10/13/2005

21 Responses to “The Vetting (If You Can Call It That) of Harriet Miers”

1. Patrick,

   She is not second rate.

   Certainly Harriet Miers is not Flap’s first choice but to say she is second rate is petulant.

   Flap (d699e0) — 10/13/2005 @ 3:41 pm

   
   

2. Well, she certainly ain’t first rate.

   And third rate just seems mean.

   Christopher Cross (354863) — 10/13/2005 @ 3:50 pm

   
   

3. Rate this:

   Who is pretending to be President Bush? Does the real GWB have an evil twin, or have the bad guys succeeded in sending in an impostor, a “Manchurian Candidate?”

   Mr President, I was pretty sure we had a darn good idea of who you are. But I don’t feel the same way about the guy who’s taken your place.

   What happened after Hurricane Katrina? It seems not much has gone right since then.

   Black Jack (ee9fe2) — 10/13/2005 @ 4:25 pm

   
   

4. Black Jack, I really must wear my tin foil hat more often, I think you have been reading my mind. Wow! It’s almost as if the Bush WH has been attempting to screw up at every opportunuity. At a minimum they have become politically tone deaf. So much for the evil genius I guess.

   Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 10/13/2005 @ 6:15 pm

   
   

5. You may be on to something, Jack. Something’s amiss in the V.R-W.C. This is most definitely not the Rovian operation we’ve come to love — you know, the one that set up Dan Rather.

   And I thought McCain was the Manchurian Candidate. Doh! [Homer Simpson forehead slap]

   TNugent (6128b4) — 10/13/2005 @ 6:33 pm

   
   

6. STOP THEE REBELLION AND DEMONIC FRATERCIDE, SINNER!

   THE PRINCE OF LIES WHISPERS IN THY EARS!

   Bill from INDC (8cd171) — 10/13/2005 @ 7:11 pm

   
   

7. And Chris what do you call a recent law school grad, who is awaiting bar results?

   Just kidding……

   We should stop with the name calling and stick with the arguments but then again those folks over at Loyola are weak on the former. Again, just kidding….REALLY!

   Hey when are you leaving for your armed forces tour of duty?

   Flap

   Flap (cc77c4) — 10/13/2005 @ 9:04 pm

   
   

8. Why, 84th rate, clearly. I’m right behind Lionel Hutz in my qualification to be on the high court.

   Christopher Cross (ce65a9) — 10/13/2005 @ 10:11 pm

   
   

9. First rate?

   Have you guys read some of the excerpts of her writing that are coming out? Here’s a sample:

   “More and more, intractable problems in our society have one answer: broad based intolerance of unacceptable conditions and a commitment by many to fix problems.

   We must end collective acceptance of inappropriate conduct and increase education in professionalism.

   When consensus of diverse leadership can be achieved on issues of importance, the greatest impact can be achieved.

   “An organization must also implement programs to fulfill strategies established through its goals and mission. Methods for evaluation of these strategies are a necessity. With the framework of mission, goals, strategies, programs, and methods for evaluation in place, a meaningful budgeting process can begin.”

   “There is always a necessity to tend to a myriad of responsibilities on a number of cases as well as matters not directly related to the practice of law.” Any yet, “Disciplining ourselves to provide the opportunity for thought and analysis has to rise again to a high priority.”

   Anyone want to tell me what that passage means?

   Good god. That reads like it was written by a high school sophomore. This is someone that’s going to be writing SCOTUS opinions.

   Hewitt’s opinion? ‘Its silly and unfair to read what’s she’s written and judge her on it. Pay no attention to it.’

   Dwilkers (a1687a) — 10/14/2005 @ 4:53 am

   
   

10. Dwilkers, it bears considering the context and her role when she wrote it — if it was something she wrote when her job was to be a “uniter, not a divider” (you know, like her boss), then maybe we mark it up with a red pencil and move on.

    But it seems like every time I step back, take a deep breath, and tell myself to wait for the hearings, we get another one of those tidbits that might just be a glimpse of her approach to decision making.

