Just as he did on the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court, President George Bush has faked out many commentators and politicos on the left and right who had expected him to pick other candidates and named someone who was less expected: his former legal “pit bull” Harriet Miers:
WASHINGTON – President Bush on Monday nominated White House counsel Harriet Miers to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on the Supreme Court, reaching into his loyal inner circle for another pick that could reshape the nation’s judiciary for years to come.
“She has devoted her life to the rule of law and the cause of justice,” Bush said as his first Supreme Court pick, Chief Justice John Roberts, took the bench for the first time just a few blocks from the White House. “She will be an outstanding addition to the Supreme Court of the United States.”
If confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate, Miers, 60, would join Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the second woman on the nation’s highest court and the third to serve there. Miers, who has never been a judge, was the first woman to serve as president of the Texas State Bar and the Dallas Bar Association.
If you read the text of the White House announcement what jumps out to you is that the White House has picked someone that it hopes conservatives can accept and that Democrats will at least not oppose with all out nuclear-option provoking political war — which may be difficult because as a judge, where is the paper trail?
Another factor: if the goal is to appoint conservatives to the Supreme Court to solidify the court’s position for many years, appointing a 60-year-old suggests a great faith in modern longevity. Is it now expected that all judges will live as long as William Rehnquist?
Her appointment suggests (a) the Bush White House really does not want a political battle to the death, (b) John Roberts was so well-received that, with GWB’s poll numbers on the rebound, they want to keep that trend up, (c) the White House perhaps welcome for a change being hailed for a choice that was so easily accepted by both parties, (d) the personal Bush tie and loyalty to Bush seemed critical — so it seems less of an ideological connection that a personal connection on the court (which is sure to spark a debate about whether she’d therefore rule in a way friendly to the administration in cases not just involving issues but perhaps even administration members).
The social conservatives basically had banned Attorney General Alberto Gonzales who he admired and worked with so he picked another close associate — Miers — rather than a more polarizing jurist. Indeed, the AP piece (link in first paragraph) notes:
Democratic and Republican special interests groups had been braced for a political brawl over the pick, but they may not get it. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., had urged the president to consider Miers, according to several officials familiar with Bush’s consultations with Congress.
In other words: on this one — even though some conservatives and liberals might have wanted someone different — the White House can’t accused of just plowing ahead without consulting with Democratic members of Congress.
The Washington Post also notes the generally favorable reaction of Democrats in general, and Reid in particular:
Reaction from Democrats was noncommittal but not negative, mostly because of who she isn’t (a prominent conservative judge similar to some of those on the White House short list) than who she is….
One Democrat who appeared pleased by the choice was Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.).
“I like Harriet Miers,” said Reid, who had voted against John Roberts as chief justice in Roberts’ confirmation vote last week. “In my view, the Supreme Court would benefit from the addition of a justice who has real experience as a practicing lawyer.”
Here’s an L.A. Times “fact sheet” on Miers.
And, of course, she’s the swing vote. How will she vote? At this point, with sparse judicial background, she is an enigma. CNN notes:
If confirmed by the Senate, Miers, 60, would join Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the second sitting female justice on the bench. O’Connor became the court’s first ever female justice in 1981.
Miers, who has never been a judge, was the first woman to serve as president of the Texas State Bar and the Dallas Bar Association. She also served on the Dallas City Council. (Miers’ background)
The choice to replace O’Connor could be pivotal. She has been a key swing vote in the past and has, for example, voted to strike down abortion laws that failed to contain health exceptions. (Full story)
The announcement came shortly before justices were to begin a new term with new Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who is the youngest member of the high court.
The term is expected to include rulings on several controversial cases, said Edward Lazarus, a Supreme Court legal analyst. (Case list)
“This is a situation where, from the very moment the justices start back up in October, they’re going to be very divided,” said Lazarus, who also authored “Closed Chambers,” a book on the justices. “It’s going to be a lot of friction inside the building.”
How are conservatives reacting? Not all are jumping for joy, reports MSNBC:
President Bush’s nomination of his White House counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor fits the pattern that other presidents have sometimes followed: choosing a close friend and political factotum to serve on the high court.
