Patterico Exclusive: Scalia Gushed Over Reagan!
Distressing news: researchers have uncovered correspondence from the late 1970s and early 1980s from Antonin Scalia to Ronald Reagan, in which Scalia gushed over Reagan’s greatness. In one note, Scalia said:
You are the best governor ever – deserving of great respect!
and in another, Scalia said:
You are the best!
More details in the extended entry.
This just handed to me . . . I got that wrong. Those are not quotes from Antonin Scalia about Ronald Reagan. They are things that Harriet Miers has said about George W. Bush.
Of course, you weren’t fooled for a second. I wasn’t even trying to fool you — just to give you a little chuckle at the thought of Scalia being such a suck-up.
Because even if 1) you hadn’t already read about those Miers quotes, and 2) you thought Scalia had known Reagan personally for years — even then, you would still never believe that such quotes could come from a Scalia (or a Thomas, for that matter). And that’s because the quotes don’t sound like they come from a serious person. They sound like something a flighty and overenthusiastic sorority girl would say to the professor she has a crush on.
No, you’d never see sycophancy like that from a Scalia or a Thomas. But of course, as Miers supporter John Cornyn has said:
She [Harriet Miers] is obviously not a Scalia or a Thomas.
P.S. I can already hear the Miers defenders saying that it’s unfair to criticize her based on these quotes, because they come from birthday cards and thank-you notes, where insincerity is more common. Question for anyone advancing this argument: have you ever written something that obsequious on a card or note to your boss? I sure haven’t.
And, as I have noted before, Miers has called Bush the most brilliant man she had ever met. That last was according to David Frum, who has been savaged by the pro-Miers (and anti-anti-Miers) crowd — but who probably reported that accurately, based on the recent evidence corroborating the assertion.
No wonder Bush is so enthusiastic about her.
P.P.S. I love Feddie’s take on this:
Johnson v. Planned Parenthood Case No. 07-123
Miers, J., concurring
I just want to thank Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter, and Stevens for letting me join the majority opinion in this case. You guys are the best!
A cheap shot? You betcha! But a damn funny one.
You are the best. Your blog is near the top of my list.
RJN (c3a4a3) — 10/14/2005 @ 1:12 pmI wish I had a nickel for every birthday card I’ve signed at the office in which I wrote something like “you are the best …(fill in the blank)”. This is a typical throw-away line that I’m quite frankly surprised we’re even discussing. In fact, it rivals Bush’s typical throw-away line “rotweiler (or whatever) in size 6 shoes” for “throw-awayness”.
Harry Arthur (40c0a6) — 10/14/2005 @ 1:20 pmDidn’t finish reading, sorry, … admittedly never said anything like that to my boss. I only suck up to my peers.
Harry Arthur (40c0a6) — 10/14/2005 @ 1:22 pmI don’t think you have anything here, Patterico. Some people gush and some people don’t. I wouldn’t write anything like that, but I have friends who always write stuff like that. It’s not sucking up, it’s just her personality.
Doc Rampage (47be8d) — 10/14/2005 @ 1:28 pmYou are the best. Your blog is near the top of my list.
Thanks! Wanna be on the Supreme Court?
Patterico (adeded) — 10/14/2005 @ 1:30 pmWhile you and I haven’t written such crap on a going away card … I know you’ve seen someone who has. That suck up looking for that promotion who signed the card just before it was given to you to sign.
MOG (7fea01) — 10/14/2005 @ 2:05 pmI never disputed the claim that Miers called George W. Bush the most brilliant man she’d ever known – though I have poked fun at anyone who would cite that as a reason why George W. Bush should not have appointed her. Then again, I also assumed it came from a credible source, not from Frum.
As to this gushing birthday card, it strikes me more as highly conclusive evidence Harriet Miers is a woman. It’s somewhat less probative on the question of whether shes a woman who would vote with Justices Thomas and Scalia (who would never write a birthday card like that), with Justices Breyer and Stevens (who also would never write a birthday card like that), or with Justice Souter (who has no friends and would never have reason to write a birthday card at all).
Xrlq (6c76c4) — 10/14/2005 @ 2:37 pmA sorority girl? Nope, no sexism here.
I usually write “love, X” and “happy X” on cards I give out. Do you think I would vote with Scalia and Thomas? I mean, I’m not gushing or anything, but I’m not so austere either. I’d probably be a justice in the mold of an O’Connor or a Kennedy, dontcha think?
Hey, I usually like this blog (otherwise I wouldn’t waste my time and comment here), but this is below someone that wants to have serious dialog on the issue just plain petty.
