And the Miersfest continues…
A remarkable thing is happening with this nomination, and that is as time goes by, things seem even worse than where they started. More information tends to assuage anxiety or, at a minimum, at least paints some kind of discernable picture. This is not happening with Miers. Unlike with Roberts, where a portrait began to emerge, in Miers case we keep hearing the same anemic arguments: “trust Bush,” “don’t be an elitist,” “you don’t have to be a scholar to be on the Court,” and so forth.
Do any of these really sound like a good argument to anyone?
Via the WSJ, John Fund writes along these same lines
It is traditional for nominees to remain silent until their confirmation hearings. But previous nominees, while unable to speak for themselves, have been able to deploy an array of people to speak persuasively on their behalf. In this case, the White House spin team has been pathetic, dismissing much of the criticism of Ms. Miers as “elitism” or even echoing Democratic senators who view it as “sexist.” But it was Richard Land , president of the Southern Baptist Convention, who went so far as to paint Ms. Miers as virtually a tool of the man who has been her client for the past decade. “In Texas, we have two important values, courage and loyalty,” he told a conference call of conservative leaders last Thursday. “If Harriet Miers didn’t rule the way George W. Bush thought she would, he would see that as an act of betrayal and so would she.” That is an argument in her favor. It sounds more like a blood oath than a dignified nomination process aimed at finding the most qualified individual possible .
No kidding.
And what’s worse, even what meager evidence that can be mustered about her views, at least the ones that people like Dr. Land find reassuring, are based on outcome-oriented voting on the Court. Yet, isn’t the whole idea of conservative jurisprudence that it isn’t the job of judges to seek outcome based decision-making from the bench? (For those taking score at home, out-come based voting = “legislating from the bench”).
Sphere: Related Content
October 10th, 2005 at 10:35 am
Turns out that Harriet Miers is strongly in favor of affirmative action, which she demonstrated in her briefs against the plaintiffs in the Grutter case. That’s an automatic disqualifier to a post in which someone is supposed to interpret the Constitution. You can’t be a Constitutional judge if you support a policy that’s a direct attack on Constitutional principles.
Miers has to go– replace her with Owen, Jones, Luttig, almost anybody. But it can’t be Miers. If Miers is confirmed, then the names of all those GOP senators who voted in favor of her are going to be posted all over in big, glaring neon lights as sitting-duck targets to be defeated by embittered social conservatives in the primaries and, if necessary, in the general elections. (If that means defecting to the Dems, so be it.)
Any Republican who supports Miers to please Bush is an idiot– with Bush’s approval ratings now hovering around 15% or so after this betrayal, Bush is more of a liability than an asset to the party. I’d halfway support Bush’s impeachment b/c of this Miers fiasco– at least Cheney would have a spine to fight the Dems, especially with a 55-seat GOP majority in the Senate.
If Miers continues to get support from the GOP, they’re going to lose the support from their base. I certainly won’t be voting for any more Republicans, or giving away my hard-earned money. No, I think I’ll spend it getting my shoes shined instead– something of much greater importance.
October 11th, 2005 at 7:01 am
In 1996, George (Trust Me) Bush learned the hard way it is a mistake to try to remove the anti-abortion plank in the GOP platform. He sent a messenger to the Resolutions (Platform) Committee of the Texas State Republican Convention asking that the pro-life plank not be included in the platform. It was voted for unanimously. As a result, Bush was denied the privilege of leading his own delegation to National Convention because too many delegates did not trust him on the pro-life issue.
Many Republicans believed that Mr. Bush would be naming people of a more conservative bent to the U.S. Supreme Court. Before making such a supposition, it would be a good idea to look at Mr. Bush’s track record. He had signed a bill naming a highway after an infamous abortionist from Houston, John B. Coleman, who, among other things, faced medical malpractice lawsuits involving abortions at the time of his death. There were many excuses given for his signature on the bill, but the fact remains that President Bush had promised not to sign it.
Was it just pandering to the pro-choice vote that had him comment, when visiting New Jersey, that he couldn’t wait to campaign with Christine Todd Whitman not only in New Jersey but all over America. As the governor of New Jersey she consistently stood with the pro-abortion, feminist lobby and even vetoed the partial birth abortion ban passed by the New Jersey legislature.
While Governor of Texas, President Bush also appointed Martha Hill Jamison to the 164th District Court in Houston. Mrs. Jamison is the daughter of former Democratic Attorney General, John Hill, and had just recently turned Republican. She was still a supporter of Planned Parenthood and the Gay and Lesbian political caucus.
In Texas when a Supreme Court place is vacated during mid-term, the governor may appoint someone to fill that spot until the next election. Bush appointed four members to that court. Texas law required that parents be notified prior to the performance of an abortion on a minor. In March, the Texas Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision refused to uphold a decision by a lower court ruling that a 17 year old girl is not mature enough to make an abortion decision without notifying her parents. Three of the votes vacating the decision were from Bush’s four appointments to the Texas Supreme Court. They were instrumental in virtually nullifying the parental notification law which Mr. Bush proclaimed that he supported. Are we supposed to believe that his current choices for the Supreme Court will be any better?