Patterico's Pontifications

10/8/2005

Whose Fault Is This Really?

Filed under: Judiciary — Patterico @ 12:37 am



Dafydd ab Hugh says:

The center-right coalition is critical to everything the Republicans have achieved since 1995, when we took over the House and Senate… but it’s in terrible danger now. And who is threatening it? President Bush, because he nominated Harriet Miers?

No. Bush isn’t threatening to destroy the coalition: that honor goes to the enraged critics of Miss Miers.

Actually, I’m voting for Choice A. One of Dafydd’s commenters puts it pretty well:

Any person with the IQ of your average garden vegetable could have and should have foreseen the damage that would be done to the Party by the Miers nomination. The fact that Bush either didn’t know or didn’t care means that he either is the dim bulb that the left has been telling us he is or that he [h]as assumed the kind of autocratic Olympian arrogance seen in the more insane Roman emperors.

One correction: it could mean both things.

Is our reaction really such a huge surprise to Bush?

P.S. One more thing: I’m getting tired of being told that I’m doing something wrong by having the nerve to point out that this nomination deeply disappoints — not just a little, but deep down to the bone. Is this party so weak that it can’t take debate? I thought the Republican party was healthier than that.

P.P.S. I’m also having a tough time seeing the connection Dafydd seems to make between a withdrawn (or defeated) Miers nomination and world doom. It seems like a bit of a leap to claim that disaffected Republicans’ treatment of Harriet Miers will result in the loss of the global war on terror. Doesn’t it?

Robert Bork’s defeat in 1987 didn’t seem to hurt Bush I much.

UPDATE: If you have any question whether Bush could have predicted conservatives’ reaction to this nomination, read this.

39 Responses to “Whose Fault Is This Really?”

  1. I’ve noticed time and time again that the current Republican coalition (of which I am a weak member) generally stays together fairly well, and it seems to be because they’re inclined to argue with each other. They will also occasionally ostracize one of their members, but, for the most part, they’re willing to engage in pretty strong debate with each other, then come together in agreement over certain broad principles.

    In other words, I doubt this nomination will do anything but cause some rancor and some arguments. The notion that thigns are falling about because the President’s supporters are bickering is nonsense.

    If they can’t stop bickering, or if they ever stop talking ideas and fall to simple ad hominem, then they’re in trouble.

    Dean Esmay (0e0491)

  2. I’m starting to have a different take on the Miers nomination. I think Bush felt he had to nominate a woman to replace O’Connor to please the moderates (though this doesn’t explain his initial choice of Roberts), that the Senate Republicans told him to forget the likes of Brown and Owens, and that when Reid suggested Miers he thought it was the perfect solution to the dilemma. This also explains all the other female judges’ names that were being floated just before the nomination. He thought he would get a pass from the base, and didn’t anticipate the backlash.

    jd watson (e27eeb)

  3. Perhaps Bush is positioning the party for the 2008 Presidential Elections. The Democrats base has shifted so far to the left that they’ve left quite a few voters on the table. These voters are far more comfortable with a Republican Party which is not catering to their combative base. When the Republican nominee, whether Barbour, Rice, McCain, Guiliani, Romney, take on a Clinton, Kerry, Edwards nomination, middle america will have warmed to both the Roberts and Miers judicial appointments.

    I know Justice O’Connor has been a disappointment for many in the Republican Party but I would wager that she polls well. I suspect that Attorney Miers is cut from the same cloth as Justice O’Connor. I’m looking forward to the nomination hearings. I hope she charms the pants off all those grey suits.

    Rest assured, in Nov. 2008 the NRO will once again be rhapsodizing the genius of Karl Rove.

    lola (24a100)

  4. Patterico,
    I don’t think it’s wrong for you to express your disappointment. However, for all who oppose her to go on an on and on about it for days BEFORE the woman has a chance to speak at the hearings smacks of a temper tantrum and not polite discourse.

    Rebecca (fb5ae7)

  5. Dafydd doesn’t get it. Critics of the Miers nomination are enraged for a number of reasons, none of which involve wanting to damage the Republican coalition. We want to save it. The nomination itself is doing the damage, and the longer it remains in play, the greater the damage done.