Franklin D. Roosevelt chose his friend and Attorney General Robert Jackson and his poker buddy and SEC chief William O. Douglas to serve on the high court. Abraham Lincoln chose his friend and political strategist David Davis, who’d helped him win the presidency. And Lyndon Johnson chose his attorney and longtime adviser, Abe Fortas.
Now Bush has picked a woman who for years has served as his personal attorney and as a White House official.
“If he wants to give her judicial experience why doesn’t he nominate her to the Fifth Circuit (Court of Appeals)?” asked Eastman in exasperation last Thursday. Eastman is a former law clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas.
Only minutes after Bush appeared at the White House Monday to announce the nomination, Manuel Miranda, a conservative strategist and former aide to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist issued a scathing statement: “The reaction of many conservatives today will be that the president has made possibly the most unqualified choice since Abe Fortas, who had been the president’s lawyer. The nomination of a nominee with no judicial record is a significant failure for the advisers that the White House gathered around it.”
While cautioning that “the president deserves the benefit of a doubt,” Miranda added, “Something has been left unachieved by the Miers nomination. A Republican president has yet to erase the stigma of the (1987) Robert Bork hearings and the David Souter nomination. The nomination of Harriet Miers has not rid us of the repugnant situation that a jurist with a clear and distinguished record will not be nominated for higher service. The nomination did not rid us of the apprehension of stealth nominees.”
But the big question becomes: is this a case of “Who Cares? So What?” on the part of adminstration officials looking at their conservative base?
In looking at the political context with all of the difficult issues, did the White House decide it just didn’t want to fight another Big One — at least just now? In the end, Miers could be the closest to a Congressional consensus candidate — given Reid’s approval — that could be expected given pressures from conservatives for more of a “red meat” candidate.
That this could indeed have been the case becomes more clear from this New York Times piece:
Ms. Miers, 60, a longtime confidant of the president’s, has never been a judge, and therefore lacks a long history of judicial rulings that could reveal ideological tendencies. Her positions on such ideologically charged issues as abortion and affirmative action are not clear.
Many of President Bush’s allies had lobbied the president to choose a conservative justice to replace Justice O’Connor, a key swing vote on the court, in order to place a conservative stamp on the court for years to come. Democrats in the Senate however, have warned that a conservative pick to replace a moderate justice would lead to a drawn-out partisan battle…
Her elevation to the court along with Chief Justice Roberts would add an unknown judicial element to the nine-justice body. Ms. Miers lacks a track record that would shed light on her views, and Chief Justice Roberts declined to be specific about his views on several key issues during his recent Senate confirmation hearings.
If confirmed, Ms. Miers would be the first justice with no previous experience on the bench since President Nixon nominated William H. Rehnquist, then an assistant attorney general, as associate justice in 1972. He was elevated to chief justice in 1986 by President Reagan. Chief Justice Rehnquist died last month, prompting Mr. Bush to nominate Judge Roberts as his replacement. The president had originally nominated Mr. Roberts in mid-July to replace Justice O’Connor.
What will be the impact on the court? No one knows — but it’s unrealistic to expect that the court won’t move a bit (or more) further to the right. But, then, no one KNOWS.
What also isn’t known is what her appointment will do to tensions already simmering within the Democratic party between those who want the party to take a harder, more uncompromising line with Republicans and take more clear-cut left positions and those who believe the party needs to move and drop its anchor in the center to be truly competitive.
Some Democrats were angry enough at other Democrats who supported Roberts. What will the the consequences this time? Or will many Democrats feel that they can cast a vote on Miers, even a losing vote, without it having to go into filibuster territory this time? The last vote on Roberts revealed a healthy split within the Democratic party. Will it be greater this time — to send a message to the party’s activists that they’re not forgotten? Or less — angering the activists?
Another issue: if Bush has not given conservatives the kind of candidate they really wanted on these two nominations, does this mean if one more seat opens up (which is likely the next three years) he’ll name someone who veers harder to the right? Or, if this goes well, will the White House repeat the Roberts/Miers type of appointments?
