|
|
Required Reading/Late Night Rambling
Posted by Stephen Green · 4 October 2005
The most brutal savaging George Will ever gave a Republican President was to the first President Bush, back in 1989 or '90. I don't have a link to a column that old, but I remember it clearly enough. Early in his administration, GHWB gave a closed-door speech to a group of high-ranking Federal civil servants - and told them his talk that day would be "the most important" of his entire presidency. And Bush didn't just throw out those three little words to please his audience. His entire speech was about how important those civil servants were to him and his ideals. If you're a fan of Will's, you can probably imagine how he felt about a Republican president making that kind of statement. Well (as Will himself would say). Will spent about 1,200 words on the back page of Newsweek ripping Bush a new one, in that special way only Will has. You know what I'm talking about - he makes you either want to string him up by that silly little bowtie, or build a shrine to it. Anyway, all of that invective from 15 years ago pales in comparison to what Will has to say about Bush 43 and Harriet Miers. Honestly, I didn't know what to think of Miers. I needed something to say, so I ran quotes from righties who didn't approve of her, if only for the sheer pleasure of being contrary. I'm still trying to withhold judgment of her until the confirmation hearings – but what I've read so far today isn't promising. Here's the by-the-numbers lowdown: 1. Miers is by some accounts a born-again social conservative. What, only two points? Yeah, just the two – but they're the only two that matter. Number One doesn't bug me much. Scalia and Thomas are both social conservatives, and they happen to be my two favorite justices. I wouldn't trust them to vote "my" way on things like gay marriage, drug prohibition reform, or abortion. I do, however, trust them to vote in accordance with constitutional principles. Individual issues or cases might not break my way on the court – but my social-libertarian crusades rightly should be decided by state legislatures or by Congress, and not by the Supreme Court. The other side of that coin is that I can trust Thomas and Scalia to trust in the Constitution when their social-conservative allies get too big for their britches, and to slap them down accordingly. What I don't know – what I can't trust in – is how Miers would decide things. Would she be a staunch friend of the Constitution? Would she shift in the wind like O'Connor, the woman she's supposed to replace? Would she drift leftward like Souter? We just don't know. The woman has no record as a jurist, and the most important legal advice she's ever given is probably restricted by Executive Privilege. Combine Miers's social conservatism with her perhaps-unknowable views on the Ninth and Tenth (not to mention First and Fourth and Fifth) amendments, and you get a potentially dangerous nominee. We just don't know and, thanks to the position of her most famous client/patron, we probably can't know until she's already on the bench. I don't care if Miers is the perfect "stealth candidate" to the bench. I don't care if the Democrats are forced to eat crow. I don't care if my conservative allies are with me or against me on this one. I don't care if Bush is being clever, or stupid, or just using old-fashioned patronage. What I care about, and deeply, is getting someone on the Supreme Court who we can count on. However, we're being asked to take Miers on faith – the same faith Bush held in Norm Mineta, George Tenet, and Michael Brown. I never was too thrilled by Bush's faith-based initiatives, but I thought they were at least worth trying. At this early stage in the nomination game, however, faith won't do. The burden of proof is on Miers, and she'd better deliver.
Harriet Miers's background as a legal practitioner is an asset, not a detriment. She has spent her career representing real people in courtrooms across America. I wonder if Cornyn said the same thing two years ago, when John Edwards announced he was running for President?