    Miers isn’t qualified for SCOTUS. She’s a bald-faced crony nominee and all the President’s Men can’t change that fact. The Administration’s asinine attacks on critics is only making a bad situation worse. And worse still, now we’re taking collateral damage in the form of ridiculous PC smears.

    Name calling is something the Dems do, and we have come to expect it from them, but to see such low brow tactics used against our own only serves to prove our side might not really be all that much different from the Dems after all. And that, my friends is a revelation which will do unimaginable harm to the heart and soul of our party. Damage of the sort that takes decades to overcome.

    We’re conservatives because we believe in something good and wholesome and worthwhile. But, Administration supporters in their haste to shout down critics have adopted the shrill and underhanded tactics used by the Left to silence opposition. Someone with their head screwed on right had better get these barking dogs back in line soon, or this situation will not only spin out of control, it will give rise to other unresolved disputes.

    If we forfeit the moral high ground, we are indeed lost, and the Republican coalition is split wide open. Dems could never inflict such damage on us, but an arrogant and bull headed President and his noisy tribe of loyal hacks will surely kill the dream and prove we are not yet worthy to lead America.

    Anyone who thinks this is little more than a temper tantrum hasn’t got the slightest idea about what’s going on. This is a fight for the very essence of what conservatives believe in, it’s real, it’s vitally important, and it isn’t going away.

    And, yes, the Miers nomination is a deal breaker. Get a firm grasp on that fact if you want to understand the depths of opposition to the Miers nomination.

    Black Jack (ee9fe2)

  6. This too shall pass.

    Gbear (00fea5)

  7. Dean wrote sensibly:

    I’ve noticed time and time again that the current Republican coalition (of which I am a weak member) generally stays together fairly well, and it seems to be because they’re inclined to argue with each other. They will also occasionally ostracize one of their members, but, for the most part, they’re willing to engage in pretty strong debate with each other, then come together in agreement over certain broad principles.

    In other words, I doubt this nomination will do anything but cause some rancor and some arguments. The notion that thigns are falling about because the President’s supporters are bickering is nonsense.

    If they can’t stop bickering, or if they ever stop talking ideas and fall to simple ad hominem, then they’re in trouble.

    Well, yes, but when looking at the sheer anger in this debate, one wonders just how easily the conservatives will reunite.

    And just what choice do we have? Is the Displeased Mollusk going to walk away from the GOP if Miss Miers is confirmed? Will the republic die if Miss Miers becomes Justice Miers?

    And what would we do here: hand the Democrats a victory? If the conservatives torpedo this nomination, we’ll either get the kind of nominee that the red-meat conservatives want, someone sure to draw a filibuster, or President Bush will nominate someone else you won’t particularly like. If we draw the filibuster, and we have to count on such Republican stalwarts as Olympia Snowe and Lincoln Chafee to win on the “nuclear option,” the conservatives had better be prepared to throw away the entire conservative revolution on a single cast of the dice.

    Dana R. Pico (a9eb8b)

  8. Black Jack wrote:

    Miers isn’t qualified for SCOTUS. She’s a bald-faced crony nominee and all the President’s Men can’t change that fact.

    How is Miss Miers not qualified? Forty-one previous justices had never served as a judge before being placed on the Supreme Court; Chief Justice Rehnquist was one of them!

    We have gotten used to justices coming from the ranks of lower ranking judges, but that’s a fairly recent thing. Every president from Theodore Roosevelt through Richard Nixon named at least one justice who had never served as a judge previously; would you argue that William O. Douglas, the longest serving member of the Court, but previously Chairman of the SEC, was not qualified? Chief Justice Earl Warren had never been a judge.

    Quite frankly, it seems that those people nominated to the Court who had never been judges previously have stayed closer to the philosophy advocated by the president who nominated them than those who were elevated from lower courts; Chief Justice Rehnquist certainly stayed closer to President Nixon’s philosophies than Justice Stevens has to what President Ford believed.

    Miss Miers is a crony? What was John Roberts, if not a thorough GOP insider?

    Dana R. Pico (a9eb8b)

  9. “And just what choice do we have? Is the Displeased Mollusk going to walk away from the GOP if Miss Miers is confirmed? Will the republic die if Miss Miers becomes Justice Miers?”

    They’re not getting my money or my time anymore.

    They need those much more than they need my vote.

