See-Dubya: More on Hewitt’s Times Piece
[Posted by See-Dubya]
If I may, Patterico?
I had thought about posting here a while back on the extraordinary civility of the Miers nomination debate, until Richard Reeb of Claremont’s blog The Remedy beat me to it. I think it needs to be reasserted in light of Hewitt’s op-ed.
This debate has been about more than Harriet Miers and her policy positions, whatever they may be. Conservatives were confronted with someone unexpected and had to evaluate not only her accomplishments, but also the requirements of the job. To answer those questions, we each had to make a stab at bigger, fundamental questions, like “What is the legitimate role of the Supreme Court in the first place?” I expect I’m not the only one who learned quite a bit during this exchange.
And by and large the debate was a good one that avoided falling into ad hominem attacks. Some of the charges of “elitism” by the pro-Miers crowd toed the line but they deserved some leeway, because they were making a very persuasive point: that “what makes a good judge” and “what gets you tenure at Harvard Law” are not necessarily–in fact rarely–the same thing. Less persuasive are the charges of anti-evangelical undertones that Marvin Olasky is still grumbling about. Miers’ church in Dallas was fundamentalist, though not necessarily all that evangelical (e.g. their orchestra rehearses cantatas). If anti-evangelicalism were an issue here it was because commentators like Olasky have made it one when it never had to be.
So I’ve got to say that Hugh’s column and Olasky’s carping sound like sour grapes. They lost a civil and fair argument that was on both sides an argument from principle. As much as I admire both of these men and all the gifts they bring to conservatism, I don’t think writing about it in the New York Times is going solve any of the problems they lament–but it will give the left something to snicker about. As Ace marvels,
It’s so sad. We all know the Times publishes conservatives only to hurt other conservatives, but they never seem to run out of volunteers for this task.
(And you’ll notice they didn’t hide Hugh’s piece behind the Times Select barrier!)
Do you want to see a nasty campaign? Go back a few months to the Terri Schiavo struggle. That was a debate that split the Right. That was a bitter, unpleasant, personal battle, and the scars have not yet healed. I like to think some of the relative civility in discussing this very important nomination was predicated on avoiding the second installment of that kind of crack-up. I think everyone ought to take a big, deep, breath and quit pointing fingers. It’s done. Complaining about how awful the other side is is now counterproductive.
And with that I yield the floor back to Patterico.
— See Dubya
UPDATE: Richard Reeb politely suggests, in the comments and here, that I misunderstood him: the particular civility he was referring to was the exception in this debate rather than the rule. Nonetheless I still believe that, having seen what sort of nastiness we are capable of during the Schiavo affair, this could have been much worse. Some of it fell short of the bounds of civilized discourse, and yet it also it also by and large exceeded the uncivilized contemporary standards for political discussion. I’m an incrementalist; I’ll take it.
Strangely there seems to be more incivility now, after the fact, than there was during the debate. Hugh chastising the Miers opposition as operating from a “pack mentality” and pointing out their “Mieronies” doesn’t help things, nor does accusing Hewitt of being a GOP hack. Put the guns away, boys, or at least train them on the enemy.
I did see an anti-evangelical undertone from some of the comments on this site, but not from any bloggers or columnists.
There were a few comments (meaning from commenters, not from Patterico or Clam) that tried to push the idea that the Miers nomination was the envangelicals on one side and the rest of the conservative/libertarian coalition on the other, but none of the evangelical bloggers I knew were thrilled about Miers. Those comments struck me as wishful thinking from someone who thinks of evangelicals in the party as the hick cousins that are always embarrasing the rest of the family.
Doc Rampage (b7bb1a) — 10/28/2005 @ 1:17 amRegardless of whether Hewitt’s stance on the nomination was right or wrong (for the most part I tended to be in his camp)I agree with him that too often the tone of the debate was hardly civil and too often destructive and disrespectful.
I can only think that maybe some people were reading stuff different than wehat I was reading over the last few weeks. Too his credit Patterico, for the most part, wasn’t too bad. Opposed but not hysterical.
One thing I find intersting is where was all this noise when Ruth Bader Ginsburg was nominated? Stephen Breyer? I find that very strange. Has the last decade torn America apart that much?
David Eaves (530daf) — 10/28/2005 @ 2:00 am“(And you’ll notice they didn’t hide Hugh’s piece behind the Times Select barrier!)’
Just for the record, the only op-eds behind the Times Select paywall are those by the in-house columnists: Dowd, Brooks, et al.
