I am perhaps the last conservative blogger to weigh in on the president’s nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. On the day the appointment was announced, I didn’t say much because I didn’t want to draw attention away from Bruce’s clever post on the topic (which garnered him much well-deserved acclaim in the blogosphere). And that I got busy with papers, classes and other things.
Like the folks at Powerline, I was disappointed with the choice. While Ms. Miers is, no doubt, an excellent attorney and, in many ways, a legal pioneer, rising in the profession at a time when there were few successful female attorneys and while she is loyal to a president whom I (by and large) support, I had hoped the president would pick someone like Miguel Estrada, Michigan Supreme Court Justice Maura Corrigan or Circuit Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, the latter my first choice. I hoped for someone who had not only a fine legal mind, but had also shown a keen understanding of the types of issues likely to reach the U.S. Supreme Court. The president thus “missed an opportunity to drive home with the public the fact that the most brilliant and most principled thinkers in the legal profession are conservatives, not liberals.”
Basically, I think President Bush took the base for granted on this one. After John Roberts’ nomination was well-received by all but the most extreme conservatives, the president may have gotten a little cocky and assumed conservatives would support whomever he tapped for the Supremes. He thought they would see Miers’ loyalty to him as loyalty to conservative principles, so when Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid liked the idea (of Miers’ nomination), the president may have thought he had a consensus pick. And ever eager to be a united, he named her.
In taking the base for granted, the president committed what is arguably the biggest blunder of his administration. The fact that he is trying to reassure conservatives after he announced the pick proves that he and his aides did not do their homework as he was considering Miers’ appointment. According to the Wall Street Journal‘s John Fund in yesterday’s Political Diary, her nomination was not properly vetted. She “was not interviewed by several key players who were deeply involved in the Roberts selection,” including “Karl Rove, Vice President Cheney and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.” This morning, Lorie Byrd noted that the “lack of advance work led to the huge failure to anticipate the reaction of many to the Miers nomination.”
While I will wait until her confirmation hearings to make up my final decision about whether or not she should be confirmed, the more I hear about her, the more I lean against her confirmation. Hugh Hewitt‘s support at first convinced me that she would be a responsible conservative jurist. But, as I saw that her most enthusiastic support for her came from social conservatives, II became increasingly troubled by the appointment.
To be sure, a number of conservatives whom I respect including the Federalist Society‘s Leonard Leo have backed her. Leo points out that “she has helped carry out the President’s promise to find and select judicial nominees such as John Roberts who will interpret the law rather than make it up.”
And with Miers’ help, the president (with one or two exceptions) has done a great job in nominating qualified men and women to the federal bench. The editors of the Wall Street Journal remind us:
If his track record on judges is a guide, Mr. Bush deserves some deference. His appellate nominees have been uniformly solid, and often distinguished. One of those nominees was John Roberts, who at 50 years old is now the Chief Justice. For five years Ms. Miers has been part of the President’s judicial-selection committee that promoted those nominees, and for the last year was its chairman.
The fact that Mr. Bush has known Ms. Miers so well and for so long also makes it unlikely that she is another David Souter, who was sold to George H.W. Bush as a “conservative” by Warren Rudman but morphed into a liberal on the bench. Assorted Texans who have more political credibility than Mr. Rudman–such as state Supreme Court Judge Nathan Hecht–also speak highly of Ms. Miers as a legal mind and assert confidently that she is a conservative constitutionalist.
All that said, the more I read, the less I am certain. For example, Patterico concludes that her response to one question on a Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire “sounds like she is saying that the Equal Protection Clause requires that members of protected classes be represented on legislative bodies in numbers corresponding to their proportion in the general population.” (Via Malcontent‘s adorable Robbie.)
While some conservatives have been a bit harsh in their criticism of the president for making this pick — and of Ms. Miers as well, on the whole, I think the debate has been civil and good for the conservative movement. Indeed, Rush Limbaugh says it shows the “strength of the conservative movement.”
