Is Harriet Miers’ Supreme Court nomination politically dead on arrival yet?
No one assigning it to the morgue of political conventional wisdom…not just yet.
But this much is sure: seldom in recent memory has a Supreme Court nominee left so many so cold, unimpressed or revolted by what seemingly smacks of cronyism — and that’s just referring to Republicans.
Read this account in the National Review Online, a piece hardly likely to fire up the partisan troops to put their necks on the line for Ms. Miers:
Strategists working with the White House in support of the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers are becoming increasingly demoralized and pessimistic about the nomination’s prospects on Capitol Hill in the wake of Miers’s meetings with several Republican and Democratic senators. On a conference call held this morning, they even discussed whether Miers should simply stop visiting with lawmakers, lest any further damage be done — and so that time spent in such get-acquainted sessions will not cut into Miers’s intensive preparation for her confirmation hearing.
Question to readers who are Republicans and Democrats: honestly, have you EVER seen a nomination like this? And:
“It’s been a gradual descent into almost silence,” says a second source of the calls. “The meetings with the senators are going terribly. On a scale of one to 100, they are in negative territory. The thought now is that they have to end….Obviously the smart thing to do would be to withdraw the nomination and have a do-over as soon as possible. But the White House is so irrational that who knows? As of this morning, there is a sort of pig-headed resolve to press forward, cancel the meetings with senators if necessary, and bone up for the hearings.”
And the most damning quote in the piece:
In summary, says the first source, “People have been looking for ways to support this. There are a lot of us who would like to find a reason to be encouraged. Every time I try to accommodate myself to this nomination, folks at the White House say idiotic things that piss me off, like that spin on Rove’s part about her supposed deep involvement in judicial selection for three years, which is just not accurate.”
The good news is: what we’re seeing in the Miers nomination is proof that there is A BOUNDARY ON SPIN. There is a point of no return; independent thinking conservatives who are true descendants of Barry Goldwater simply do not want to hear it (as the quote above shows).
The White House hasn’t really stepped in it — they’ve stepped over it. Over the boundary. Michelle Malkin points to news reports of Senators being underwhelmed after meeting the President’s longtime lawyer and writes:
These accounts do not bode well for Miers’ scheduled testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in two weeks. Her supporters might argue that expectations are so low that she will have an easy time appeasing committee members after she has boned up on constitutional law. But John Roberts’ stellar, authoritative performance–speaking without notes and jousting vigorously with the panel for four days–set a high standard. Does anyone believe from testimonials like this…that Miers can meet that standard?
On top of all this, add reporting by John Fund and Bob Novak that raises questions about Miers’ messy dealings while on the Texas Lottery Commission. What does it spell? T-R-O-U-B-L-E.
Uncorrelated‘s Greg Prince read Miers’ response to questions from Congress and has concluded: she is another Sandra O’Connor (bad news for conservatives, good news for liberals). He writes of her written responses:
There’s something there to get under the skin of about any thinking person no matter what your political leanings are.
She thinks Brown v. Board of Education should be revisited NOW? The “correctness” of precedent is a minor consideration, whether one agrees with the result is immaterial, and constitutional decisions are made in part upon what is practical?
Is this a judicial philosophy, or a laundry list hoping to find something for everyone? And if the latter, doesn’t that guarantee pleasing no one? To the extent it describes anyone, it perhaps comes closest to O’Connor, but it’s very certain it’s not remotely close to either Thomas or Scalia. Her lines about stability of law do sound remarkably O’Connoresque.
Despire assurances by some that she may be guided more by her religion than legal philosophy, the above shouldn’t be a source of sweet dreams for movement conservatives.
So what do you have?
–Those working for Miers’ nomination discouraged and pessimistic because of HER performance in meeting with Senators.
–Conservatives not lukewarm about this nomination but icewater cold.
–Democrats uncharacteristically quiet as they sit back and watch GOP internal fighting but perhaps also because they fear whom Bush may come up with next if Miers’ nomination bites the dust.
But perhaps the Democrats will, in the end, have to face that prospect. Add all of the above and combine it with Robert Novak’s column earlier about this being a nomination in serious trouble and you have….a nomination in serious trouble…with chances increasing each day that it’ll wind up being relegated to the political morgue instead of ending in a Supreme Court seat.
UPDATE: Bull Moose thinks an invisible hand may have been behind the Miers nomination…
UPDATE II: Political Roads takes a step back and assesses her chances for confirmation using its Miers-O-Meter.
UPDATE III: Captain Ed looks at the end game for this nomination — basically, withdrawal. He notes demands by two key Senators for written details of Miers’ work for GWB. He also notes how the White House deflated any Democratic support for her by its pitch to Evangelicals. Read it ALL but here’s a key part:
Their demand makes it possible for Bush to withdraw Miers for an important principle, rather than as a failure and an embarrassment. It will kill for all time the idea of nominating one’s personal attorney for the Supreme Court and still might damage the protection of privilege for administration counsel, but it beats having to retreat after all the effort made in promoting Miers and touching off a conservative food fight. Either Miers could withdraw herself to protect the attorney-client privilege, or Bush could announce that he wants to protect future administrations from unwarranted incursions of one branch into the privileges and protections of the other.
The Senate GOP wants to protect George Bush and the White House by giving him a face-saving way out of the mess he made. At this point, this is one life-saver the President should seriously consider grasping with both hands.
TMV asks: The only problem is whether this controversy has triggered the fight-or-flight mechanism in Bush, which means flight is no option. Will Miers eventually announce that she has some big project that’ll require all her efforts or something like she needs to spend more time with her relatives in Bridgeport, Connecticut?
Update IV: Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer is calling on Miers to withdraw and hammers another nail in the Bush-team-is-politically-smart coffin:
The president’s mistake was thinking he could sneak a reliable conservative past the liberal litmus tests (on abortion, above all) by nominating a candidate at once exceptionally obscure and exceptionally well known to him.
The problem is that this strategy blew up in his face. Her obscurity is the result of her lack of constitutional history, which, in turn, robs her of the minimum qualifications for service on the Supreme Court. And while, post-Robert Bork, stealth seems to be the most precious asset a conservative Supreme Court nominee can have, how stealthy is a candidate who has come out publicly for a constitutional amendment to ban abortion?
Right now she’s taking more hits than Liza Minelli’s last husband.