A Very Bad Pick
Harriet Miers
The Positives: Bush knows her. She has worked alongside him. That's the thing about nepotism and cronyism. The powerful don't appoint their friends and relatives because they simply like them. They appoint their friends and relatives because they trust them. What further may have convinced Bush is that she was his adviser on the Robert's nomination. Thus Bush was able to see what she thought was important in a justice in an environment where she was not campaigning for the job. In effect, he got to see her off guard. The perfect judicial nominee, from the perspective of the president, is one where he knows how she will vote on everything (and agrees with these votes) but no one else does. The nominee is not unknown to everyone (like Souter) just unknown to the public and the Senate.
The Negatives:
1) She is a lightweight. David Frum reports she told him President Bush is the most intelligent person she has ever met. There is an intellectual movement in this country rejecting the "living Constitution." We have the intellectual firepower on our side. A Luttig or another one of our judicial stars would help this movement. A lightweight will not.
2) Bush may be wrong. We have no way of knowing she will not turn into another Souter. There are 55 Republicans in the Senate. Currently, only three have ever voted against a Bush nominee. Bush should be able to put in a person with "Roe v. Wade sucks" tattooed on their buttocks. He should at least have tried.
Overall, this is basically a disaster. If either Miers or Roberts votes to uphold Roe v. Wade, the convservative governing coalition of this country, an alliance of foreign policy hawks, social conservatives, and fiscal conservatives, will implode. It will cause grave damage to the country. This is idiocy.
The Positives: Bush knows her. She has worked alongside him. That's the thing about nepotism and cronyism. The powerful don't appoint their friends and relatives because they simply like them. They appoint their friends and relatives because they trust them. What further may have convinced Bush is that she was his adviser on the Robert's nomination. Thus Bush was able to see what she thought was important in a justice in an environment where she was not campaigning for the job. In effect, he got to see her off guard. The perfect judicial nominee, from the perspective of the president, is one where he knows how she will vote on everything (and agrees with these votes) but no one else does. The nominee is not unknown to everyone (like Souter) just unknown to the public and the Senate.
The Negatives:
1) She is a lightweight. David Frum reports she told him President Bush is the most intelligent person she has ever met. There is an intellectual movement in this country rejecting the "living Constitution." We have the intellectual firepower on our side. A Luttig or another one of our judicial stars would help this movement. A lightweight will not.
2) Bush may be wrong. We have no way of knowing she will not turn into another Souter. There are 55 Republicans in the Senate. Currently, only three have ever voted against a Bush nominee. Bush should be able to put in a person with "Roe v. Wade sucks" tattooed on their buttocks. He should at least have tried.
Overall, this is basically a disaster. If either Miers or Roberts votes to uphold Roe v. Wade, the convservative governing coalition of this country, an alliance of foreign policy hawks, social conservatives, and fiscal conservatives, will implode. It will cause grave damage to the country. This is idiocy.
posted by Harsh Pencil | 10/03/2005 10:46:00 AM
Sadly, I am in agreement with CP on this matter. I like Miers because she is not an elite (not a graduate of the ivy league). However, I think her prior Democratic connections in the 1990s (when she was in her 40s-50s) put her true convictions into doubt. We may learn from this nomination that Bush is truly in a cocoon and that his whole top level staff should be fired.
It's not just Roe v. Wade and Social issues. It is how will she rule on the government giving appeal rights to terrorists and other national security matters.
Nevertheless, it has only been 4 hours since the announcement. We should her a chance to defend the nomination. Its too bad that we have to waste time trying to determine if someone is conservative enough for the court rather than fighting the liberals.
Bush is smarter than he comes off. (His neocon sins are not blunders, but intentional.)
Is he throwing Miers out there as red meat, a sacrificial lamb? Is there an actual justice candidate waiting in the wings?
The GOP itself may vote this woman down.
Apaprently Cheney is supopsed to defend her on Rush this afternoon. It will be interesting to see what she has to say.
I think we should give the Administration a chance. If she cannot be defended with facts by the Administration (meaning they need to rely on more than "trust us") she needs to be voted down or her nomination withdrawn. The politically stupid thing about this nomination is that it will be republicans voting her down, not democrats filibustering. Then again, however, it will be an example of a candidate getting an "up or down" vote.
If Miers comes out and says she disapproves of Roe, then you know the whole thing is a Rove trick (which I dont think it is).
Post a Comment