Is this Really the Best They Can Do?
[Posted by The Angry Clam]
The only positive things about Miers going around on the blogs have essentially three sources. They’re all weak.
The first is a series of posts on a Christian fundamentalist weblog that several enterprising blog readers have taken to comment spamming a link to on various blogs. The posts are based mostly on what appears to be a short conversation with Texas Supreme Court Justice Hecht, who’s the iconic conservative of that court and, apparently, a close friend of Miers. This friendship is supposed to make us feel all warm and fuzzy over Miers’ nomination.
I have two things to say: 1) Scalia’s best friend in the universe is Justice Ginsburg and 2) Hecht confuses Originalism with Textualism repeatedly in his comments as reported, which leads me to question how much weight we should give his opinion, #1 notwithstanding.
The second is this post by Beldar. At least he’s trying. Still, it’s based entirely on “well, Bush knows her better than we do.” Sorry, that doesn’t fly. Bush thought that Vladimir Putin had a good soul. Bush loves Vicente Fox. And on and on. I have zero trust in the President’s evaluation of the character of others, and even less in his ability to understand or evaluate the jurisprudence of candidates.
The final one is Hugh Hewitt. Full disclosure: I hate Hugh Hewitt, because he’s managed to be a bigger tool of the “Bush is Reagan Part Two!!!” crowd of the Republican Party than even such icons of that group like Sean Hannity.
[Patterico says: remember that this is not my post! It’s the Angry Clam’s. So please don’t leave comments asking me why I hate Hugh Hewitt. I don’t.]
His post, too, rests on the “I trust the President” foundation. I’m sorry, Hugh, but the Bush family, and Republicans in general, have shown that we cannot take them at their word when Supreme Court nominations are in play.
Plus, the very fact that he calls Miers’ qualifications “B+” indicates that he cannot be taken seriously on this matter. I know that her qualifications compare very favorably to his own students, but she would be dwarfed by the intellects that inhabit the Supreme Court, and would be easily intellectually bullied by the advocates, most all the other Justices, and almost certainly her law clerks as well. It’ll be like the later years of Justice Marshall all over again.
No thanks.
More on Hewitt here.
Allah (80cc34) — 10/3/2005 @ 10:19 amThat is pure comedic genius.
Angry Clam (fa7fff) — 10/3/2005 @ 10:30 amI’m a layman with little formal education so I will defer to the experts as to her education and lawyer-skills. I trust Mr. Bush, so I will defer to his knowledge of her heart. But why someone so old (and before feathers get ruffled, I’m 65)? I wanted a rock-solid conservative of any race or gender who would likely have 25+ years of energetic life on the court. I didn’t get such a person and I’m deeply disappointed.
Old Coot (2f7b84) — 10/3/2005 @ 10:51 amI disagree. Coming from a guy who rarely gives any grade below A- to anything a prominent Republican does, a B+ is very damning indeed.
Xrlq (e2795d) — 10/3/2005 @ 11:06 am[…] UPDATE: Patterico weighs in: [Beldar’s defense of the Miers’ nomination is] based entirely on “well, Bush knows her better than we do.” Sorry, that doesn’t fly. Bush thought that Vladimir Putin had a good soul. Bush loves Vicente Fox. And on and on. I have zero trust in the President’s evaluation of the character of others, and even less in his ability to understand or evaluate the jurisprudence of candidates. […]
PrestoPundit » Blog Archive » MEMO TO HUGH HEWITT: (d881ce) — 10/3/2005 @ 11:13 amI have zero trust in the President’s evaluation of the character of others, and even less in his ability to understand or evaluate the jurisprudence of candidates.
Do you particularly dislike a specific Judicial nominee? I thought he had done a good job on his other nominees over the years. Just wondering which one(s) you are not happy with and why.
rls (0516f0) — 10/3/2005 @ 11:38 amI remain displeased at his choice of John Roberts, who devoted a large amount of time not just to distancing himself from Originalism, but actively disclaiming it during his nominations. That’s made up for, somewhat, by the fact that Roberts has a stellar resume. Miers’ is mediocre, and that’s being overly kind to her.
That is, ultimately, the only thing that matters, since the lower court judges are much more a group effort than this. That said, the ones on the appeals courts who have been specifically Bush’s boys, rather than just whose time it was to get nominated, have been generally less impressive than those who appear to have come at the behest of others.
Angry Clam (fa7fff) — 10/3/2005 @ 11:43 amHarriet Miers nominated for Supreme Court (UPDATED ALL DAY)
If there’s one thing we know about President Bush it’s that he places a very high value on trust and personal loyalty up to and beyond a fault. Today Mr. Bush nominated White House counsel Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court of the United…
The Glittering Eye (80002b) — 10/3/2005 @ 12:05 pmClam: “Bush thought that Vladimir Putin had a good soul. ”
Correction: Bush publicly said that he thought that. Words are cheap.
Bostonian (a37519) — 10/3/2005 @ 12:16 pmExplain then how US-Russia foreign relations have not reflected exactly that sentiment.
Angry Clam (fa7fff) — 10/3/2005 @ 12:19 pmFWIW, when Pooty-Poot told us not to invade Iraq, we went ahead and invaded anyway.
Xrlq (e2795d) — 10/3/2005 @ 12:30 pmI am dealing with this stinker by rocking back and forth in the corner, quieting repeating to myself “She’s just a sacrifical lamb to help get McConnell, she’s just a sacrifical lamb to help get McConnell…” Think if I believe it hard enough it’ll come true?
