Comments After A Day’s Perspective: I’m Still Pissed Off
Some conservatives I respect, such as Beldar and Hugh Hewitt, are putting lipstick on a pig today.
I’m not speaking here of Harriet Miers, of course.
But I am speaking about her nomination.
Our friend See-Dubya says on this blog: hey cheer up. It’s not Gonzales!
I assume he is being tongue-in-cheek. Because, kidding aside, we don’t know this. Sure, she is technically a separate human being from Alberto Gonzales. But there is no reason to believe that the things we feared about Gonzales are not equally true of Miers, whose views are even more unknown, and who appears even less distinguished than the relatively undistinguished Gonzales.
And the arguments we are hearing in favor of Miers from our friends the Beldars and Hewitts are arguments that they would be making if Gonzales were the nominee. I’m not guessing here — I know this to be true, because they have already made these arguments about Gonzales.
For example, here is Hewitt today:
Harriet Miers isn’t a Justice Souter pick, so don’t be silly. It is a solid, B+ pick. The first President Bush didn’t know David Souter, but trusted Chief of Staff Sunnunu [sic] and Senator Rudman. The first President Bush got burned badly because he trusted the enthusiams of others.
The second President Bush knows Harriet Miers, and knows her well. The White House Counsel is an unknown to most SCOTUS observors, but not to the president, who has seen her at work for great lengths of years and in very different situations, including as an advisor in wartime.
And here is Hugh Hewitt in July on the topic of Alberto Gonzales:
I would prefer both nominees to come from the pool of Judges Garza, Luttig, McConnell and Roberts (and Judge Jones would be fine as well.) But it is really absurd to suggest that AG Gonzales is not qualified to sit on SCOTUS, or that his nomination would be a “betrayal” of past promises. George Bush knows the AG very, very well indeed. A Bush nomination of Gonzales would be the exact opposite of a Souter nomination.
Same goes for Beldar, who said this today:
When Dubya looks at her, he doesn’t think “blank slate, might be a Souter.” He thinks: “I know her, she’s been my lawyer through thick and thin, and I know things about her judgment and character that nobody else knows about her, but that leave me entirely comfortable about how she’ll turn out as a Justice.”
. . . .
Would I have picked her? Probably not. But she hasn’t been my lawyer, and I’m not the President. . . . And so I will happily support this nomination, and I wish Ms. Miers good luck, fortitude, and grace in the confirmation process.
And Beldar said this in July about Gonzales:
[A]lthough I have some reservations about a Gonzales nomination and see no shortage of other appealing candidates, I definitely don’t know as much about his heart and his mind and his character as Dubya does. I actually give more than just lip service to the idea that a President (any President) ought to be given a whole lot of discretion in making these choices. Based on that, I’ll enthusiastically support a Gonzales nomination if that’s indeed who Dubya picks.
So, as you can see, Hugh and Beldar both would have supported a Gonzales nomination, even though he has taken a public stance in favor of racial discrimination (“affirmative action”), and has a very wobbly record on parental notification cases in the abortion context.
As someone who would have been appalled by a Gonzales nomination, I am not reassured.
By the way, when Beldar made his comments about Gonzales, I left this comment (deleting my own expletives for comic effect):
Beldar,
Having read you for quite some time now, I have a pretty good idea what your philosophy of jurisprudence is. And it’s pretty similar to mine.
And it’s been [expletive deleted]ed up for some time now, and a Justice Gonzales is certain to continue [expletive deleted]ing it up — for years to come, as you point out.
So I’m almost shocked that you seem so upbeat about the prospect of the President nominating someone who is going to be such a [expletive deleted]ing disaster for our constitutional interpretation.
He did not respond, at least publicly.
For my part, as I said earlier, I remain highly disappointed. It is impossible for me to imagine that Bush picked Miers because he felt her to be the best qualified candidate. And spare me the charges of elitism. I don’t maintain that you have to go to a top-rated law school to be a Supreme Court Justice, or graduate at the top of your class, or do a Supreme Court clerkship, or even an appellate clerkship, or argue appellate cases, or be a law professor or a judge, or write published articles about the law.
But when you have done none of these things — though it’s only an educated guess as to a couple of these issues — it causes me some real concern. After all, the Supreme Court isn’t a “second tier cabinet post.” It’s not a place for a “B+ pick.” It is unquestionably an A++ position that demands an A++ candidate. There are plenty around. Miers is not one of them.
Again I ask: what distinguishes this woman, other than that she is a woman and that Bush knows her (i.e. she’s a crony)? I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer to this question.