    If she really meant what she wrote, we all need to worry about not just her writing ability, but her philosophy as well. One sentence stands out: “When consensus of diverse leadership can be achieved on issues of importance, the greatest impact can be achieved.” The only good thing we can say about this sentence is that she didn’t use impact as a verb. I’m afraid that someday in the not too distant future we’re going to feel like the alternate-universe Ebeneezer Scrooge who understands too late that it wasn’t just an ordinary bad dream. After we’ve seen what Hugh Hewitt and the rest of her supporters will lament as a leftward drift (but of course, it won’t be a drift at all, but an entirely predictable application by Miers of her judicial philosophy — you know, the one she shares with W), we’ll realize that the “just trust me” arguments, the meaningless assurances of her pro-life views, the conspicuous absence of anyone who dislikes her or has even had strong disagreements with her, and this illuminating bit of drivel were all pointing us toward the marker that read “Harriet Miers values consensus above all.”

    I hope I’m wrong. Maybe Hewitt can convince me that I am. But first, he needs to stop lobbying for a job as Miers’ clerk.

    TNugent (58efde) — 10/14/2005 @ 7:45 am

    
    

11. One last time I want to stick up for the “it’s all a crap shoot” position. Certainly Miers’ resume is merely good, not stellar. But nominees with solid resumes, touted as ‘reliable conservatives,’ have disappointed as often as their mediocre bretheren. Potter Stewart’s resume included Phi Beta Kappa at Yale, Yale Law review, and four years on the Circuit Court; and here we are posting stories “No More Potter Stewarts.” And how about that “another Burger” Harry Blackmun? Conversely, in the last twenty years, the nominee with the most mediocre resume, and thinnest record of deep thinking on constitutional issues, was Clarence Thomas, who is now much loved by the Movement.

    Mark G@lliher (805000) — 10/14/2005 @ 7:54 am

    
    

12. Well, Thomas at least was on the DC Circuit for a time prior to his nomination.

    Christopher Cross (3d17c1) — 10/14/2005 @ 8:00 am

    
    

13. Miers makes me uncomfortable. It is the same feeling we all had about Katrina. You mean Bush/Feds are not going to sweep in and save us all?

    But one day of sending nasty emails to WH was enough for me to get a grip. I wanted The Fight before Roberts. When it didn’t happen, I assumed the Senate really was in enemy hands. Bush only looks at results, even if tiny steps toward his goal. I never believed we went to war over WMDs but because of location of real estate, in the middle of Islam. He wants Miers, I will just have to settle with being uncomfortable. Why would I vote for someone to wage war and not trust his judgement with this? Because he is not a lawyer and unable to understand complex situations?

    owl (043069) — 10/14/2005 @ 8:02 am

    
    

14. Too early for this sort of thing:

    If John Fund is correct, a flawed process allowed a flawed candidate to circumvent the usual safeguards. Once Harriet Miers made the White House short list, and she was already pre-approved by Harry Reid, the stage was set for GWB’s excellent blunder.

    He nominated her for the simple personal reasons that he liked her, was happy with her job performance, approved her religious beliefs, and thought he could predict her judicial decisions. Curious indeed that from such calm waters can such great storms brew.

    GWB has justifiable faith is his ability to judge people, and usually he’s exceptionally good at it. But, like the NY Mayor said, “…when I make a mistake, it’s a beaut.” Too often are we blind to the dangers concealed within our greatest strengths. And so we heedlessly rush in, when a calm and dignified caution would better serve our purposes.

    Anyone who saw the WH Press Conference yesterday and felt the sharp sting of embarrassment as Scott McCellen tried to double talk and bully his way out of the Miers qualifications swamp, got a clear whiff of the confusion, anger, and outright panic which now surrounds the Oval Office. Clearly, a siege mentality has taken firm grasp.

    A bible story seems to suggest itself here: Recall the story of an Egyptian King who made a poor decision, was given many opportunities to correct it, but in his anger and his arrogance not only refused to listen, but punished friends and advisors who dissented. In the end, the destruction was greater than anyone imagined.