Bench (e5288e) — 10/3/2005 @ 12:49 pm[…] Patterico via Angry Clam has Is this Really the Best They Can Do? The only positive things about Miers going around on the blogs have essentially three sources. They’re all weak. […]
FullosseousFlap’s Dental Blog » Harriet Miers Watch: Message to the White House From the RIGHT - NEGATIVE (baa0b4) — 10/3/2005 @ 2:53 pm[…] Oh, wait a minute….…..…………….. Related Topics: Court News, Supreme Court […]
The Southern California Law Blog » Admit it. I was right. The liberal establishment has won the War of the American Judiciary. (36e489) — 10/3/2005 @ 3:21 pmI’d point out here that the first President Bush didn’t really know David Souter; Mr Souter was a friend of John Sununu, not the president. The current President Bush has known Miss Miers for over a decade; if she’s a “stealth” candidate, it is to other people, not to President Bush.
Miss Miers is actually a very similar nomination to President Bush’s nomination of John Roberts to the Court of Appeals, and that one turned out pretty well. It’s just that there wasn’t much attention paid to the first nomination of Mr Roberts.
The Clamster said:
Really? As nearly as I can tell, President Bush has made some damned good judicial appointments in the past, as evidenced by the throbbing vein in Chuck Schumer’s forehead. What criticisms of nominees like Michael Estrada, Janice Brown, Priscella Owens and William Pryor does Mr Clam have?
Keith Thompson of Sane Nation probably expressed it best, or at least most honestly:
I’d put it differently: As George C Scott in the movie Patton put it:
Well, President Bush, like any commander, looked at the state of his “army,” the Senate Republicans, and saw Mike DeWine and Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins and Lincoln Chafee and George Voinovich and Arlen Specter and John McCain, and asked himself if he really wanted a major battle with such luminaries on his side.
Dana R. Pico (8d0335) — 10/3/2005 @ 5:57 pmAs I suspect there wouldn’t be now, either, if Bush had nominated her to an appellate level court for a few years, and then maybe attempted to promote her to the Supreme Court a couple years down the road when Justice Stevens comes out and admits he’s been brain-dead for the past ten years.
Xrlq (5ffe06) — 10/3/2005 @ 6:38 pmWhat has Miers done that is selfless or that demonstrates a commitment to things greater than her own career interests?
Paul Deignan (9e57a7) — 10/3/2005 @ 6:56 pmI think you are (unfairly) making more of the World Magazine blog posts on this topic than even they are claiming for themselves.
They say:
“People are asking whether I support the Miers nomination. OK: I wish W had chosen one of the judges with a clear, on-the-record, conservative judicial philosophy, and then been willing to fight it out. In the absence of a clear record, it’s important to know who a SCOTUS nominee’s friends are. Since Nathan Hecht is a good friend of Miers and also a good guy, that’s significant. So is the opposition of other thoughtful conservatives. Overall, this time, I’m in the “we report – you decide” camp. We’ll put on this blog, and in World when we go to press on Thursday, views by credible people on both sides.”
They also prefer on the record sources and they say that in this case, the critics prefer to remain off the record.
So, which part of that led you to believe that the posts about her friendship with Hecht were “supposed to make us feel all warm and fuzzy over Miers’ nomination?”
The Anchoress also has a strongly dissenting point of view. I am not happy with this nomination, either, but Anchoress makes me hope I’m wrong. I’d add a link, but you know, I don’t want to be accused of ‘comment spam.’ Or does that only apply if the link is to ‘a Christian fundamentalist’ site?
deputyheadmistress (e71725) — 10/3/2005 @ 6:57 pmI called it “comment spam” because a commentator using the same handle posted the link at, among others
several Volokh Conspiracy entires
several confirmthem entries
Southern Appeal
Professor Bainbridge
and, I’m pretty sure I saw it in a couple of other places as well.
Go ahead and post it- we’re happy to read.
Angry Clam (a7c6b1) — 10/3/2005 @ 8:35 pmThe Anchoress’ post that I wish I could believe is this one.
And folks at World Magazine’s blog are still wanting somebody who knows her to go on the record with a ‘con.’ And they still wish the president had nominated somebody else. nothing there about how we are supposed to feel warm and fuzzy because she loves her mother and her friends speak highly of her.
DeputyHeadmistress (e71725) — 10/4/2005 @ 10:40 amDavid Frum both knows her, having worked with her, and is on the record as “con.” That he doesn’t bother to publish on their blog when he puts it on National Review shouldn’t be taken as the sound of overwhelming silence.
Angry Clam (fa7fff) — 10/4/2005 @ 10:42 amAngry Clam, you are reading far, far, far, I mean really far too much into my post (and World’s- which is the problem).
I never said, thought, or implied that David Frum’s silence on World Mag’s blog indicated an ‘overwhelming silence.’
Sheesh. I am still simply attempting to point out that you read World Mag’s efforts wrongly. You claim it’s weak support for Meier’s nomination- and it’s not even that. You said their posts were supposed to make us feel warm and fuzzy- nope, not their intention, either.
The editor says he does not like this pick and wishes Bush had made another. They also said that in view of her scanty record, they thought it might be useful if they could take a look at who her friends were and learn something- but they’d rather have a better record, and it was not and is not their goal to only report favorable things. They want both pro and con- and, in fact, they have published one ‘off the record’ con which deserves serious consideration, and they are looking for more.
This isn’t a defense of the nomination- and neither were World Mag’s blog posts on the topic.
After reading through those posts three more times I’m only convinced that she is probably a nice person who loves her mother, but I didn’t see anything that made me happy with the President’s pick for SCOTUS. Lots of nice people love their mothers but don’t belong on the Supreme Court- and I think the editors at World Magazine would agree with that.
On Miers you and I pretty much completely agree. On what World Mag is trying to do with their posts and where they stand on Miers we do not agree.
DeputyHeadmistress (e71725) — 10/4/2005 @ 10:58 am