It would silly to suggest that Bush picking a crony is surprising; he’s got quite a track record of doing so. But it is highly disappointing. While Roberts was not the ideal nominee, he was pretty close, given his clear competence. From what I know, Miers doesn’t even come close.
I’m not sure what I expected, but I had hoped for much better.
Bottom line: there is something Tony Soprano used to say about his mom. It’s a phrase that (properly understood) means “I’ve had it with this person.” If you are a Sopranos fan, you know the line I mean. That’s how I feel about Bush now.
Just remember………….
It’s better to be Pissed off, then Pissed on.
Well when you think about it, that’s what he did. He pissed on the Republican Party.
The Ranando Report (4aaed1) — 10/3/2005 @ 7:11 pmThe Shrub doesn’t get it. They (the Liberals) hate him. They will use every opportunity to humiliate him. This poor lady will get Borked like not even Bork got Borked just to make the President look bad. Roberts was a grand-slam which left the Liberals ganshing their teeth. They will take out their bile on Ms. Miers mercilessly, not because they have anything against her but because they want their revenge against the President.
nk (41da82) — 10/3/2005 @ 7:12 pmI have also been doing some reflecting.
I come down to two questions for the nominee that I think reveals the essence of the problem with this soup we are being served.
Paul Deignan (9e57a7) — 10/3/2005 @ 7:35 pmI hope the Democrats filibuster Harriet Miers
Bush has picked a close friend over a good solid conservative candidate, and in doing so is alienating his base. The repercussions will be huge, so for the sake of the Supreme Court and the Republican Party, I am begging the Democrats to filibuster Miers.
The House Of Wheels (3af625) — 10/3/2005 @ 7:46 pmThat would be a bet I would be happy to lose.
Paul Deignan (9e57a7) — 10/3/2005 @ 7:54 pmOur best hope is that the democrats are so hate filled they will lash out at Miers even though she couldn’t be a better choice for them. Being a buddy of Bush and being an unknown make her and easy target for a lashing.
I doubt there will be enough votes against her, but perhaps she’ll withdraw (at Bush’s urging).
jpm100 (06f700) — 10/3/2005 @ 8:10 pmThere can easily be enough votes. All we need is a “We will not take it anymore! We want good government” campaign.
Turn out is the only think that put the GOP over the top in the last several election cycles.
This is the right thing to do, this is the right time, and this is a fine place to start. Who’s in?
Paul Deignan (9e57a7) — 10/3/2005 @ 8:17 pmNow we know why Dick Cheney looked so sour as John Roberts was taking the oath. I think he might have known what was coming and couldn’t stop it.
George Bush has inexplicably done the moral equivalent of his father’s mistake. He turned his back on the voters who put him in office. I not only feel let down, I feel betrayed.
Black Jack (ee9fe2) — 10/3/2005 @ 8:23 pmTo all of you who have “had it” with Bush: so will you be voting for Hillary in 2008, or for Howard?
Anything less would be hypocrisy.
Dafydd
Dafydd (f8a7be) — 10/3/2005 @ 9:11 pmWorry more about the midterms.
Most likely many will sit it out.
Paul Deignan (d2fd7b) — 10/3/2005 @ 9:18 pmTo all of you who have “had it” with Bush: so will you be voting for Hillary in 2008, or for Howard?
Anything less would be hypocrisy.
Dafydd
Well, Bush isn’t running again, of course — but I am getting pretty sick of the “What are you gonna do, vote for Democrats?” argument? I voted for Perot in 1992 because I was sick of idiot candidates who didn’t care about the deficit. Give me a solid independent candidate again, versus a squish like Bush, and I’m not sure what I’ll do — even if someone tells me I’m “throwing my vote away.”
Patterico (4e4b70) — 10/3/2005 @ 9:35 pmJust a five point swing in turnout would have significant effects on elections.
This nomination was political suicide for the GOP.
Paul Deignan (d2fd7b) — 10/3/2005 @ 9:38 pmPaul D.:
Yes, I can see how that will help things. More Democrats in the Senate — that will give us more conservative judges!
Patterico:
Say, that worked out pretty well, didn’t it?
So if a “solid independent candidate” runs in 2008 — oh, say, J. Michael Luttig — then 15% of erstwhile Republicans should vote for him… putting Howard Dean into the White House. I can feel the deficit shrinking already.
You have convinced me, Patterico; I see how installing Howard the Duck would definitely help in getting originalists or textualists onto the Supreme Court when Stevens and Ginsburg retire.