All op-eds by outside writers are still free.
Eric Etheridge (661ab3) — 10/28/2005 @ 3:49 amI think you’re going too easy on Hewitt. I strongly object to Hugh’s anything-the-President-does-must-be-right defense of the nomination. More importantly, though, it was Mier’s defenders’ attacks on conservatives that were unfair. There was never anything elitist about opposing Harriet. It was never sexist. Conservatives wanted to have a debate about qualifications and ideas. The White House, and Hewitt, acted like whiny babies about the whole thing.
Tom Dunson (149cde) — 10/28/2005 @ 5:33 amGreat comments. As a conservative/libertarian and a strong evangelical myself, I’ve not detected any particular anti-evangelical slant, at least not on this site. As I’ve stated elsewhere on this site, I would probably be in virtually 100% agreement with Ms Miers regarding theology. That is, however, not the point that those of us opposed to her confirmation were making and it has nothing whatsoever to do with her quality as a judicial nominee. Nor does her personal belief in whether abortion is right or wrong, or gay marriage or any of that. The sole question relates to her judicial philosophy and how she would deal with the constitution of the United States. The rest are distractions.
But in all fairness, it wasn’t the opposition that opened the evangelical angle to the argument, was it? It was those arguing for confirmation, so to turn around and charge that the argument they offered might have turned on them is just a bit disingenuous in my mind.
I’m in agreement that this was a debate that was largely civil and clearly based on principle above all else. As for the lack of similar arguments re: Ginsburg and Breyer, I don’t think there is a parallel. The counter arguments to Miers were by those generally considered the President’s supporters, not his opposition. That this was largely an in-house debate was entirely appropriate.
I believe the political discourse in this instance was positive for the country and whether the WH understands it or not, was positive for the relationship between the President and his strongest supporters, most of whom simply chose to disagree with his arguably poor choice in this particular instance.
Harry Arthur (40c0a6) — 10/28/2005 @ 5:51 amOne thing I find intersting is where was all this noise when Ruth Bader Ginsburg was nominated? Stephen Breyer?
I think conservatives understand that elections have consequences.
Patterico (4e4b70) — 10/28/2005 @ 6:05 amWith all due respect, if conservatives (at least conservative Senators) understood that elections have consequences, then we wouldn’t have had the Gang of Fourteen and this whole sorry mess could have been avoided.
fatman (3fd89b) — 10/28/2005 @ 6:54 amYeah, one consequence of an election is that the President gets to nominate and the other is that the Senate confirms / votes down the nomination. The fact that in the past conservatives have been in the minority does not remove their responsibility in the process.
Nobody is denying the right of any citizen to participate in this process but to act up and make noise to the extent that this process is only about how THEY think (and in this case I see and interpret the constitution the same way as the noise-makers) speaks of people bereft of both humility and civility.
Again, this web-site is for the most part not responsible for the too-often uncivilised tone of this debate but some HAVE been awful.
Finally, I agree that, despite the above, this debate, with exceptions like the George Will comment, has been neither sexist nor anti-evangelical. That being said it has been too often personal, dismissive and disrespectful of the sincerely held opinions of others who are supposed to be on the same team.
David Eaves (530daf) — 10/28/2005 @ 7:26 amSo, eaves, how does one meet your standard for humility and civility? Make noise, but not enough to have any inlfuence?
eddie haskell (8fd1a1) — 10/28/2005 @ 8:33 amD.E., Don’t forget that Miers wasn’t someone from outside the White House; rather, she’s been the president’s lawyer for many years. So, she and the WH started the process with a heavier burden to demonstrate her own judicial philosophy, as well as her independence. No meaningful effort at either was attempted. At the time Miers withdrew from the process, we were still waiting to hear the first bit of anything that gave a clue that her judicial philosophy was what one might call conservative (originalist, cautious in the use of judicial review) — and we were told that nothing much would be forthcoming; we would have to wait until the hearings.
When we (opponents of Miers’ confirmation) weren’t being called sexist or disloyal, what we were given by the White House and her other defenders were meaningless assurances regarding her political views (seemingly contradicted at every turn by positions she had taken in the past, for what that’s worth). Beldar was an exception, basically telling us that she is a very good lawyer, relevant information but certainly not sufficient to support her confirmation, and by no means sufficient to rebut concerns regarding her other qualifications.