    Angry Clam (a7c6b1)

  10. “If they can’t stop bickering, or if they ever stop talking ideas and fall to simple ad hominem, then they’re in trouble.”

    Amen. We should avoid imitating the angry left and declaring that this nomination proves W is a knave and a fool.

    Initially, I was opposed to the Miers nomination. After listening to Hugh Hewitt, Newt Gingrich, and the comments of some on this blog I am willing to reserve judgement until she appears before the Judiciary committee. The Democrat windbags and bullies will give her an excellent opportunity to convince us that Bush has made another good choice for the SCOTUS.

    Stu707 (7c4f65)

  11. Mr. Clam wrote:

    They’re not getting my money or my time anymore.

    They need those much more than they need my vote.

    OK, so what will you do? We’ve obviously never met, but from reading what you write, it’s clear that you are not going to just get out of politics. I doubt that the Libertarian Party is going to be much of a home for you (even though Libertarians and Republicans do have some things in common).

    And if the Republicans need your time and you money much more than they need your single vote, and withholding your time and money causes the GOP some real harm, would you not be increasing the chances of Democratic Party victories?

    That you are hopping mad about this nomination is clear. What is not clear is why you would, apparently, prefer to damn the whole party, and increase the probabilities that the Democrats will regain power. You might not like the Miers nomination, but one suspects that you’d be a lot less pleased with a Supreme Court nomination made by Hillary Clinton.

    You have, I assume, heard of cutting off your nose to spite your face?

    Dana R. Pico (a9eb8b)

  12. That whole “you’d hate the democrats more” line is worthless and unconvincing.

    What if, instead of the GOP/Democrat lineup we had, I had my choice between voting Democrat, with all that meant, and voting for the Green Party?

    Fuck that, I won’t vote then. If the Republicans aren’t going to do what I want, and that causes them to lose, then they can go ahead and lose until they do.

    Angry Clam (a7c6b1)

  13. Is the closing analogy to the Bork nomination and H.W.’s election in 88 perhaps slightly weak? Could someone explain more fully just what such an analogy means and how it works, you know, as a comparison?

    But I agree completely that the Miers nomination demonstrates an almost inexcusable ignorance of how the conservative base among those generally supportive of the President would react. (Anyone who thinks the President or his advisors foresaw the reaction simply isn’t paying attention to the dismay, heavy-handedness, and ineptness of the administration responses — hardly signs of preparedness.) And among those who generally oppose Bush, nominating Miers certainly earns him no respect or conciliation in treatment. I like the President, and do support him in a general way, but this nomination was stupid and ill done, on every level.

    All that said, the name-calling and vituperation sustained in the reaction to the nomination is beginning to take on the character of an adolescent romantic break-up. I personally doubt that Bush will have reason in future years to look back to this nomination with satisfaction and pride. I also personally doubt that many attacking the President/his choice will be able to feel much satisfaction or pride when remembering the role they played at the time.

    Levans (51fc13)

  14. I’m sorry, Mr Clam, but your previous comment sounds more petulant than philosophical. Saying that the GOP can “go ahead and lose until they do” ignores the fact that both of us, as well as the vast majority of readers of this excellent website, would see actual harm come to this nation if Senatrix Clinton was the one picking Supreme Court nominees.

    Dafydd ab Hugh wrote, on his website,

    I know this has become a holy war for many: but holy wars produce an awful lot more martyrs than victors. Please stop and think: do we really want to live in the world brought about by annihilating the center-right coalition of the past decade? Over this?

    Are we looking for victory, or are we looking for martyrdom?

    Dana R. Pico (a9eb8b)

  15. Personally I don’t see a hill of beans of difference between the republicans and the democrats. The House of 1994 has become what they replaced. Bush has spent like a drunken sailor – he’s made Clinton look positively reasonable by comparison. And this nomination is the best he can do? As much as I’d like a fight in the Senate, certainly there is better middle ground than this.

    Angry Clam and Black Jack are much closer to my thoughts, and I dare say many other conservatives, than you might think. We are getting a distinct deja vu impression that we are again being taken for granted. We’ll just see how many of us stay home in November, 2006. And, before I forget, who cares who Miers voted for. The question is whether or not she is a strict constructionist in the mold of Thomas and Scalia as Bush PROMISED us he would appoint.