Steve (ef571c) — 10/14/2005 @ 3:41 pmWell, let’s pay a little attention to “deserving of great respect!”
When was the last time you told somebody that he was deserving of great respect? The people that you feel are deserving of great respect generally are self-assured enough not to need to be told they are worthy of great respect.
“You are worthy of great respect!” sounds like something you’d say to somebody you wanted to suck up to, that you thought was very insecure and would welcome assurances of his respectability. IMHO, shows a great lack of respect to condescend in that manner.
Voice of Reason (766133) — 10/14/2005 @ 4:10 pmOr it could be something you would say to someone you think is deserving of great respect who has been getting unfairly disrespected. It would be note of encouragement.
Again, not something I would say, but then I’m not a woman. And I’m not a particularly encouraging kind of guy –I think it’s an act of kindness to explain to someone in great detail how and why they screwed up. But that’s just me.
Doc Rampage (47be8d) — 10/14/2005 @ 5:35 pmScalia was not only not Reagan’s personal lawyer, they weren’t close friends. We haven’t seen what Scalia has written in personal notes to his duck-hunting buddy Dick Cheney, but it would not surprise me if their mutual opponents on the left would use that to mock them both. (Although it might instead be profane or teasing, as, likely, would be Mr. Cheney’s response.)
To me, this is the least plausible line of attack on Ms. Miers, and also the least flattering to those who make it. To make it, you have to mock and belittle the President. I tease Dubya, but I still respect him, and I think most conservatives still do too. Obviously there’s room for disagreement on this. But that Ms. Miers, who’s worked closely with him for ten years during trying times, thinks very highly of Dubya seems to me to be a very, very poor reason to argue that she ought not be on the Supreme Court.
Finally, I ask you to take another close look at that Cornyn quote, and again apply the same standards that you use to justifiably mock the LAT or the NYT when they’ve ripped something badly out of context. It’s absolutely clear from other statements that Sen. Cornyn is a strong supporter of Ms. Miers’ nomination. The context of the quote you linked, as picked up by another source, suggests to me that he was referring specifically to her “background and qualifications,” not her likely judicial philosophy, and was saying that she, unlike Scalia and Thomas, did not have prior experience as a circuit judge:
Even if you disagree with my inference, I think you at least have to admit that it’s a plausible one, and that it’s more consistent with his enthusiastic support of Ms. Miers’ nomination. For example, asked almost the same thing elsewhere, Sen. Cornyn did not repeat the blurb you referenced:
I’m not terribly offended by Feddie’s cheap shot, which is indeed funny in a junior-high-school sort of way (and I’m big on 7th grade humor myself, as you know). But I’m genuinely troubled by your putting those sentiments in Sen. Cornyn’s mouth, as I was when Prof. Bainbridge did the same thing with that same quote earlier. I don’t think it’s fair, and I know you want to be fair.
Beldar (aa0fa1) — 10/15/2005 @ 2:20 amScalia was not only not Reagan’s personal lawyer, they weren’t close friends.
Right. And my point is that, even if they were, you’d never catch Scalia saying such nonsense.
To me, this is the least plausible line of attack on Ms. Miers, and also the least flattering to those who make it. To make it, you have to mock and belittle the President.
Not at all. You’re missing the point entirely. You need only realize that Miers is an incredible suck-up. One can suck up to good people. Even if George W. really was “the best governor ever,” saying it that way is embarrasingly sycophantic.
Finally, I ask you to take another close look at that Cornyn quote, and again apply the same standards that you use to justifiably mock the LAT or the NYT when they’ve ripped something badly out of context. It’s absolutely clear from other statements that Sen. Cornyn is a strong supporter of Ms. Miers’ nomination.
Gee, I guess I should have said that in the post. How unfair of me. Instead of cluing readers in to the fact that Cornyn is a Miers supporter, I instead called him “Miers supporter John Cornyn.”
See, what makes it ironic is that a supporter of hers is still saying she’s no Scalia or Thomas — in other words, she’s not what Bush promised us.
I provided a link to the source of the quote, and made no claims about what Cornyn meant.
So I find your suggestion that I somehow “ripped this badly out of context” to be wholly without merit, and indeed offensive.
Patterico (adeded) — 10/15/2005 @ 7:02 amRe-reading my post, I see that I explained myself inadequately. I apologize if that contributed to your taking offense, when I intended none. I’ll try again.