    Greek tragedy too is full of similar cautions about leaders to proud or bullheaded to correct their mistakes, and the grief and destruction it brings down on them and their people.

    We can learn from history or we can continue to make the same mistakes again and again. But, perhaps I forget myself, I’m only a poor solder, and these are weighty matters better left to the men of consequence.

    Black Jack (ee9fe2) — 10/14/2005 @ 8:23 am

    
    

15. And Thomas went to Yale Law.

    Not to mention that, prior to Anita Hill, his biggest issue was his expressed views on natural law as a controlling force in the American legal world- something that continues to guide his jurisprudence to this day (and, incidentally, is why I do not like him as much as Justice Scalia. There is no natural law that our courts are empowered to impose or enforce).

    Angry Clam (fa7fff) — 10/14/2005 @ 8:24 am

    
    

16. Ok, Owl. You make a good point. But I would feel better if I knew who had W’s ear on this one. Rove seems to have been shoved into the background, so was it Miers herself? Who else? Hopefully, someone who was doing something more than making a political calculation, and was really considering the effect this will have long after the 2008 presidential election.

    Clam, obviously someone did his homework on Thomas. We would do a better job of avoiding unpleasant surprises if the vetting process would consistently emphasize what’s really important — judicial philosophy — and doesn’t disqualify someone just because, for example, James Dobson might get a whiff of ambivalence on the policy, as opposed to the consitutional issues, regarding abortion rights. Political conservatism is a bigger tent than judicial conservatism, and the latter one isn’t even wholly within the former. Yet many Republicans pretend the two are the same (including some who probably know better), so it will continue to be a crap shoot, as Mark says.

    TNugent (58efde) — 10/14/2005 @ 11:04 am

    
    

17. Has the anti-HM crowd considered that there are not one, but two possibilities for what appears to be a strategy of keeping HM as a stealth nominee as long as possible?

    I mean, the concerns about her all stem from a lack of info, so normally we’d expect the nominee to be out there where everyone can get to know her. Put aside the self-satisfying “it’s cuz they’re inept” retort for a minute, and consider.

    Either

    1. The nominee is too liberal for most R’s; or

    2. The nominee is too conservative for most D’s

    Note that I use the word “conservative” as a synonym for “constructionist” in this context.

    Why – since his entire history indicates the opposite – would Bush go with #1? He never has before. Isn’t it a little off-kilter to presume the opposite of what he has always done with his judicial selections?

    Sure Bush is trying to slip thru a stealth candidate, but it’s because he doesn’t think he can get a truly conservative nominee confirmed any other way.

    Doesn’t mean he’s right. He might have misjudged HM. He might also have misjudged his ability to win a knock-down, drag-out fb fight once and for all. But his intent is clear, and the entire process should be judged in that light, lest we color our opinions incorrectly.

    Absent character attacks and one-sided presentations, all the hard evidence points to the theory Bush has nominated the most conservative nominee he thinks he can get confirmed to the court, and if that requires stealth then he’ll do it by stealth.

    Leaves a bad taste in the mouth, tho, doesn’t it? As if conservatism has to skulk in the woods and stay hidden from decent folk, like a leper. I think that bad taste – which has no bearing on how HM will perform as a Justice – is the biggest source of the anger. HM is just the unfortunate symbol of it now.

    Look at Ahnuld. He’s come out fighting lately and his approval is rising again. That’s what R’s wanted Bush to do with this pick, isn’t it? To fight openly for a just cause, rather than try to game the system to get the same result. But Bush has apparently determined that it’s either no winnable, or not worth the cost.

    Anyway, do consider the two options above. The harder evidence pts to #2. This’d mean Bush is planning to simply ride out the storm and rely on HM’s performance as a Justice to quell the anger. And he will see those who cry for a “better, more constructionist” selection as basing their calls on a faulty premise.

    And btw, if he’s right about HM, she’ll then become the Dems’ David Souter, the candidate where their base completely loses faith in their leadership re judicial picks.

    ras (f9de13) — 10/14/2005 @ 12:35 pm

    
    

18. Oh, and per my prev comment, note that if you were instead to convince Bush that he misjudged HM, that there is evidence, real evidence, that she would not be a faithful constructionist, he would indeed withdraw her.