    Harry Arthur (b318a5)

  16. I think Bush expected people to look at her C.V. to judge her competence. And to accept ‘trust me’ as the reference for her conservatism. They’re two _separate_ questions.

    That is, in Renquist we lost someone with a non-Judge background, so he started searching in the ‘odd’ part of the talent pool in the first place. But Miers is indubitably a competent _lawyer_, if not a constitutional scholar. Since that was what he was looking for in the first place, its hardly surprising that he found it.

    On the ‘conservatism’ question, Bush _is_ surprised. He probably sees her as way the heck off the right end of the scale and can’t imagine anyone questioning _that_. Her second amendment views alone would cause heart palpitations throughout cities like Seattle. (At least, the quotes I’ve seen implied she felt that its an individual right to bear, and that an armed citizenry is a key piece of resisting government encroachment.)

    So when we’re arguing, which _part_ of the question are we arguing? ‘Is she competent’ versus ‘Is she a Souter’.

    I don’t think we could get Brown through right now – I’d rather have _that_ fight later. But getting two conservatives on beats getting one conservative on and having a complete meltdown trying to get a second on. Or getting one conservative and one moderate on.

    Al (00c56b)

  17. Debate and argument are necessary to our republic’s health, by all means. What is curious is the focus of conservatives who don’t like Miers on their FEELINGS. Nothing wrong with feelings, but “I’m so disappointed” sounds like a plea for Bush to “feel their pain” ala Clinton.

    The specific complaints against Miers simply don’t hold honest intellectual water.

    Peggy Whitcomb (c9f8c7)

  18. I can’t believe we are even being asked this question, “Whose failt is it”.

    Leaders take responsibility for their actions. Scoundrels blame others. Sh*tHeads blame the people they pledged an oath to and made promises to to gain power. Sh#tHeads without any moral courage send their proxies out to do the same.

    Not only does this question answer itself, it shows that we have a very serious problem with the integrity of the President. Already, 1000 or so are dead in NOLA as a result. How much more harm will his arrogance do us before he is held to account?

    Paul Deignan (9e57a7)

  19. On the other hand, Beldar does make a number of reasonable observations on the subject.

    Harry Arthur (b318a5)

  20. Dana Pico writes “And what would we do here: hand the Democrats a victory?” It’s not we. It’s George W. Bush who did that by nominating an unqualified crony who is probably not even a conservative. Sometimes we need to make decisions based on the good of the country, not just on fear of Harry Reid. And who knows, maybe a weakened Bush will be able to push through massive spending increases and open borders immigration plans and “diversity quotas” at a less rapid rate than the previous few years.

    Agricola (c302b4)

  21. Guys: see the update to the post. It proves that Bush should have known a weak pick like this would fracture the coalition.

    Patterico (4e4b70)

  22. Agricola wrote:

    Dana Pico writes “And what would we do here: hand the Democrats a victory?” It’s not we. It’s George W. Bush who did that by nominating an unqualified crony who is probably not even a conservative.

    I find that comment puzzling in two ways. First, President Bush hasn’t handed the Democrats a victory; he’s going to get his choice confirmed.

    Second, and more importantly, by what standard did you decide that Miss Miers “is probably not even a conservative?” There is certainly no documentation out there which would suggest that she’s a liberal (or even a moderate), and she has worked closely with President Bush for more than a decade; wouldn’t you think that he’d know if she wasn’t a conservative?

    As Peggy Whitcomb noted above, it seems like most of the arguments by the conservatives against Miss Miers is based on their feelings.

    Dana R. Pico (a9eb8b)

  23. Patterico wrote:

    Guys: see the update to the post. It proves that Bush should have known a weak pick like this would fracture the coalition.

    Perhaps President Bush thought that the coalition was smarter than the reaction he’s gotten.

    Dana R. Pico (a9eb8b)

  24. What is curious is the focus of conservatives who don’t like Miers on their FEELINGS. Nothing wrong with feelings, but “I’m so disappointed” sounds like a plea for Bush to “feel their pain” ala Clinton.

    Peggy,

    Have you been reading this blog for the past few days? I have made numerous factually-based arguments concerning this nomination. Just scroll down.