And then there’s the biggest and final issue: does this signal that the administration – battered by natural, political and legal crises – is turning a bit more towards a less confrontational style of governing as it moves into its final years?
UDATE: It turns out that Miers has given lots of contributions to political candidates over the years, including Al Gore in 1988 and Senator Lloyd Benson in Texas — something that should REALLY please GWB’s conservative supporters…
UPDATE II: Michelle Malkin (whose post and roundup we have linked in our roundup below) has a FASCINATING NEW POST HERE that reveals part of the unfolding story. Click on it just for the graphic. But she also provides some info that shows the White House may have a big problem on its hands:
Dick Cheney just finished an interview with Rush Limbaugh. Cheney pleads for Rush to “trust” him. First caller after the segment is a Republican woman who is “so disappointed” with Bush and the GOP…they don’t seem to care about their base…we fought hard to get a Republican majority…I am so dismayed…” ….Rush made a half-hearted attempt to frame the cronyism concern as liberal MSM-generated. But the concern is as strong, if not stronger, on the right than on the left.
This is HIGHLY significant for several reasons (1) the issue of croynism is one that transcends parties, (2) if you look at the conservative critics and bloggers who don’t like this appointment you see independent thinking that goes beyond just wanting a conservative — an unwillingness to follow lockstep as Limbaugh did here.
UPDATE III: In another sign of intra-party friction, conservative analyst and writer Bill Kristol writes that he is “Disappointed, Depressed and Demoralized” by the nomination. A few excerpts from his long piece that must be read in full:
I’m disappointed because I expected President Bush to nominate someone with a visible and distinguished constitutionalist track record….I’m depressed… Roberts for Rehnquist was an appropriate replacement. But moving Roberts over to the Rehnquist seat meant everything rode on this nomination–and that the president had to be ready to fight on constitutional grounds for a strong nominee. Apparently, he wasn’t….I’m demoralized. What does this say about the next three years of the Bush administration–leaving aside for a moment the future of the Court? Surely this is a pick from weakness….
UPDATE IV: CBS’ legal affairs analyst attorney Andrew Cohn suggests the nomination is “doomed:”
There are many reasons why Miers is a controversial — perhaps even a doomed — nominee and none of them have to do with any legal or judicial philosophies she may have. She has no judicial experience. She does not possess a world-class intellect like her would-be predecessor on the Court. She is a Bush crony at a time when there already is great criticism of the White House for placing into high office friends whose loyalty to the president overshadows their professional competence. And if you thought Roberts offered the nation little in the way of his true legal and judicial philosophies wait until you find out how little of a public record Miers has.
The White House, and maybe Miers herself, will have to explain to the nation, and to the Senate, why she rates the job of associate justice of the United States Supreme Court over dozens of highly-qualified female judges around the country (and dozens of highly-qualified male judges as well).
UPDATE 5: The Political Teen has a transcript plus an audio file of Vice President Cheney defending the pick on Sean Hannity.
A CROSS SECTION OF VARYING VIEWS ON THE MIERS APPOINTMENT (these are excerpts so please click on links to read entire posts):
—Glenn Reynolds AKA Instapundit has an extensive roundup and writes: “Perhaps they’ll change my mind, but so far I’m underwhelmed.” At Glenn Reynolds.Com, Reynolds, a law professor, says the nomination is already in trouble. He points to conservative opposition and, in his piece (that should be read in full), adds:
But I’m underwhelmed by Miers’ credentials for the Court. …But the larger point is that we shouldn’t be making those kinds of excuses for this appointment: Michael McConnell, along with a host of other candidates whose qualifications no one could doubt, was available….Democrats, seeing this sort of complaint from Bush’s own supporters, are likely to smell blood. It’s early to start the handicapping, but this is a nomination that — unlike John Roberts’ — is starting out in trouble.