Just a few days after the nomination, however, my Athena (Peggy Noonan) suggested that the “headline is not that this White House endlessly bows to the right but that it is not at all afraid of the right.” Should conservatives conclude that she is not qualified and should Republican Senators join Democrats in voting against her confirmation, this may well remind the president how much he needs the base. That he can’t take conservatives for granted.
And the White House has not done a good job of reassuring the base about this nomination. Indeed, the president’s aides have actually hurt their cause when they criticize many who normally support him, calling some “sexist” and “elitist,” for opposing this nomination. It looks like it’s going to be up to Ms. Miers to use her confirmation hearings to reassure the base — and convince Senators (and the American people) that she’s qualified for the job.
While I currently lean against the nomination, I do believe that Harriet Miers — and the president for that matter — deserve the benefit of the doubt until those hearings.
In failing to properly vet Ms. Miers and in failing to adequately consult with his conservatives supporters, the president blundered badly in nominating her for the Supreme Court. He took the base for granted, ignoring those who have defended him against mean-spirited assaults from Democrats and their allies in the media, who helped him win re-election and worked with him to achieve many of his goals since he first won election.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
I think the best description of Harriet Miers is “Lowest Common Denominator.” Bush wanted to avoid a fight with the Democrats and give the base someone who was just conservative enough to make them go along. He miscalculated. The result is a classic example of trying to appease both sides, and ending up caught in the crossfire.
Well (and succintly) put, V.
With sincere “all due respects” to GP and GPW, (Love your Site! I usually agree 60-70%) this is a MAJOR blunder!
This just highlights two things for me.
This administration is notorious for “NOT doing their homework” (i.e. Iraq, etc.)
And
This shows what kind of judgment President Bush is capable of without Rove and Cheney looking over his shoulder.
Mier’s selection was atrocious. Not only has this woman handled only eight appeals in her life (I’ve handled more in the last 12 months! I even graduated from a better school! And I don’t belong on Supreme Court and I know it!)), she also has never been admitted to practice before the Supreme Court, and even allowed her bar license to lapse later last year. She’s such a disaster on so many levels that it is difficult to even know where to start.
Yep.Yep.Yep.
Dan,
I hate to disagree with you because I generally enjoy your literate contributions to Gay Patriot. But I wonder if you’d like to rethink your statement that ignoring his base — by nominating Harriett Miers — is George W. Bush’s greatest blunder.
I would suggest that his administration’s miscaluations, bungling and arrogant stubbornness in Iraq are his greatest blunder.
God, I wish someone like Attorney General Gonzales (who was my first choice for the court appointment) had had more to say on who was nominated. The problem is, Bush did try to please his base. At least part of it. Playing a major role in Ms. Miers’ selection was an ad hoc group of four far-right wing attorneys, called the “Four Horsemen”, who advise the White House on judicial nominaions. It includes a “lawyer-evangelist” with close ties to the Rev. Pat Robertson. That may explain why Robertson is threatening Republican senators who don’t vote to confirm Ms. Miers. Of course, I’m not sure whether he means assassination or simply retribution at the polls.
Jack in #6, although the president has made many mistakes in Iraq, I think the recent elections as well as the nabbing a few days ago of Yasir Sabhawi Ibrahim, a top deputy to Zarqawi, indeed one of his key financiers, shows how things are improving there.
I didn’t hear the story of the Four Horseman, but from what I read after doing the post, the nomination doesn’t seem to be in good shape with the more mainstream conservative legal-types, those who have been pleased with the Administration’s past judicial appointments, including the president’s excellent selection for Chief Justice.
I think the president acted on his own on this one. And trusted his gut. I also think he wanted to please Laura and appoint a woman. Too bad he didn’t consider any of a number of female judges, including Priscilla Owen, Alice Batchelder, Maura Corrigan, Karen Williams, Consuela Callahan, Diane Sykes or even Janice Rogers Brown.