I have two words for anyone who'll support Harriet Miers simply because she's an evangelical: Heh. Comments
Well put. Posted by: John Lanius at October 4, 2005 10:07 PMI totally agree. I heard Cheney the other day on a radio program. He said Meiers is a conservative through and through. then he said, "trust me". Why? Why the heck do we have to trust you and hope you are right about this lady? There are plenty of people who's views we know. Why not just pick one of them? Btw, what happened when we trusted Bush Sr's pick of Souter? Bush owes us a judge that we know will not use the bench to issue laws, not one we hope will. He really let conservatives down with this choice. Posted by: Kevin at October 4, 2005 10:24 PMThe other side of that coin is that I can trust Thomas and Scalia to trust in the Constitution when their social-conservative allies get too big for their britches, and to slap them down accordingly. Really? What's your opinion on Raich? Posted by: fishbane at October 4, 2005 10:25 PMFishbane, I'm sad to say the court got Raich right. The laws of Congress are the laws of the land - even when those laws are stupid, corrupting, and self-defeating. And drug prohibition laws are all three of those things and more. If we want to end drug prohibition - and I surely do - then a case like Raich isn't the ticket. We'd need one of two things: 1. The American people to change their minds, and elect a reform-minded Congress. 2. A case so big, that a Constitutionally-minded Supreme Court would sweep away the drug laws with one massive decision. There are two problems with 2., however. Constitutionally-minded judges tend to also be conservatives, and thus unlikely to end a drug war. Also, as conservatives, they're unlikely to sweep away a century of precedents concerning Congressional authority to regulate drugs. Now let me shoot a question back at you. A court principled enough to call a truce in the Drug War would probably also: 1) End gun control. Would you be happy with those results? In any case, that's why we're supposed to rely on Congress (or better yet, the state legislatures) for big issues like these. The Supreme Court is a usually lousy place to determine social policy. Posted by: Stephen Green at October 4, 2005 10:34 PMI live in the DFW metroplex and remember Harriet Miers' time on the Dallas City Council, a tenure that can be honestly characterized as...well...undistinguished. And now she's been nominated to the Supreme Court? By a president I voted for twice and continue to support? I know she's done a lot since her days on the Dallas City Council...she was head of the Texas Lottery Commission!...she advised the president...but, come on. The Supreme Court? Madness. Posted by: Charlie Eklund at October 4, 2005 10:43 PMIn these times of relentless negative press and criticism of almost everything and everyone, isn't an undistinguished record at least..something? I mean,how bland, middle of the road, or goody-two-shoes do you have to be to NOT have anyone say something negative about you? On the other hand, if you were one of the OJ's (original Justices) on this Supreme Court wouldn't you be PISSED at GWB right now? I mean, you've sat on that bench for how many years and the big chair opens up and GWB gives it to some snot nosed kid and then gives the other chair to someone who isn't even a judge?! Why not just put his cousin on the SC while he's at it? Maybe make Jeb some sort of "executive vice-president judge of the court"? Posted by: Scott at October 4, 2005 11:44 PMWhen Bush says words like "strict constructionist" he looks like someone who has memorized talking points. Does he know what he's talking about? Like his father, he has contempt for the vision thing. There is one ideology we know he understands: evangelical Christianity. Jesus is his favorite political philosopher. Maybe Bush picked Miers because he trusts her to act as an evangelical Christian on the court. That's scary. She could be the death of Roe v. Wade. But of course, all this is speculation. Posted by: mfh at October 5, 2005 02:25 AMWhat I'd really like to know is: What do all the people doing all this whining and crying and gnashing of teeth hope to accomplish? President Bush is the PRESIDENT and he has appointed Miers. That's the fact. It's a little late to be trying to influence that decision. Your choices are to either get behind the decision, oppose it, or just keep quiet. If you are anything other than a Dem, opposing it does absolutely nothing except strengthen those who oppose Republicans (and libertarians, for that matter). Do you want to help your opponents gain control of the government so THEY can appoint judges? In that case you wouldn't get someone in the same universe as Miers. Many conservatives over the past couple days sound like spoiled kids who didn't get their way. Grow up, people, and look at the REAL situation and the real world as it exists today, not last week. Save your criticism and resolve to work harder next time for the person YOU think is best. Keep your eye on the ball. Posted by: Mike in Colorado at October 5, 2005 07:41 AMIn the last 5 weeks I have heard a lot of conservatives compare W to Jimmy. No doubt his bigger govt is the solution for all problems has a lot to do with it. Posted by: Rod Stanton at October 5, 2005 09:30 AMIn all the blogosphere, the only person I've read making significant contributions to the substance of this discussion about Miers' qualifications is Beldar. He's a trial lawyer in TX, and a smart guy. Ironically, I'm not so sure I trust Bush, but I do trust Beldar... and I agree with him that a good part of negativity with respect to Miers comes down to snobbery and ignorance. George Will? You were right when you said he makes me want to string him up by his bow-tie. Posted by: Joan at October 5, 2005 09:45 AMA court principled enough to call a truce in the Drug War would probably also: Personally? I'm sporting some serious wood just thinking about it, Stephen. |
MDS - Give Until It Hurts Terror War Scorecard Watching America 50 Things American Cancer Ablation Center Buy VodkaPundit Stuff
"Son, don't be stupid on purpose."
Ann Althouse
Across the Atlantic
American Realpolitik
Albion's Seedlings
Justene Adamec
The Argument Clinic
Todd A
Moe Freedman
Allah Is In the House
Body in Mind
Ben Domenech
Duck Season
Banana Counting Monkey
Ted Barlow
Eric Alterman
American Times
|
     |
