Jump to navigation
Guest Blogging: on Harriet Miers
Mike Ahlf
Hey all,
Since RAW is having lots of fun with "life" the next couple weeks, I offered (and he said yes) to fill in. Our topic today, of course, is Harriet Miers, who is
no longer a nominee for the Supreme Court.
Lots of blogs out there, too many to list really, went one way or the other. Democrat blogs were either mum, or trying to dig into her past. Conservative blogs were, susprisingly (but not overly so), also unsupportive of Miers.
The rub of the matter: being relatively conservative myself, Miers surprised me. I, like many, thought this was blatant cronyism. Like many conservatives who aren't big-R Republicans, I've come to have a passing support of President Bush issue by issue, depending on whether or not he's representing my principles. As in this case it seemed obvious cronyism, and there wasn't enough information for me to have a good idea of what her qualifications were as a real constitutional scholar (not to say that I think much of the Court currently are, since it's obvious some of them haven't read the document in decades), I couldn't stand firmly behind her.
I was also, I fear, dissuaded by the behavior of the other side. As some would say in talk radio, most nominees that the other side of the aisle would agree with, are not people I would. Yes, the Democrats were putting up token opposition, but it didn't seem quite real. Any nominee that fits my perceptions of a good judge, likely is someone who will infuriate at least a few of them (especially those whose job it is to be infuriated), so the relative silence was unsettling.
I was also unconvinced by Bush's assurances that she "shares his judicial philosophy", because I've yet to nail down what that is. If she shares a judicial philosophy that let the Microsoft antitrust suit wither on the vine, that passes and expands the PATRIOT Act with no oversight and in light of recent FBI admissions of grevious abuses, I'm sure I don't agree with it.
Sum total: I'm glad she's gone. There are plenty of nominees who will be relatively transparent, and will have a record from which their record and thoughts can be gleaned, rather than having to trust Bush's word when I already disagree with him at least 30% of the time.
Observations
>>I was also unconvinced by Bush's assurances that she "shares his judicial philosophy", because I've yet to nail down what that is.<<
Probably his federal court nominees are a good way to figure that out. Conservatives have mostly agreed they've been a solid bunch. Miers helped to vet them.
This notion from so many libertarian law professor bloggers and Ivy League elites that one of their own must be nominated stuck me about as badly as the alleged cronyism struck you.
It wasn't a great nomination, but their petulant reaction wasn't all that great either. And they surely did undercut the longstanding conservative argument that the President deserves great deference for his nominees. That he didn't get it from his own party will surely mean he's not going to get it from liberals for the next controversially conservative judge he nominates.
But hey, Staff Sergeant for the Ivy League Keyboard Corps of Cadets David Frum will be happy! Because it's apparently more important for some to pick fights and lose than to govern. :)
I personally do not believe that the fight over Miers was over Miers at all.
Turned out to be a spectacularly bad pick, but one never knows which straw is going to snap the camel's back.
Both sides of this whole thing come out looking pretty bad, in my view. More than a couple canards of the right have been more-or-less exposed in this feud.
The notion that we should support the president in unrelated endeavors to bolster his leverage in the War on Terror? Gone.
The notion that every nominee deserves a vote? Gone.
The notion that the right believes that Bush's steel-eyed resolve should be respected? Not so much.
The notion that the Bush team hasn't lost control of the political environment and is simply taking a longer view of things than we can appreciate? All but gone.
Publius,
Yeah, I agree on the thing about libertarian law profs as well - but it still irks me that for Miers, it was the conservatives who wound up in arms, while the "usual suspect" Democrats were amazingly silent.
Something just, as I said, doesn't sit right when a nominee doesn't generate a significant amount of opposition from the other side - they cry wolf so often and regularly that when they're not willing to do so, it means they actually agree with something about her, and given the points of disagreement I have with them, I don't sleep well until I know what it is they and she agree with.
>> it was the conservatives who wound up in arms, while the "usual suspect" Democrats were amazingly silent. <<
They didn't have to say a word for her nomination to die.
I realize that they haven't been that organized since Tom Daschle's departure, but they really showed great discipline this time, allowing conservatives to eat one of their own. It really wasn't pretty. Is David Frum REALLY your idea of the face of conservatism? Because he's not mine. I put more stock in the Prez.
If the new litmus test of "conservatism" is "no stealth nominees because we'd rather pick a fight," fine. I'm not so sure that it's always necessary or prudent to pick a fight, though. We'll see.
Add an Observation
Comment spam is an ongoing problems that we're trying to address. Previously we required people to create accounts and log in. I am thankful to say that is no longer the case. We're giving Captcha another try and are playing around with a text-based Q&A variant of Captcha. So bear with us as we try to figure out how to best get a handle ont he problem. Please note that any comment on a post more than 30 days old will go into the moderation queue, where I will get to it when I can which could be once a week.