I don’t think it is a miscalculation in the way people are saying. Sen Reid had her on his list. I will bet that the White House figured that the Dems would divide and be thrown for a loop on what to do. She is the one who has been coaching other appointees on how to answer during the hearing so they knew her appearance would be no surprises. The miscalculation comes from misjudging those who wanted someone extreme.
I’m betting (hear that gaycowboybob?) that the usually commentary from the Left here will opine little of merit on the central theme of your post, Dan. Why? Because to agree with you is to impeach their own mantra that you and this site is a lapdog for the Pres and all things GOP.
I give you credit for saying her nomination is a mistake –for the country, the Court, for Bush, for the Administration, for America.
Never was so much given to someone of so little merit. It’s like appointing Paul ONeill to Treasury Secy or Mel Gonalez to HUD… what a wasted opportunity to bring meaningful change to institutions that needed it. Compared to those, the Miers nomination is “stuck on stupid”. She needs to haul ass out of the Sen courtesy mtgs, step up to the plate, withdraw her name from consideration, and allow a new nominee to be brought forward and properly vetted.
Never was so much given to someone of so little merit… ‘xcept maybe David Souter… but still, no pun intended, Miers is bush league for SCOTUS. Good post.
I don’t disagree entirely with your analysis, but I don’t think this President could ever be accuse of wanting to be a “uniter”. He abandoned “compassionate conservatism” a long, long, time ago after it helped win him the first election. Look at the noticeable absence of any talk of reconciliation in his second campaign.
I think what he was trying to do was to present a “stealth” candidate, a person with radical right social views but with a demur appearance. Like a reverse Justice Ginsberg. He simply picked the wrong one in that she is a little too stealthy for his religious right base to appreciate. Also, don’t forget that the majority of the woman’s legal work has been in corporate law, something that he probably thought would go over well with the business lobby. And the other thing I think is just a plain fact is that all his appointments do show a very strong streak of cronyism. The final factor, which has been a hallmark of his Presidency, is that he does live in Bushworld, where everyone one always agrees with him, and everything his advisors tell him is that absolute truth. Cocooned off from reality like that, it’s no surprise in hindsight that he could come up with such a politically inept pick.
I do not think the nomination of Harriet Miers is a blunder, though the failure to prevent a rebellion by conservatives as well as the Administration PR campaign were and are serious blunders. It is doubtful, in my view, that a nominee like Luttig or Rogers Brown could survive a Dem filibuster. The moderate Republican votes to break the filibuster cannot be counted on. And, if the “nuclear option” took place, the Democrats would, in retaliation, make it impossible for the Senate to consider legislation on any of Bush’s priorities. Thus, Bush needed to find a person that he was confident would satisfy his campaign promise to nominate only strict constructionists to the bench AND make it difficult for Democrats to filibuster. Harriet Miers fits the bill to a T, and for that reason, I felt that it was a shrewd choice. Unfortunately, those conservatives who wanted a great ideological fight were left snarling. But, surely, Bush’s position would be the prudent one…why create a political fight that you can’t win, when you can get what you want without the same fight by doing things a little differently? To do otherwise, in my view, is not unlike a high school student sitting for an AP exam answering the hard essay rather than the easy essay because he wanted a challenge.
Somehow, I think the dividing lines among conservatives aren’t ideological as such. Rather they are between those who view politics as the art of the possible (and incremental improvements) versus those who do not. This explains why Pat Robertson – in a surprising moment of relative santiy – supports Miers. It is unfortunate, in my view, that so many conservatives are unwilling to consider the merits of an LBJ “count the votes” style of politics. At the end of the day, if Miers sinks, I don’t see that as making it more likely that a conservative judge that her nay-sayers would like will be nominated and confirmed. If anything, the anti-Miers hysteria has significantly decreased the liklihood that we will get such a nominee. Thus, while Bush blundered the sale job for Miers, the bulk of the blame for the fiasco goes to the anti-Miers smearers.