—Crooks And Liars has a roundup of conservative reaction and declares: “Conservatives jumping off the cliff over Miers nomination. It seems like another crony nomination to me. Keeping it in the family. A little “Clemenza” action.” John Amato also writes: “This is a win for Democrats and a loss for the Radical Right.”
—Steve Kelso has a “live blogging” reaction as the announcement was made and he is disappoined. Read it all but here’s one small snippet: “Abe Fortas redux? Yes…President Bush is following the path of LBJ to oblivion…Miers just walked out with the president. Mr. Bush, you have just lost my support. I did not vote for you so you could nominate justices that will legislate from the bench and who “find” in the constitution the “right” to murder children in the womb.”
—Amy Sullivan:
Harriet Miers is a woman who has excelled in endeavors that require networking and shoulder-rubbing and no actual proof of legal expertise. (General counsel? Lest we forget, Mike Brown’s first job at FEMA was as general counsel.) Already I’ve received a robo-email from Ken Mehlman proclaiming her “extremely well-qualified” and declaring that “like Justice O’Connor,” she “is a legal trailblazer.” That is an insult to Justice O’Connor. Even the Washington Post’s morning piece on Miers, which goes out of its way to make the most of her skimpy qualifications, can’t avoid the fact that Miers has done very little of note in the legal world and, “if confirmed, she would be a rare appointee with no experience as a judge at any level.”
–The always original The Talking Dog (who is an attorney) has a post that MUST be read IN FULL but here’s part of it:
We’ll find out, of course, that her political-ideological written record may be sufficiently stealthy so that she too can get through an entire confirmation process without having to commit herself to anything on any issue, before she takes her place as a probable ideological clone of the woman she is replacing, i.e., a probable hard-ass conservative who will probably not vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, which matters of course to Democrats as nothing else does, even as the High Court will probably assist in the otherwise dismantling of all other constitutional protections as all power is shifted to the whim of the executive branch.
Not only does Harriet Miers not look like the best candidate for the job, she doesn’t even look like the best female candidate for the job. If judicial experience is a liability, why not Maureen Mahoney, who is younger, has argued cases at the Supreme Court, and worked within the Deputy Solicitor’s Office after clerking for William Rehnquist? Better yet, why not nominate J. Michael Luttig or Michael McConnell, with their brilliant and scholarly approaches to the law and undeniable qualifications through years of judicial experience? Why not Edith Hollan Jones, if Bush wanted to avoid the confrontation that Janice Rogers Brown would have created? Miers may make a great stealth candidate, but right now she looks more like a political ploy. Color me disappointed at first blush.
—Political Scientist Steven Taylor aka Poliblogger has a roundup and perhaps echoes the views of many Republicans, independents and Democrats when he writes: “I was surprised by the nomination and am reserving judgment at the moment. I really don’t know what to think. Would she have been on my list?–I find that highly unlikely, but, again, I don’t know enough to make a serious, useful assessment.”
—The Glittering Eye has a great round and gives us his own view:
I suspect that the real question will be whether Senate Democrats consider the fact that she was nominated by this president as reason enough to oppose her. I certainly hope not but the atmosphere in Washington seems to have grown pretty poisonous. Ms. Miers’s nomination also presents a challenge for the Republican base. Her lack of a clear paper trail leaves it an open question as to whether President Bush has fulfilled his campaign pledge to nominate a candidate in the mold of Scalia and Thomas or not.
—Daily Kos’ post won’t make conservatives feel any happier. Here’s part of it:
More immediately, this is the sort of pick that can have real-world repercussions in 2006, with a demoralized Republican Right refusing to do the heavy lifting needed to stem big losses. That Bush went this route rather than throwing his base the red meat they craved is nothing less than a sign of weakness. For whatever reason, Rove and Co. decided they weren’t in position to wage a filibuster fight with Democrats on a Supreme Court justice and instead sold out their base…..
But my early sense is that this is already a victory — both politically and judicially — for Democrats. In fact, it should be great fund watching conservatives go after Bush. He may actually break that 39-40 floor in the polls, given he’s just pissed off the very people who have propped up his failed presidency
—John Cole’s post is titled “I Don’t Get It” and he writes: “This pick makes no sense to me…At first glance, I don’t like the pick.”
