court precedent — is to demand enormous personal commitment and sacrifice. Think of the scorn heaped on Clarence Thomas all these years. There simply is no reason to believe that Harriett Miers is willing — or capable — of acting in a similarly principled and resolute manner. I predict she will sorely disappoint conservatives.
Steven M. Warshawsky
NYC
October 9th, 2005 at 2:28 pm
The time of initial reaction about Harriet Miers is over. There is enough indication that Miers may be suitable, even a good or superior pick for the supreme court. After pondering her bona fide’s since she was named and having the same negative reaction myself, I finally realized the similarity of my reaction to my professional life as an independent litigation adjuster in the field of insurance claims. I’ve often felt the same pang of “Is my defense attorney competent?”, before going into the final phase of deciding whether to settle or try a case.
My professional reaction has always been to talk to those who have been involved alongside or against my attorney, then to talk my defense attorney directly and get a feel for whether there is a need for a change in defense counsel. Maybe the change can be “within” counsel, rather than a change “of” counsel.
Sometimes, because of my principal’s position in the case, a change of defense counsel has been impossible, because nobody likes to change horses in the middle of a race. But in those instances, buying out the case has been the course of preference.
This situation is similar. W isn’t going to pull this nominee. Remember he “found” Cheney the same way he found Miers. (Some things about W don’t instill confidence, such as his improper reaction to Bill Bennett’s recent radio show comments about crime in America.)
But it’s time for we in the conservative world who had reservations to pull back our full commitment to those reservations, until we hear Miers in the senate hearings. It’s better to remain “reserved” in our positions and not become ensconced in guesses about Miers that become difficult to retreat from, if our doubts are removed.
Our suspicions are only suspicions at this point. We’ve almost become part of the problem, with our conclusion jumping. We need to allow ourselves the luxury of getting the facts about Miers. After all, operating on facts is part of what our conservative nature is all about.
October 9th, 2005 at 3:40 pm
Is this another “Rovian” move? It is the Republican Senators that
don’t have the stomach for a knock down fight to get “true”
conservative on the SCOTUS.
GW isn’t running again, but they are. If Miers withdrawals then
it will not be Pres. Bush forcing this fight on the “gentleman’s club”.
(Sadly, the Republicans have expanded the definition of gentleman
to include wimp.)
What could Arlen do then?
Several columnists/bloggers have written that it was clear
that the Senate did not want the all out war necessary
for passing the “Constitutional Option”.
Well, now the base has spoken.
Regards,
Larwyn