Patrick, your stealth theory is not that different from one Charles Krauthammer (who remains “exercised” by the nomination) offers in his column today where he contends, “The president’s mistake was thinking he could sneak a reliable conservative past the liberal litmus tests (on abortion, above all) by nominating a candidate at once exceptionally obscure and exceptionally well known to him.”
It’s wrong however to say that “all his appointments do show a very strong streak of cronyism.” A number of them are, but, on the whole, particularly in the judicial realm, he has largely appointed very competent people. But, alas, he, like most politicians, including his predecessor, has appointed some individuals of questionable competence just because they’re his buddies.
You think this was a bigger blunder than invading a foreign country based on allegations of weapons it didn’t have?
Andy #13, given that, at the time of the liberation, the intelligence services of every major industrial nation believed that Saddam had such weapons and given that the president based his decision to invade on more than just such allegations, including Iraq’s repeated violations of United Nations’ resolutions as well as the terms of the cease-fire to the 1991 Gulf War, it’s clear that the liberation of Iraq was no such blunder.
It’s amusing how critics of the president continually repeat the lie that the president based the liberation of Iraq exclusively on allegations that Iraq had WMD. To be sure, he did bring up such allegations as one factor justifying the operation, but any review of the record, any look at speeches and statements that he, Administration official, top advisors and officials made in the “run-up” to Operation Iraqi Freedom make clear that this much repeated claim of Bush critics misrepresents the reasons the Administration articulated for war.
I hadn’t read Krauthammer until just now, so there are similarities. Where I would part company with him is (a) that Bush made the right and prudent decision to nominate her given the political situation he has found himself in and (b) withdrawing the nomination is likely to hinder, rather than help, conservative aspirations for the judiciary. Perhaps if Bush strengthens politically or if the Senate improves in 2006, a more well-known conservative could be appointed.
#14 — Good Point, GPW. If you follow Andy’s “reasoning” to its logical conclusion, you are left with… Even if there is global consensus that a dictator has WMD, and even if that dictator is in violation of 14 UN resolutions to disarm, and even if that dictator is funding terrorism and harboring terrorists inside his county … we ought to do nothing about it because we might be wrong.
Thanks GPW….. Definately food for thought, … but I’m still torn between “Mission Accomplished” 5/2003 and “Heck of a job, Brownie” 9/2005…. but granted, it is very difficult to rank this guy’s blunders.
You made two statements that have me a bit confused when taken in tandem:
I had hoped the president would pick someone like Miguel Estrada, Michigan Supreme Court Justice Maura Corrigan or Circuit Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, the latter my first choice.
and
[A]s I saw that her most enthusiastic support for [Miers] came from social conservatives, I became increasingly troubled by the appointment.
Can you help me square that circle? Aren’t some of those other judges you would have perferred pretty socially conservative, as well? What exactly troubles you?
Did anyone else read the questionnaire that she returned to the Judiciary Committee? It was rife with misspellings and other errors. I thought she was being touted as a stickler for details. Hmmmm. Doesn’t the White House have any proofreaders?
I used to think she might be all right, but anyone who writes this sloppily is clearly incapable of writing a decent opinion for the US Supreme Court.
Oh, I have such renewed respect for Mr. Jack Allen, who wrote the truth that will hurt you kiddies the most in No. 6 above, when he said:
“I hate to disagree with you because I generally enjoy your literate contributions to Gay Patriot. But I wonder if you’d like to rethink your statement that ignoring his base — by nominating Harriett Miers — is George W. Bush’s greatest blunder. I would suggest that his administration’s miscaluations, bungling and arrogant stubbornness in Iraq are his greatest blunder.”
Could NOT have said that better myself — this guy Bush is the Worst President Ever!
