Once again, Noonanâ€™s analysis is brilliant. She argues that in nominating Harriet Miers President Bush completely misread his base. And sheâ€™s right.
The base wanted a bench-clearing brawl, but the President decided to take a knee and run the clock out. Not very inspiring, and not a good way to rally the troops.
My own analysis is forthcoming, but in the meantime you should read Noonanâ€™s piece: â€œThe Miers Misstep: What was President Bush thinking?â€
The conservative “base” is directly under the sway of a couple of media pundits. Most have little to no objective information regarding Miers and so we have to endure more reactionism and misguided criticism. What happened to innovation and creative-thought among conservatives? I fear our beloved party has lost her soul, she has no authentic identity, she’s succumbed to the media’s caricature like blind sheep. Miers is the embodiment of what we need in this desperate hour. Here is the incarnation of solid conservativism and the establishment bucks because she didn’t emerge from the “inside”. Thoughtful politics is a thing of the past for the Republicans. Sad day!
Dear Feeling Blue,
Thanks for the comment. I guess my question is how do we know what her judicial philosophy would be? Being pro-life personally doesn’t necessarily tell me anything about how she would rule as a judge. Nathan Hecht says she’s an originalist. Does that mean she’s willing to overturn precedent when she see’s that precedent as having no roots in the constitution as the framers originally intended it? I guess we’ll have to wait until the hearings to get answers to a lot of these questions.
She has publicly stated that she is pro-life, what else do you want? It is entirely inappropriate to try and determine how she would rule on specific cases prior to her being appointed, that would undermine her ability as “judge”. Miers is not an enigma! This is Bush’s shrewdest moment and the masses who take their cues from certain political commentators and Fox news are blowing it, again.
Well, I have to say that I don’t have any commentary on how FOX News is handling this because I don’t watch it and don’t have any clue as to what their commentators are saying.
It may be that Miers will be a great jurist, but we don’t have any way of knowing that at this point because she has zero experience and no discernible track record in constitutional law.
Certain public figures have been arguing for years that they are personally pro-life but as a matter of public policy they are pro-choice (a la Mario Cuomo et al.). There is a category of people who consistently express that they are personally opposed to abortion but yet won’t do anything about it in their public roles.
So as to your question: “What else do you want?” I want someone who is not only pro-life but who also has a record in public service that would support that opinion. Moreover, I want a person who has a record of demonstrated committment to originalism.
There are plenty of justice out there who have such a record.
Such a conspicuous person WILL NOT pass through Congress. It would seem that Bush’s accomplishment with Roberts being appointed would warrant some respect. Apparantly, it does not. She demonstrates an obvious committment to originalism (though not fanciful), you should read more about her. It might inform your perception.
Actually, a conspicuous person would pass through. The Republicans hold a majority in the Senate, and a fillibuster would fail because it would trigger the so-called nuclear option.
I am not sure why you think qualified conservatives cannot be confirmed. There’s not any evidence to support such an idea. John Roberts’s confirmation is a case in point.
I’m not saying that she is not an originalist. I’m just saying that she doesn’t have a professional resume that demonstrates a tested commitment to originalism. To me, a commitment to originalism (that has gone through the fires of testing and experience while working in some area related to constitutional law) is more valuable than someone who simply claims to be an originalist.
I’m sure she is one, I would just prefer a nominee with the resume to back that claim up.
Dear Feeling Blue,
Why are you so blue? You need to turn that frown upside down. You can get glad in the same pants you got sad in!
At the risk of sounding even more condescending, you seem somewhat detached from political mileau of DC. Nobody wants a fight right now, it is not expedient for one’s career. The shepherd has been struck and the sheep have begun to scatter. DeLay’s head will roll. Thus, you have an entirely different environment than when Roberts was promoted. In an act of genius, Bush is trying to slide Miers through the backdoor. Unfortunately, his own constituents are being manipulated.
“Blue” was intended to portray my political persuasion, not my emotional state. Thanks for the encouragement, however.
Well, I think “Feeling Blue” is confusing. So if it’s allright with you, I’ll just call you “Mr. Blue Pants.”
Thanks for the comments, Mr. Blue Pants.
ralph (not Nadar)
Ha! You thought I was a person who really cares about your political blog. It was me the whole time! Tricked ya! Dufus!