« Book Review: "The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy" | Main | Poor Man »
October 4, 2005
The Miers Morass
Ugh
I as disappointed as most other conservatives are in the selection of Harriet Meirs by President Bush for the Supreme Court.
The bottom line to the whole thing is that liberals are happy and conservatives are disappointed. That tells you all that you need to know.
I'm also sure you're read most reaction by now, so I won't bore you with quotes and links. Let's just get on with it.
Why the Disappointment
We on the right are disappointed because we finally have a chance to change the balance on the Supreme Court, and we feel that the president blew it. Or at least has risked blowing it, because Miers is a mystery candidate, one whos judicial philosophy is unknown.
Republican presidents do not have a good track record at picking Supreme Court justices. President Eisenhower selected Earl Warren and William Brennan. George HW Bush chose David Souter. Others, such as Sandra Day O'Conner, are at best described as "moderates".
So finally, we thought, after so many mistakes, President Bush has learned from history. And, after the brilliant selection of John Roberts, we thought we were on the right path.
The Importance of the Court
As I discussed in my post on John Roberts, it is through the courts that the left tries to impose it's agenda on us:
From gun control, to smoking, to quotas(er, "diversity"), to gay marriage, and now even to the Pledge of Allegiance, liberals have decided that getting judges to enact their agenda is better than trying to elect legislators.And you can see why they would think so. Convincing the public that you are right is so time consuming and expensive. Legislators and governors who enact unpopular laws can be voted out. No, far better to circumvent representative government with a coterie of philosopher-kings. Socrates would have been proud.
As someone who believes that most issues should be decided by the people through their elected representatives, I favor a courts that actually read the constitution, do not make it up as they go along, do not try to impose their social agenda on us, and certainly do not take foreign law into account.
As such, it is not so much "conservatives" I want to see on the Supreme Court, as it is people who will apply the law as written, whatever it may be.
Why Harriet Miers is a Problem
The short, answer, of course, is that her philosophy is a mystery. She may not even have a judicial philosophy. Nothing in her career has forced her to consider Constitutional law.
Her qualifications are minimal, to say the least. Some conservatives have attempted to defend this by arguing that we need an outsider and such. Please. As Jonah Goldberg pointed out over on NRO, if Hillary Clinton appointed a close associate ("crony") of hers with a similar level of experience, would you defend her likewise?
And as Rich Lowry related;
Just talked to a very pro-Bush legal type who says he is ashamed and embarrassed this morning. Says Miers was with an undistinguished law firm; never practiced constitutional law; never argued any big cases; never was on law review; has never written on any of the important legal issues. Says she's not even second rate, but is third rate. Dozens and dozens of women would have been better qualified. Says a crony at FEMA is one thing, but on the high court is something else entirely. Her long history of activity with ABA is not encouraging from a conservative perspective--few conservatives would spend their time that way. In short, he says the pick is “deplorable.” There may be an element of venting here, but thought I'd pass along for what it's worth. It's certainly indicative of the mood right now...
Randy Barnett, writing in Opinion Journal, says much the same thing.
The Defense
Most of the conservative defenses that I have seen are using the "trust George Bush" argument. For all the wordyness of this article, for example, that's what it boils down to.
Sorry, that's not good enough.
Loosing His Base
The reason that's not good enough is that for all of his foreign-policy genuis, he has let us down on domenstic issues.
Name the issue; immigration, spending, legal reform, and what do you get? Not much. Some tax cuts, yes. But on most other issues we have not had progress.
President Bush therefore needed an issue that would rally his base. He needed a fight, something to give us reason to believe, to campaign, and yes to send money. At the very least he needs us standing by ready to help in case the nomination runs into trouble, as it just might.
As things stand now, he's on his own if this nomination goes south.
Scenarios for Trouble
A Paper Trail - Miers was president of a law firm. Law firms have clients, many or most of them corporations. And we know what the left thinks of "corporations". So will the find "corporate polluters" among her clients? Some who didn't have the proper number of minorities on staff? Some who were, gasp, pharmaceutical firms? You can see where this could lead.
She Withers under Fire - Yeah I know, she's supposed to be "tough". But that isn't the issue. These Senators are going to ask tough questions, and they won't let up. What if she doesn't give coherent answers on complicated legal issues?
The "indiscretion" - In 1987 Presient Bush had to withdraw the nomination of Douglas Ginsberg when it became known that when he was younger he had used marijuana a few times. Suppose something surfaces in Miers' record that, while questionable, is not too bad. President Bush will be on his own. Conservatives will not fight for this nominee, nor will Republican Senators.
The "Crony" Charge
On the one hand, it's not a serious charge.'
"Crony" is simply a perjorative for "friend"
If someone is qualified, it does not matter as to whether the appointer and appointee knew each other or not. If the appointee is not qualified, it still does not matter.
But of course on the other had the charge of "cronyism" does matter, because perceptions count. People who say that it doesn't matter have a political tin ear, which leads me to...
A Political Tin Ear?
I have to wonder what Bush was thinking when he made this appointment. Did he now know that conservatives would react this way? If not, then shame on him. If so, then he's snubbing us. Which is worse I do not know.
Conclusions
We'll just have to take our lumps and move on. This is no reason to abandon the president on any other issue. Let's concentrate on finishing up Afghanistan and Iraq, and in fighting the war on terror. The simple fact is that we may have a Democrat in the White House in 2008, if for no other reason than that these things tend to go in cycle, and heaven knows I don't trust any of them on foreign affairs.
Posted by Tom at October 4, 2005 8:53 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.theredhunter.com/mt/refer.cgi/491
Comments
test again
Posted by: Testing at October 11, 2005 9:02 AM