    But you’ll never convince him of that if you operate from a faulty premise in the first place (ie: that he knowingly picked a stealth liberal and he better back down if he knows what’s good for him), or if you muddy the waters with bogus args about insufficient legal knowledge, or a more-than-a-decade-old comment she made during a political campaign, in a situation where to have said otherwise could have seriously hurt her chances.

    ras (f9de13) — 10/14/2005 @ 12:42 pm

    
    

19. ras, why do you think W has the slightest idea of what it means to construe the constitution faithfully? (since you don’t use them, I’ll stay away from terms like “originalism” here). This is the President who used “strict construction” or a term to that effect, to describe the judicial philosophy that he and Miers shared. Strict construction? Not a term that anyone who understands constitutional interpretation would likely use. Sure, he’s not a lawyer, and I don’t want to misunderestimate the President, but I think he’s out of his depth here without the usual help (perhaps one of the problems here).

    Contrast with the selection and announcement of Roberts. No advance word on the nominee’s identity, but once it was out, no one offered any bogus “qualifications” like “first such and such to . . . ” We heard all about his having been a clerk for Rehnquist, his job in the Reagan WH, and his brief time on the Ct.ofAppeals. Sure, Miers doesn’t have that kind of record, but the absence of a persuasive case ready to go when she was announced suggests two things: one, that there is no persuasive case, and two, that the vetting and selection process was not even close to the standards of that used to pick Roberts. Miers might turn out to be ok, but it’s getting more and more unlikely the more time goes by without the WH offering up anything but the astoundingly lame “she was the first woman to __________.” I want to believe, but I can’t do “just trust the President.”

    TNugent (6128b4) — 10/14/2005 @ 1:38 pm

    
    

20. TNugent,

    Yes, there are flavors, aren’t there? I freely admit to learning as I go, for ex the diff between a textualist and an originalist (not too much, really, unless a law is imprecisely worded. I think, and then it really matters. ’bout right?)

    But I think what matters to most people, regardless of flavor, is to have a Justice who tries to genuinely follow the constitution, aot to twisting it to fit one’s personal prefs. Any flavor like that, pls. And I think that’s Bush’s view, too.

    ras (f9de13) — 10/14/2005 @ 2:47 pm

    
    

21. ras,

    Concealed within your extended suppositional is this nugget: “Isn’t it a little off-kilter…” That bit of insight got me going. Yes, the whole Miers miasma is off balance in one way or another. And, that’s not all, there was the MSM inspired hectoring from Cindy Sheehan, the Hurricane Katrina disaster, ongoing problems in Iraq, North Korea, Iran.

    Against the background of one problem after another, many of GWB’s key advisors, his protective circle, were for various reasons absent during pre-nomination considerations.

    The White House’s Rove and Libby were getting ready for the Grand Jury, the VP was away taking care of health problems, and Congressional leaders, DeLay and Frist were under investigation and possible indictment.

    Combine that with euphoria over the Roberts success, Harriet Miers pre-approval by Harry Reid and the credit she got for vetting Roberts, and we see how consideration of Miers might have seemed like a welcome knock on the door.

    Next, consider that GWB likes Miers, has confidence in her, she’s done an excellent job on Roberts. Hell, even Harry Reid was onboard. Now factor in Laura Bush pushing for a woman nominee and there you have it, behind door #3 possibly the worst nomination for SCOTUS since the Senate declined to bring Abe Fortas up for a vote.

    The nomination of Harriet Miers is in big trouble, and she needs to face reality. President George W Bush needs help now. If Harriet Miers won’t offer to step down, do I too presume too much to suggest Laura Bush just might have to have a little chat with our Miss Harriet, over tea and cookies, don’t you think?

    GWB needs to be protected from himself about now, and who better to help out than the First Lady?

    Black Jack (ee9fe2) — 10/15/2005 @ 9:50 am