–Dean’s World’s Scott Kirwin: “But instead of Priscilla Owen we get Harriet Miers – the President’s personal lawyer. Is she SCOTUS material? Sure she hasn’t left much of a paper-trail, leaving the Dems to make stuff up – which they would have done anyway. Selecting Miers looks like a defensive move – a safe choice. There’s also the issue of cronyism. She’s a personal friend of Bush’s. However the President himself must recognize that a Supreme Court justice is one of the most powerful legacies a president leaves. Surely he wouldn’t want to squander it simply by choosing a personal friend. As an admirer of Karl Rove, I am left hoping that there is more to this nomination than appearances….”
—Charging RINO‘s Jeremy Dibbell offers a VERY INTERESTING scenario:
I really just don’t know. Much remains to be learned, but in the end this morning my initial reaction, just as it was with Roberts, is that it could be much worse. Unlike with Roberts, however, I don’t have the feeling that it couldn’t have been significantly better.
Finally, on a cynical note, I wonder if Miers is not a sacrificial lamb designed to draw fire on qualification grounds … i.e. if Democrats oppose her and sink the nomination, Bush then turns around and nominates a very qualified, but very ideological, alternative. I don’t think this scenario is likely, but wanted to just mention the possibility.
—Michelle Malkin has a superb roundup of conservative blog reaction (most of it negative). She writes:
What Julie Myers is to the Department of Homeland Security, Harriet Miers is to the Supreme Court. It’s not just that Miers has zero judicial experience. It’s that she’s so transparently a crony/”diversity” pick while so many other vastly more qualified and impressive candidates went to waste. If this is President Bush’s bright idea to buck up his sagging popularity–among conservatives as well as the nation at large–one wonders whom he would have picked in rosier times. Shudder.
Harriet Miers: It’s Not Who You Know……it’s apparently who you cover up for….What’s most disconcerting to me is that Ms. Miers has never served a day as a judge. There is no way to analyze her judicial temperament, and this should be as much of an issue with those on the right as it will be with those on the left. The Supreme Court is (ideally) the pinnacle of a career in jurisprudence, whether liberal or conservative leaning. A SCOTUS appointment should not be lifetime payback for services rendered.
—Publius Rendezvous has an extensive roundup and writes, in part: “Can Miers be considered in the same breath with Justice Scalia? Justice Thomas? This is the litmus test conservatives should heed as we move forward in the coming weeks. President Bush promised us such, and anything less than this standard he set is gravely unacceptable. Let us hope and pray that the groan was for naught.”
–Harriet Miers has a blog?? (H/T Atrios…SEE BELOW)
—Atrios analyzes why he thinks conservatives are upset:
They’re angry because this was supposed to be their nomination. This was their moment. They didn’t just want a stealth victory, they wanted parades and fireworks…..They didn’t just want substantive results, what they wanted even more were symbolic ones. They wanted Bush to extend a giant middle finger to everyone to the left of John Ashcroft. They wanted to watch Democrats howl and scream and then ultimately lose a nasty confirmation battle. They wanted this to be their “WE RUN THE COUNTRY AND THERE’S NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT” moment. Whatever kind of judge she would be, she doesn’t provide them with that.
—Josh Marshall:”The key that this nomination should and, I suspect, will turn on is that the she fits the Bush administration mold — she’s a loyalist through and through. The lack of any other clear qualifications for the job becomes clear in that context.”
—Powerline calls it a “disappointment”:
I’m sure that she is a capable lawyer and a loyal aide to President Bush….Miers is also 60 years old, which limits the number of years she will be able to serve on the Court. The great unknown is whether she is a conservative…….Bush chose a nominee who makes little sense on either substantive or political grounds: a second or third tier candidate whose choice will be, I think, slight political minus for the President because of her perceived lack of qualifications. I really don’t get it.