    Patterico (4e4b70)

  25. Patterico, you sound like a looney liberal when they excuse their hateful accusations as free speech and say they are tired of being told they’re doing something wrong when they “question” and express their opinions. You complain about them a lot – so are you being so weak that you can’t take the debate?

    LLA (b684a2)

  26. Patterico, you sound like a looney liberal when they excuse their hateful accusations as free speech and say they are tired of being told they’re doing something wrong when they “question” and express their opinions. You complain about them a lot – so are you being so weak that you can’t take the debate?

    I complain about “hateful accusations” by liberals when they are false and misleading. If liberals make “hateful accusations” that have some truth to them, I acknowledge what is true, and argue against the part I disagree with. I never simply reply “shut up” to liberal arguments that are grounded in truth, even if I disagree.

    Since I have said nothing that is false and misleading, your comment misses the mark quite badly.

    Patterico (4e4b70)

  27. Would a Miers Fight Hurt the GOP in 2006?

    Over on Patterico’s Pontifications, Patterico made the point that “Robert Bork’s defeat in 1987 didn’t seem to hurt Bush I much” (in his quest to succeed Reagan, I presume Patterico means). Of course not. Reagan had already lost Congress, and…

    Big Lizards (fe7c9d)

  28. Shorter LLA: “Patterico! How dare you question Dear Leader!”

    Tillman (1cf529)

  29. Tillman, isn’t that what the left is always taunting conservatives with? YOU are using the line now. Just so you know you are no different than the libs on that (if you aren’t one.)A lot of conservatives are now acting just like them and don’t seem to realize it.

    Patterico: It is a matter of OPINION that Libs are being misleading. Aren’t they stating what they BELIEVE to be true, just as you are about Miers? Liberals have facts to back up their accusations, just as you claim to have. It’s how one spins those facts that makes them unfair and accusatory. Why not wait and see what Meirs has to say before condemning her and Bush? Hysteria is a turn-off.

    LLA (b684a2)

  30. Patterico: It is a matter of OPINION that Libs are being misleading. Aren’t they stating what they BELIEVE to be true, just as you are about Miers? Liberals have facts to back up their accusations, just as you claim to have. It’s how one spins those facts that makes them unfair and accusatory.

    Maybe you could give me one actual example of 1) an unfair comment of mine about Miers, or 2) a fair comment by a liberal that I have responded to by telling them to shut up, and trying to avoid the debate, as you have accused me of doing.

    Fewer capital letters, more facts.

    Patterico (4e4b70)

  31. LLA, FWIW, I can vouch for Patterico and Clam tolerating liberal comments. They put up with my views, and I’m a liberal. They deserve a certain amount of respect for that too. But if you want to become a total bonehead, only listen to one side of issues.

    Tillman (1cf529)

  32. Patterico, be disappointed about Miers all you want, if you must.I haven’t told you to shut up.
    I’m just pointing out that your whining tone and nasty conclusions without knowing all the facts sound like what you complain about libs for.

    I personally am simply withholding judgement of the nomination until I hear her out. It’s unfair to do otherwise and people are telling you so – not telling you to not ever debate or to question.

    LLA (b684a2)

  33. Excellent example, LLA.

    Patterico (4e4b70)

  34. Count me with the Clam on this one. The GOP gets squat from me, no time, no money, no votes, and no support of any kind if the Miers nomination goes forward. Am I angry, you bet I am, and I’m not going to take it.

    I’m doing what I can to warn of the impending storm. In this matter GWB is like the Mayor of NOLA before Katrina struck. Lots of big talk and his head in a warm dark place. And, all the while the storm offshore gathers strength and draws ever closer, and yet no order to evacuate is given….

    Dana Pico, usually I agree with you, but you and other dedicated supporters of GWB, of which I was recently included, refuse to acknowledge the depths of conservative opposition to Miers. Let me assure you it’s real, it’s huge, and making fun of it won’t make it go away.

    If the President’s efforts to shove this underqualified crony on us result in our rejection of GOP candidates in the next election, the consequences are not on us, they are on GWB and the blind lemmings who follow him. You want to call the tune, you pick up the tab.

    Why would our President do something so wrongheaded, when there is little upside, and a downside big enough to put Hillary in the White House? Why push Miers when there are so many well qualified women available, not to exclude the large pool of men? It makes no sense whatsoever.