GPW in No. 14 above, you become the ultimate apologist for the Bush Folly when you wrote: “given that, at the time of the liberation, the intelligence services of every major industrial nation believed that Saddam had such weapons and given that the president based his decision to invade on more than just such allegations, including Iraq’s repeated violations of United Nations’ resolutions as well as the terms of the cease-fire to the 1991 Gulf War, it’s clear that the liberation of Iraq was no such blunder. It’s amusing how critics of the president continually repeat the lie that the president based the liberation of Iraq exclusively on allegations that Iraq had WMD. To be sure, he did bring up such allegations as one factor justifying the operation, but any review of the record, any look at speeches and statements that he, Administration official, top advisors and officials made in the “run-up” to Operation Iraqi Freedom make clear that this much repeated claim of Bush critics misrepresents the reasons the Administration articulated for war.”
OK, so we’re supposed to believe the American public was persuaded to go to war by “violations of UN resolutions”? That’s a big-time pile of hockey. Americans do NOT go to war over violations of UN resolutions, or we would have been at war with Israel for decades. Americans go to war at the mention of imminent threats such as biological weapons, nuclear weapons headed our way. Not violations of UN resolutions. On the other hand, this is all good practice for you gay patriots, for you’ll have years, decades to practice your defense of this Folly; just as you’ve had years/decades of defending Nixon. So get on with it.
Americans do NOT go to war over violations of UN resolutions, or we would have been at war with Israel for decades. Americans go to war at the mention of imminent threats such as biological weapons, nuclear weapons headed our way. Not violations of UN resolutions.
One word…..Kosovo.
There is nothing wrong with Harriet’s nomination because Bush never makes a mistake. This has been the masthead of this blog since I can remember. Gay Not-so-patriotic-now-that-I think-about-it has time and time again pointed to the mission statement:
(GayPatriot) Representing the million gay and lesbian Americans supporting President Bush.
All of you suddenly disloyal to the president should be ashamed of your selves for saying one thing, and no surprise, doing another.
I, as a gay liberal, stand firmly for Ms. Mier’s quick confirmation.
Judas, you are like Peter before the crucifiction.
Shame on all of you fairweather conservativrs.
Shame.
Before the crucifiction.
Judas, you are like Peter before the crucifiction.
Way to screw up a biblical analogy, dude.
Judas like Peter? Peter like Judas?
Judas denied his cock three times?
Who knows what Heather Chandler actually means, and I could care less.
The latest revelations about Miers seems to spell her demise. First, she has revealed that her license to practice law in Texas was suspended in 1989:
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-images/upload/Miers_to_Shumer.pdf
Note that this is IN ADDITION TO her suspension from the D.C. Bar last year. What I want to know is: was she representing anyone in Court for the time period between the suspension of the license and the reinstatement? In my own state, it would be a felony to do so.
Second, Miers is quoted as enthusiastically endorsing racial and gender quotas during her tenure as Bar President:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/21/AR2005102102139.html
Mind you, we are not talking about a generic, feel-good affirmative action goal sheet, but a full blown numerical quota system, one that even Jesse Jackson would not endorse.
I wonder if the White House will announce her withdrawal on Monday or Tuesday.
Frank IBC (Ignorant But Cunty?),
Judas, an ininterjection, means TRAITOR. So, in your simple little mind, I could have written:
Traitor, you are like Peter before the cricifiction.
However, I much prefer the double Biblical pronouncement of using Judas.
And I am glad you could care less, as I could not.
Christ, you’re stupid.
(I take it that you get I don’t mean Christ is stupid, but I can explain that to you also)
“Ininterjection”? “Cricifiction”?
Sheesh…
cinty!
Is that another typo, or are you calling me a diminutive of the name “Cynthia”, and if the latter, why?
Frank
IBC?
Itty
Bitty
Clitty?
Sweet blog lay out. I am creating a website based on data diego recovery san.Should I add a blog too or just keep my website? Do you have both?. A New Starter, VINCE