If what Senator Cornyn was saying is that based on her background and qualifications, she’s not someone who has prior judicial experience as a circuit judge, then him saying that is not ironic or inconsistent with anything that Bush promised. Indeed, on the most superficial level of objective fact (not opinion), the answer to the question “What do Thomas and Scalia have in common, besides the fact that they’re both Associate Justices on the Supreme Court?” is “They were both judges on the united States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit before taking the Supreme Court bench.”
I do not fault you for inadequate disclosure in your post of the fact that Sen. Cornyn is a supporter, and apologize that my imprecise writing left you with that impression. Rather, I point it out for essentially the same reason you do — that is, to highlight just how extraordinary it would be if he did indeed say, in public and for attribution, that he believes that Ms. Miers lacks the sort of judicial philosophy illustrated by Scalia and Thomas. That acknowledged — we agree so far, yes? — I submit that it therefore ought to make us be especially careful that we look at the context so as not to misinterpret Sen. Cornyn on something that we both emphatically agree would be material, if he said/meant that.
I believe your comment has as its necessary presumption that what Sen. Cornyn was commenting on was instead her judicial philosophy. Again, without that connection, it wouldn’t be so noteworthy. But there is nothing in the context to indicate that. Rather, it is the presumption that someone hostile to Ms. Miers’ nomination would be naturally inclined to make, if but only if that person already shares the opinion that Ms. Miers’ judicial philosophy is unlike Scalia’s and Thomas’. (I believe you’ll agree with me that you had that opinion before making this particular post.) And at that point, if one’s proceeding on that presumption (without even necessarily having realized he’s doing so with respect to this particular comment), then the Cornyn comment becomes very much an “Oho!” moment.
But the source of your presumption — that Sen Cornyn he was speaking specifically of judicial philosophy, and not something else — is not supported by the surrounding quoted language.
There are, however, two things in the context to show instead that he was talking about her “background and qualifications” — viz, the previous sentence using those words (as indicated in the MSNBC quote), and the less explicit reference in the CNN quote to “professional experience that will prepare her for this position.” That is the context which I believe was omitted from your quotation.
I hasten to add that your omitting it from your post may not have been intentional or calculating on your part, but rather based upon your reliance upon CNN as your sole source.
The CNN article you linked the prior sentence about “background and qualifications.” Indeed those words appear nowhere in the CNN article. Even worse, immediately after their short quote of Cornyn saying “She is obviously not a Scalia or a Thomas,” in the very same sentence CNN’s reporter or editors inserted the phrase “referring to Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, who are considered staunch conservative voices on the court, though he did not elaborate.” This does not quite say that Sen. Cornyn was referring to Scalia’s and Thomas’ “staunch conservative voices” rather than to their “professional experience”; but it’s certainly strongly suggestive. And the “he did not elaborate” actually struck me as a red flag.
I suspect that we can agree that CNN’s past practices certainly indicate that its editors well know how to include and exclude context when they wish to advance an agenda covertly; but I don’t fault you for using them as a source, and I regularly do so myself (although I make mild efforts to avoid it).
That’s why I provided the link to the MSNBC alternative source that includes a fuller quote, including the “background and qualifications” sentence, plus the useful if still less than perfectly precise and inclusive sequencing indication — “Cornyn added.”
I very much wish I had a full transcript; I’ve looked but can’t find one. I wish even more that I had a video clip; again, I’ve looked but can’t find one. I very much wish Sen. Cornyn would clarify what he meant. And I do not mean to give offense. I take none from your defending your position, precisely because I know how hard you work, and how much you justifiably pride yourself, about recognizing how important context is to fairness.
I was, and am, urging you to take a second and closer look, using the additional sourcing, and with an open mind. If you still maintain that it’s more likely than not that Sen. Cornyn was addressing judicial philosophy than qualifications and experience, then we can agree to disagree, I hope with your accepting my repeated assertions that by disagreeing, I do not intend to offend, much less disparage your (final) opinion on this or any other matter related to this nomination.
Beldar (91d82d) — 10/15/2005 @ 3:55 pmThe initial sentence of the 8th paragraph above should have read: “The CNN article you linked omitted the prior sentence ….”
Beldar (91d82d) — 10/15/2005 @ 4:00 pmOne last thing, again something I believe we can agree on, but it closes the logical chain, I hope:
When Bush promised to nominate Justices “like Scalia and Thomas,” he was referring to judicial philosophy. If he’s meant instead, nominees “who have established track records as Circuit Judges on the D.C. Circuit,” he could have included Ginsburg on his list.