Dafydd
Dafydd (f8a7be) — 10/3/2005 @ 11:03 pmOne of my commenters asked me to compare Gonzales and Miers as potential nominees. I explained that I think she’s substantially less likely to fall prey to the “growing while on the Court” problem. It’s the flip side of her (relatively advanced) age and career stage compared to his. You’re correct that I would have supported (and still would support) a Gonzales nomination, but that he wouldn’t have been my first preference. Neither is she. Where you and I seem to differ, my good friend Patterico, is in how much faith we have in Dubya, and how much weight we think his personal observations and opinions of candidates ought to be entitled. He has important data that we lack, and I think those who’re second-guessing his picks aren’t giving enough recognition to that.
Re others’ comments: By November 2006, we’ll probably have a handful of votes from both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Miers to fill the vacuum — enough votes on enough significant cases to begin to independently assess the wisdom of these picks.
Beldar (3ba93f) — 10/4/2005 @ 1:13 amBeldar:
Let’s take the worst-case scenario. Suppose by 2006, we find out that Miers was a really bad pick because she’s “grown in office” and become more liberal than I want, legislating from the bench and all that.
So therefore… what? So I should vote for the Democrat? Or some independent candidate, if such existed on my mid-term ballot, who would probably throw the race to the Democrat?
I don’t get the reasoning (which I know isn’t yours, it’s Patterico’s). Let’s assume I want the most originalist or textualist or conservative judge (pick a flavor) I can get. How am I getting closer to this goal by doing anything other than voting for Republicans?
As bad as I could imagine Miers turning out to be (and I suspect instead that she’ll be fine), does anybody really think she’ll be worse than either Stephen Breyer or Ruth Bader Ginsburg — the last two Supreme-Court justices nominated by the last Democrat in the White House?
I’m completely befuddled by the reasoning.
If we turn on Bush and the GOP because we got Miers instead of Luttig… cui bono?
Dafydd
Dafydd (f8a7be) — 10/4/2005 @ 2:08 amA better question would how am I getting closer to the goal BY voting for Repuklicans.
Personally, I find no real difference between heading for socialism at 80 mph (Repuklicans) or heading for socialism at 90 mph (Demoncats). At this point there’s no statistically significant difference. Wake up and smell the RINO!
Septeus7 (bb34f6) — 10/4/2005 @ 4:20 amDafydd,
Say, that worked out pretty well, didn’t it?
So if a “solid independent candidate” runs in 2008 — oh, say, J. Michael Luttig — then 15% of erstwhile Republicans should vote for him… putting Howard Dean into the White House. I can feel the deficit shrinking already.
Actually, my vote for Perot made no difference to the election, since it was cast in Texas, where Bush won handily anyway.
But as to your general point: yeah, for those of us worried about the deficit, having Clinton in the White House instead of a Bush (either one, actually) did indeed work out pretty damn well.
By the way, I wouldn’t vote for Luttig for President. You wanna know why? Because, unlike Bush, I know the difference between the necessary qualifications for politicians and for judges.
Patterico (4e4b70) — 10/4/2005 @ 6:21 am“If we turn on Bush and the GOP…”
I’m not going to turn against Bush or the GOP in retaliation for this wrongheaded nomination. Nor am I going to waste my vote on some 3rd Party candidate.
I’m solidly against collectivism in any of its forms and I’ll support the Party and the candidate who can best oppose their agenda. That puts me on the GOP’s side.
However, the salient issue as I see it is one of morale. It takes a sense of confidence and no small measure of enthusiasm for our coalition of conservatives and center-right moderates to fight against the combined powerful influences our opponents have arrayed against us.
We rely on a sense of common purpose and shared goals. We must have confidence in our leaders, or we lose that cohesion which keeps us mentally and emotionally ready to work together.
Military leaders call it esprit de corps. It’s more than individual self-confidence, it’s a strongly unifying confidence of purpose, and confidence in a better future. It produces a protective physiological shield against setbacks, and it allows a unifying sense of well-being to develop.
What makes the Miers nomination so divisive is that it undercuts our sense of confidence, enthusiasm, and loyalty. It cuts deep into our sense of shared purpose, and it conveys much of the notion our Brit friends have in mind when they say, “Confusion to the enemy.”
The Miers nomination confuses and divides us. It saps our strength, and it gives hope and encouragement to our opponents. It is a major mistake and should be corrected immediately. She should decline the nomination and withdraw her name from consideration.
