Evidently Bush’s nomination of Harriet Miers to replaced O’Conner on the bench has folks on both sides of the aisle all a-twitter. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid is said to have been someone who suggested her to Bush. Democrats are still leery of her lack of judicial record on their key issues. Republicans, especially on the far Right, are equally concerned — and, since they are “in power,” are kind of cheesed.
Eugene Delgaudio, president of the conservative group Public Advocate, described the nomination as “a betrayal of the conservative, pro-family voters whose support put Bush in the White House in both the 2000 and 2004 elections and who were promised Supreme Court appointments in the mold of (Clarence) Thomas and (Antonin) Scalia. … When there are so many proven judges in the mix, it is unacceptable this president has appointed a political crony with no conservative credentials.”
Added Troy Newman of Operation Rescue, an anti-abortion group: “The small pieces of information we do know are disappointing. For example, she?s Southern Methodist, notoriously pro-abortion.”
Well, gee, with folks like that miffed at her nomination, I’m almost ready to leap forward and support her whole-heartedly.
What worries me is not her abortion stand, which will surely be “anti-“, but the fact that this one issue has become so important that a president would even consider making someone so unqualified a Supreme because of it.
Because of the long effect and difficult reversal of supreme court nominees, they should require a supermajority to confirm. There’s too much at stake to let it rest on the historical accident of 51%.
Roberts struck me as a pretty good pick for Bush, though he should have made a standing Supreme the Chief. Miers will be the “Brownie” of the Supreme Court.
As I read the reaction from folks — mostly on the right — there are three key critiques:
1. She’s not a judge.
Actually, quite a number of SCOTUS Justices have not been judges previously. Rehnquist was one of them. It was thought (in the analysis I heard several months ago) that such a situation was unlikely to happen again, but … well … here we are.
Now, as a non-judge, is she qualified? That’s a different matter. And you can ask whether the criterion should be “she’s not unqualified/disqualified” (the negative) or “she’s qualified” (the positive). What’s the Senate’s responsibility here, vs. the President?
2. We don’t know that she’ll vote for/against Roe v. Wade.
The litmus test here is astonishingly bald. Groups on the left are highly suspicious of her not knowing that she’ll uphold Roe. Groups on the right are highly suspicious of her not knowing that she’ll over turn it. It’s almost amusing to watch.
3. She’s a political crony of Bush’s.
The Dubya Administration has been rightly accused of cronyism and over-loyalty in the past, and there may be some truth to that here. Of course, this bubbles over into broad conspiracy themes of “He’s nominating a friend so that when he gets impeached/indicted after his term is up, he’ll have an ally on the Court.” Being a close friend of Bush is not (in this context) a disqualification. If that’s the only or major reason she was nominated, though, it’s a problem.
But, again, to what extent does the President have to make his case (practically as well as legally). Does he have to prove that she’s the best candidate, or only that there’s no real reason to oppose her?
I don’t get the feeling that she’s the ideal candidate for the job. I’m not sure that any “ideal” candidate could get through the barrage of litmus paper likely to be thrown. I don’t know, though, that she’s a bad choice for the position, and I’m incline to take the folks on either extremes ranting negatively about her as a positive sign that at least she’s not in their camps, and thus ought to be confirmed.
She’s certainly hard to characterize. She gave to Al Gore’s campaign a few years back, and also according to NPR this morning tried to get the ABA to reverse its pro-choice position (in her capacity as president of the Texas Bar, I believe).
I ran across a conservative web forum the other day where they invited several bloggers to give their picks – Miers was on several “no!” lists. I think if she’s confirmed she’ll confound both sides, because we’ll find that she’s not religiously conservative enough for the Right, but she’s too pro-business conservative for the Left. The client list for her law firm reads like the Texas Who’s Who of Big O’l and Big Drugs.
Pat Buchanan’s torqued off. I’m sold. I’d support Michael Meyers on the bench if it would —
Well, no, I wouldn’t. But I’d support a lot of folks just to see Pat Buchanan go ballistic.
It seems to me that the charge of cronyism is perhaps reasonable as an charge against Bush, but not as a reason to judge Miers as unsuitable for the Supreme Court. A President would be shirking his or her duty if he or she nominated someone to the Supreme Court just because they were an associate of his or hers. That is what I understand cronyism to be. However, someone nominated to the Supreme Court could be well-qualified even if he or she was nominated for the wrong reason. To argue that Miers should not be on the Supreme Court, one should consider her qualifications, not her association with Bush and not the reasons why Bush nominated her. To say she is unqualified because she is a crony of Bush’s is to commit the fallacy of guilt by association.
From Mike Littwin’s column today,
According to National Review online commentator David Frum – the former Bush speechwriter who worked with Miers in the White House – she once told him Bush was “the most brilliant man she had ever met.”
Riiight. This from a woman who had to have met Condoleeza, Rove, and other actually smart people from time to time.
It’s clear to me that the Prez takes the Supreme Court far more seriously than FEMA. Mere cronyhood was not enough. She’s also a proven team player and a world-class butt-kisser with no inhibitions at all.
Georgee likee the Frenchee.