You say in your defense that you didn’t make any claims about what Cornyn meant. That’s literally true, but I hope you’ll acknowledge, again, that the entire premise of Sen. Cornyn’s comment being noteworthy depends on the presumption that he was talking about judicial philosophy, precisely because that’s what makes it seem like a “concession” that Bush broke a promise.
Beldar (91d82d) — 10/15/2005 @ 4:07 pmFWIW (and that’s probably not much compared to the insights that Patterico and Beldar bring to this debate), I don’t believe that Sen. Cornyn meant that Harriet Miers is not a conservative when he said she “is obviously not a Scalia or Thomas”. Instead, I think he meant that she is not a Constitutional scholar/intellectual in the style of Scalia or Thomas. While that may sound like a criticism, Sen. Cornyn and most of his Texas constituents value common sense every bit as much as intellect, and his comments would not be negative – although they might constitute “damning with faint praise”.
Deborah (15ed57) — 10/15/2005 @ 9:16 pmI very much wish I had a full transcript; I’ve looked but can’t find one. I wish even more that I had a video clip; again, I’ve looked but can’t find one.
I found an audio clip here. There is no indication what the question Cornyn is responding to, but here’s what he says, at 1:52:
Hmm. Sounds a lot like Beldar’s link, where John Cornyn responded to the question
with this answer:
So: Cornyn used the “John Roberts said he was his own man and she will be her own woman” language in response to concerns about judicial philosophy, and at a different time used almost identical language in conjunction with the phrase saying she is not a Scalia or Thomas.
That seems like pretty good evidence that he is indeed referring to judicial philosophy. I’ll let readers make up theor own minds, but I think the evidence I just laid out is strong.
Patterico (adeded) — 10/15/2005 @ 9:43 pmThanks very much for the audio link. It’s a shame that it doesn’t include the portions before the statement, however, and in fact has even less than either CNN or MSNBC quoted. Odd, isn’t it, how NPR, like CNN, chose not to include the surrounding context?
I gather you take it that the “background and qualifications language,” whenever it was said, could not possibly have been what Sen. Cornyn was later making reference too. Absent a complete transcript or clip — or access to Sen. Cornyn’s internal thinking, I suppose — we’ll all be left to speculate.
If you, sir, or your readers choose to conclude from this evidence that Sen. Cornyn was making a concession that Pres. Bush broke a campaign promise, you’re entitled to draw your own conclusions, by all means, and we would, in that case, respectfully (at least for my part) disagree.
Beldar (49c586) — 10/15/2005 @ 10:01 pmHalf of the problems arise from folks not understanding Texas “speak”. I understood Bush and Cornyn. Yep, Texan. Bush doesn’t give a patootie how her thought process works, only if she can stem some of the international, intellectual imput into the SC.
My God, I just heard someone on TV say that Bush was handing us a candidate that would “lose her virginity on the SC”.
owl (3bffcc) — 10/16/2005 @ 9:55 amSounds like a bunch of Texans are talking on this thread (“owned” by a transplanted Texan, Patterico). So, Hi ya’ll.
It seems like candidate Bush’s promise to nominate a Justice in the mold of Scalia or Thomas meant different things to different people. I always thought it meant GWB would nominate an intellectual with a solid conservative judicial philosophy. With Roberts, I thought GWB focused on the intellectual part of that construct. Harriett Miers has had an impressive career, but she doesn’t strike me as an intellectual or a solid conservative although she probably is pro-life and may be conservative on other issues, too.
I don’t know what GWB or Cornyn think – heck, they’re politicians so it could all be spin anyway – but I do want to know what you think a prudent person should believe it means when candidate Bush promised a nominee in the mold of Scalia or Thomas. Does it mean an intellectual with a conservative judicial philosophy? Or does it mean a person who will embrace traditional family and American values (e.g., pro-life, school prayer, no gay marriage, no international law in SC opinions), regardless of the judicial philosophy that gets them there?
Deborah (15ed57) — 10/16/2005 @ 10:30 amDeb, sorry for delay. I understood Bush to mean that he would offer a candidate that embraced traditional family and American values (e.g pro-life, school prayer, no gay marriage, no international law). And no stealing a person’s property.
I think he values results and Miers is a “known”. If media did not have him tied in knots, he could come out and tell us. He started off talking his Texas Speak and was ridiculed. They define every word that comes out of his mouth, so he has shut up or stutters.
I do not have a clue if he means that she would overturn Roe. There are many important issues and no way to know where he puts it on the list or even if it made his list.
owl (56acff) — 10/17/2005 @ 4:18 pm