    A Conservative revolt is what’s on the table, and name calling or belittling conservatives isn’t going to change that fact. This really is a deal breaker, conservatives will abandon the GOP over this issue whether you like it or not. I am one angry Jack.

    Black Jack (ee9fe2)

  35. Jack said:

    Dana Pico, usually I agree with you, but you and other dedicated supporters of GWB, of which I was recently included, refuse to acknowledge the depths of conservative opposition to Miers. Let me assure you it’s real, it’s huge, and making fun of it won’t make it go away.

    Without trying to make fun of anyone, I really have to ask: why is there so much conservative opposition here? Miss Miers is almost certainly conservative; not only has the President known her and worked with her for over a decade, but she was the point “man” on selecting the judicial nominations we really liked, Priscilla Owens, Janice Brown, John Roberts, the list goes on.

    If there were some real and substantial evidence that she is David Souter in drag, I’d be able to understand the opposition: we’d be fighting for a conservative nominee. But there isn’t such evidence out there, just a vague feeling of dread among some people that we’ve been betrayed.

    Nor do I see any real reason behind all of those who are claiming that Miss Miers somehow isn’t qualified to be on the Court. Her qualifications are every bit as good as those of William Rehnquist, and, absent just a couple of years on the lower court bench, as good as Clarence Thomas’. I would hate to think that we have decided that someone must have been a federal judge before becoming a Supreme Court Justice, considering that 41 previous justices, including several chiefs, had no prior judicial experience.

    Maybe I’m wrong, but the only thing that I can see that explains this anger is that we’ve been deprived of a knock-down, drag-out, grind Chuck Schumer’s ugly face into the mud fight. If I’m wrong there, please, tell me why I’m wrong.

    Dana R. Pico (ba0b64)

  36. “Nor do I see any real reason behind all of those who are claiming that Miss Miers somehow isn’t qualified to be on the Court. Her qualifications are every bit as good as those of William Rehnquist, and, absent just a couple of years on the lower court bench, as good as Clarence Thomas’. I would hate to think that we have decided that someone must have been a federal judge before becoming a Supreme Court Justice, considering that 41 previous justices, including several chiefs, had no prior judicial experience.”

    This is demonstrably untrue.

    William Rehnquist, you’ll recall, was the top of his class at Stanford Law, and the posts that he held in the government were far superior, legally, to things like being the president’s secretary.

    Clarence Thomas went to Yale, and he too had far more extensive federal legal experience than Miers did.

    Angry Clam (a7c6b1)

  37. Pico,

    We have said repeatedly why we oppose Miers: she’s an underqualified crony. You don’t find those reasons sufficient, and so you either ignore our concerns or belittle them.

    Well, my point is that the reasons make sense to conservatives, and we don’t require your agreement, understanding, or approval. We are fully capable of coming to our own decisions, and we resent it when we’re told our opinions don’t count enough to be taken into consideration. Your understanding isn’t really necessary, you may not understand what caused the earthquake, but your house may still be reduced to rubble anyway.

    Conservatives see the situation in stark black and white. If Miers name remains in play, conservatives will demonstrate their opposition by withholding their time, money, and votes from GOP candidates in 2006. The consequences are going to fall on GWB, GOP, and the rest of us.

    You can deal with the facts in front of you, or you can continue to deny their significance, and you can even refuse to acknowledge the coming disaster, but you can’t say you weren’t warned a storm was on the way. Think about the Titanic.

    Black Jack (ee9fe2)

  38. Clarence Thomas went to Yale, and he too had far more extensive federal legal experience than Miers did.

    If I were black, I’d have gone to Yale, too. As for federal legal experience, I suppose it depends on how you define it. Thomas had more experience heading up federal agencies, but I’ll bet Miers argued more cases than Thomas did, and she certainly played a role in picking more federal judges than he did.

    Xrlq (428dfd)

  39. Die zornige Venusmuscel schrieb:

    Fuck that, I won’t vote then. If the Republicans aren’t going to do what I want, and that causes them to lose, then they can go ahead and lose until they do.

    Nein, we don’t must lose without you. We can also win elections without you, and render you a irrelevant girlyman.

    Ahnold Schwarzenegger (428dfd)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0997 secs.