—Swing State Project has a long detailed post with lots of links to weblogs and analysis. Read it in FULL but here’s a tiny part of what you’ll see:
Michael Brown is a name that should come up a great deal during the Miers’ confirmation process. Harriet Miers is a Michael Brown quality pick. Even right-wing bloggers are using the word ‘cronyism’ and are worried because they know Bush can’t afford this.
The storyline of Bush giving key jobs to completely unqualified political hacks is connecting with the American people. By picking people on the basis of loyalty, rather than effectiveness, Bush has set the stage for the Culture of Corruption that engulfs the entire Republican Party.
–SCOTUS blog FLATLY PREDICTS the nomination will be rejected and shows how in the end the White House pick will please no one:
The themes of the opposition will be cronyism and inexperience. Democratic questioning at the hearings will be an onslaught of questions about federal constitutional law that Miers in all likelihood won’t want to, or won’t be able to (because her jobs haven’t called on her to study the issues), answer. I have no view on whether she should be confirmed (it’s simply too early to say), but will go out on a limb and predict that she will be rejected by the Senate. In my view, Justice O’Connor will still be sitting on the Court on January 1, 2006.
–Right Wing News’ John Hawkins: “To merely describe Miers as a terrible pick is to underestimate her sheer awfulness as a selection….Keep in mind that we’re talking about a woman who has donated to Al Gore, Lloyd Bentsen, & the Democratic National Committee before. You want a candidate who has “Souter” written all over her? You want a candidate who can’t be trusted to overturn Roe v. Wade? Well, her name is Harriet Miers. This is undoubtedly the worst decision of Bush’s entire presidency so far.”
—TalkLeft makes some interesting about not just Miers but whom GWB will likely to choose next:
My initial reaction to her nomination: Relief. I served with Ms. Miers on the Martindale Hubbell-Lexis Nexis Legal Advisory Board for a few years…I didn’t get to know her well, but we sat next to each other for several hours at the last meeting she attended and I liked her. We only talked law, not politics, but she won me over – and I was pre-disposed not to like her, that being the year that Bush was running for President and knowing she was his personal lawyer.
Read the rest of her post to see what she predicts will happen next time there’s an open Supreme Court seat…..
—Andrew Sullivan (in Great Minds Think Alike Dept — see what we wrote above) thinks Bush’s vetoed-by-the-right desire to put Gonzales on the court has something to do with it:
Think of her as a very capable indentured servant of the Bush family. She’ll do what they want. She’ll be a very, very tough nut to crack in the hearings. And I have no idea about her judicial philosophy. But I imagine that’s the point. When I described her as a flunky last July, a source close to Bush told me: “Don’t mess with Harriet.” I think they’ve found someone whose personal loyalty to Bush exceeds even Gonzales’. And in some ways, I see this very personal, very crony appointment to be a response to being told he couldn’t pick his main man, Alberto. Harriet is his main woman. I reserve judgment on her fitness to serve on the court.
(If his hunch and my hunch are correct, you can see a situation where the the far right could actually spark some backlash from Bush and his powerful group if her nomination is in danger or sunk even partly due to conservative opposition.) He also thinks Bush has accountability issues.
—Ron Beasley: “If I were in as much potential legal trouble as Dubya I would want a friend on the court. Well he apparently feels the same way. He has appointed friend and über-loyalist Harriet Miers to the SCOTUS.”
—The Daily Bubble: “So far, I’m not impressed with the choice of Harriet Miers. She has never been a judge, has worked only in political capacities for most of her career, seems much less qualifed than Judge Roberts. Is she the best we can do? I’ll make up my mind during the hearings.”
–Running Scared’s Jazz Shaw: “Right now Bush, Cheney, Rove, DeLay and Frist are up to their nostrils in hot oil and they need something to take the pressure off for a while. This has been a typical diversion tactic employed by Rove since the early days of this presidency. I’m guessing that Bush was advised to put up Miers specifically to start a war in the Senate which will draw attention away from the rest of his woes and once again try to paint the Democrats as obstructionists, possibly even leading to a showdown for the ‘nuclear option’ yet again.”