For every personal or dismissive response to Hewitt or Medved or Miers’ other defenders (excepting Beldar — didn’t notice that he was on the receiving end of anything below the belt), there were dozens (at least) of comments focusing on the inanity of their “just trust him” or “Miers is pro-life” or “Miers is indeed conservative” diversions from the real issues.
Those sort defenses deserved dismissive responses — and after a while, persistent repetition of the same attempts at diversion from the issues was bound to draw a few disrespectful and personal comments.
TNugent (6128b4) — 10/28/2005 @ 9:57 amI did’nt view G. Will’s comments as being anti-evangelical. He was simply saying that the White House was appealing to their christian conservative base in a CRUDE WAY. As a independent Baptist (love Bob Jones University) none of my fellow baptists took any offense – we thought it was rather crude to try and reassure us that “she’s a evangelical christian) We don’t care!!!
If like Roberts, the nominee displays a judicial philosophy that does not rip the document from its core – a literalist, a testualist, a strict-constructiveness or even OH YES someone who approaches the constitution thru the lens of Natural Law……….we are happy. If that person is a christian , it would be a bonus, but hardly necessary.
I think Dobson has learned a great lesson and the ACLJ is in hiding……..lol
But the bulk of conservative organizations were none too happy with the nominee and were insulted by the President’s sell of her.
If anything it was the President who needed to be called and George Will did it with his usual bite.. It was not a criticism of christians, it was a criticism of the Cheap sale of her christianity.
My theological beliefs are highly at odds with Catholicism. However, I supported Roberts for what I believe to be is his judicial philosophy, not his catholicism. After all, Kerry is a Catholic…what does it mean? It means nothing in terms of ones judicial philosophy. A christian can evolve the constitution, a non christian can be a strict constructionalist.
alexandra morris (a9eb8b) — 10/28/2005 @ 10:50 amThe christian vote is not so simplistic as Chris Matthew’s or Hugh seem to think it is.(Trust me Hugh as no idea of what is going on in the theological world.)
I believe,rather i know, that Dobson received tons of e-mail expressing grave doubts about Miers. We don’t follow any christian conservative organization with blind loyalty.
We do keep our disagreements close to home.
I’m personally sick of Hugh Hewitt now……..his hipocrasy is obvious. He talks about how this will hurt the elections, the elections. Then he goes to the NYT and does the Judas thing. How much money does Hugh get for these articles? How much did Hugh get for being the cheerleader for Miers? He’s a GOP elitist and constantly name drops how he knows this guy or this gal. He’s the typical golf club conservative who now has a radio show.
In the end, a Just Judge is more important than an election hit. The Supreme Court will be there longer than any President. The fight was worth having and Hugh should ,just as Lindsey said ,”Shut up”
Thanks for noting my comments on civilizing in the debate over the Miers nomination. Actually, I was hoping to encourge something that had been lacking.
Richard Reeb (2b501e) — 10/28/2005 @ 1:15 pmWhoops, I mean civility. (Can’t read comments that go too far to the right–coverad by names of blogs).
Richard Reeb (2b501e) — 10/28/2005 @ 1:17 pmam, well said. I’d only add that any evangelical who felt that just criticism of Ms Miers’ lack of judicial depth was somehow anti-evangelical, should probably take some “skin thickener” vitamins. There were no “victims” in this very necessary debate. The republic is much the better for it.
Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 10/28/2005 @ 6:18 pmIf elections have consequences, what about the Senate elections. Surely the demos look at the Senate as a body that can fail to confirm judges. Why didn’t we. Leave aside the filibuster and getting a vote argument. Why didn’t conservative senators vote against Ginsberg. Clearly she reads stuff into the Constitution.
TCO (5e2e67) — 10/30/2005 @ 7:13 amBush nominates Judge Alito.
He was law review editor. He served in the Army Reserve. Discharged as a captain. Confirmed unanimously by the Democratic Senate. “Tough and fair.” More prior judicial experience than any other for 70 years. 100s of opinion. He knows judge should “not to impose their preferences or priorities.” His mother is age 90. Family came from Italy in 1914.
Alito says, “Argued first case in Supreme Court in 1982.”
O’Connor asked the first question.
“Equal justice under law.”
Federal judges have the duty interpret the consitution — limited role of courts. I owe a great deal to . . . judges. . .colleagues . . . temperate judge . . . . Being a judge has never gone to my head. . . .
Neil J. Lehto (77bed1) — 10/31/2005 @ 6:11 am