Black Jack (ee9fe2) — 10/4/2005 @ 6:37 am“Let’s take the worst-case scenario. Suppose by 2006, we find out that Miers was a really bad pick because she’s “grown in office” and become more liberal than I want, legislating from the bench and all that.”
No, the worst case scenario (and it’s nearly certain to happen if she’s confirmed) is that she won’t have the intellectual talents necessary to serve as a Supreme Court justice. Half the justices on the Court right now don’t have the intellectual capacity to be there (certainly O’Connor and Kennedy don’t), and there’s simply no way Harriet is up to the task. Getting the messy details of statutory interpretation right requires a first-rate intellect.
Are you really prepared to sell out the competence of the Court just to get your way on abortion, church-state, and national security issues? What ever happened to all the high-minded rhetoric about getting the best possible people on the Court and setting aside crass political considerations? I’d rather get another Souter than another Brownie.
Xavier (14a120) — 10/4/2005 @ 7:11 amJudicial qualification has not been an issue since the borking of Robert Bork. Further more, the Supreme Court is filled with plenty of B and C material, David Souter, Anthony Kennedy and Ruth Bader Ginsberg, or Sandra Day O’Connor.
Whatever the qualifications for the Court are, Harriet Miers meets them. Not that she would have been my first choice.
David L (b55a11) — 10/4/2005 @ 9:19 amThe nomination of Miers was almost certainly not calculated to move forward the battle between left and right–it was a selfish power grab by a particular chief executive. As a result, the value of the GOP brand was diluted and turn out will be lessened in the mid terms (except in races where there is an insugent challenge–those might draw participation for the insurgent).
This is just analysis, not advocacy.
A smart move would have been to nominate Luttig, Garza, or Brown.
Paul Deignan (9e57a7) — 10/4/2005 @ 10:16 amGreetings …
Great post, however I am not a Sopranos viewer, so can you clarify a bit more what Tony says about his mom?
Thanks!
tomjedrz (562284) — 10/4/2005 @ 12:44 pmDoes nobody know?
I am not saying it because I don’t want it misinterpreted — what I mean is “I’m done with this guy.” But surely somebody knows the line. I love the line.
Patterico (079a31) — 10/4/2005 @ 12:46 pmPatterico,
Its from “My Cousin Vinny” when Vinny crossexamines a witness — (there were two, one who claimed to see the two yuts from a dirty window behind some shrubs/trees and another with magic fast cooking Homas)
Paul Deignan (9e57a7) — 10/4/2005 @ 12:52 pmSorry–grits
Paul Deignan (9e57a7) — 10/4/2005 @ 12:56 pmNo. I said: it’s what Tony Soprano used to say about his mom. After he decided that he didn’t want to see her any more. People would come up to him and say something about his mom. He would look them in the eye and say . . . what?
Patterico (079a31) — 10/4/2005 @ 1:06 pmBeldar writes:
“He has important data that we lack, and I think those who’re second-guessing his picks aren’t giving enough recognition to that.” In other words, “Trust me!”
Beldar is pleading that we need a stealth candidate, given our measly 55 seat majority in the senate. Apparently, this publicly available data means less to him than whatever private “data” shrub has.
Talk about misplaced priorities!!!
Meanwhile, I’m jonesing to read George Will’s full “betrayed by Bush” column, excerpted at confirmthem.com. It begins with W’s sellout on McCain-Feingold – itself an important constitutional issue, ie, free speech. it ends, naturally, with “Trust me” over Miers.
Well, boys – I’m all out of trust. Dump miers or I’ll trust in Smith & Wesson instead.
Orson (c58a04) — 10/4/2005 @ 6:03 pmMiers and Affirmative Action
From the Dallas Morning News:She may have no judicial record, but Supreme Court justice nominee Harriet Miers took firm stances on issues ranging from taxation to democratic reforms abroad as a one-term member of the Dallas City Council, a Dallas M…
protein wisdom (c0db44) — 10/9/2005 @ 10:46 am[…] I have taken my time yesterday and today and have read a whole lot on the Miers nomination. I have decided that I have to join the Coalition of the Chillin’. The voices on all sides are deafening. Differing voices: Thomas Lifson Hugh Hewitt Beldar Michelle Malkin Patterico PoliPundit Blogs For Bush The Anchoress Stop the ACLU OpiniPundit […]
» Coalition of the Chillin’ » Musing Minds » Blog Archive » Proud Members of the Pajamahadeen (654537) — 2/8/2006 @ 9:51 am