—Outside the Beltway: “While President Bush is not playing from a position of commanding strength, to say the least, at the moment, virtual surrender to the Democrats on something this important is hardly necessary. I would have much preferred a noted conservative judicial scholar who, like John Roberts, commanded respect for his intellect and temperament even from ideological opponents.”
–The conservative site Red State not only has posts criticizing the nomination but a statement from its directors. Here is a small part of it:
Many of the President’s defenders would argue that Harriet Miers is like Chief Justice Rehnquist, in that she worked for a Presidential administration, but had no experience on the bench before becoming an associate justice. That ignores the fact that Chief Justice Rehnquist graduated first in his class at Stanford, clerked for Justice Jackson, and had a stellar career at the United States Department of Justice. Harriet Miers has nothing similar in her background…..
We can be convinced that Miers is stellar. We can be convinced that Miers will be an originalist willing to reject the liberal dogma of Roe. But from where we sit now, this is a profoundly disappointing nomination, a missed opportunity, and an abdication of responsibility to make sound, well qualified nominations. Whether it is also a betrayal of first principles is still to be determined.
The Democrats must respond wisely and strategically to the Miers nomination. While certainly not embracing the nomination, Democrats should take the opportunity to drive a wedge between the right and the President.
The Miers pick is clearly a reflection of the President’s weakness. One can only wonder what other problems the Administration is anticipating. The President clearly feels he cannot risk a fight at the moment. But, he might have over-compensated by selecting someone who is not being received well by his most fervent believers – they have to view it as Souter all over.
–In a post titled “Yes, The Right Pick,” Blogs for Bush’s Mark Noonan has a detailed defense of the Miers pick then adds: “Finally, she was nominated by President Bush – a man who has not let us down in the slightest on the matter of judicial appointments. He’s done a good job for us, so how about a little deferrence to his judgement, ok?”
—GOP.Com, the GOP website, has tons of nice comments about Miers (read these arguments here and hear them on Rush and Sean tomorrow…)
–(Law) Professor Bainbridge has a MUST READ POST (ABSOLUTE MUST). He says “I’m appalled” and proceeds to give you a number list why. Then, in an update, he writes:
I got a lot of criticism for saying that George Bush was pissing away the conservative moment via his Iraq policies. Even then, however, I continued to support Bush precisely because I thought we’d get a couple of solid Scalia or Thomas-style conservatives on the Supreme Court. I was wrong. With this appointment, I’d echo Andrew’s sentiment with something a tad more off color: Bush is now peeing on the movement.
–Another MUST READ IN FULL is Bogus Gold (one of our favorite Right Voices sites). A tiny taste 4 U:
Bush has no idea how deeply betrayed his base still feels about his father’s Souter appointment. If he understood it, this kind of “stealth,” “trust me” nomination would have been among his very last resorts. Bush’s loyalty to his friends and allies used to be a trait held in high regard by Republicans. He has managed to turn it into a fault. He should have recognized this with his Michael Brown and Julie Myers dustups of late. Clearly he didn’t. I’ve seen more accusations of “cronyism” from the right than the left over this pick…
Response to those who are chastising those of us who seem to lack the old team spirit. Shouldn’t we trust the president? Umm…no. We had a GREAT system in place to establish competence and determine judicial temperament without resorting to a president’s personal hunch – an appelate court system loaded with excellent constitutional originalists. It was his decision to “go dark” and leave us all guessing.
This was an offensive pick in more ways than one can even list. Bush picked an unqualified women, who he felt comfortable with, rather than the relatively large number of excellent conservatives who could have been confirmed. He has betrayed his supporters, and for what?…
Strangely, enough, I believe that Bush has now risked everything in his presidency. Bush needs loyalty from his base….but this treachery is unlikely to generate loyalty. What is more, Bush has made it much harder for the Republicans to win in 2008, because a holding a coalition together will now be close to impossible.
We’re adding to this roundup. When you see this message disappear it’ll be complete. Due to time constraints we may not be able to add all sites with important things to say to this roundup. PLEASE make sure you read trackbacks and see what sites that have linked to us have written.
Linked to Outside the Beltway Traffic Jam
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.