October 4, 2005
Keeping an Open Mind
As the WSJ opined in their lead editorial, we only seem to have President Bush's word on the Miers pick.
I mentioned the "hopelessly upbeat" Hugh Hewitt as providing the positive side, but here is an even better one from The American Thinker
The GOP is not the party which idolizes Ivy League acceptability as the criterion of intellectual and mental fitness. Nor does the Supreme Court ideally consist of the nine greatest legal scholars of an era. Like any small group, it is better off being able to draw on abilities of more than one type of personality. The Houston lawyer who blogs under the name of Beldar wisely points out that practicing high level law in the real world and rising to co-managing partner of a major law firm not only demonstrates a proficient mind, it provides a necessary and valuable perspective for a Supreme Court Justice, one which has sorely been lacking.Ms. Miers has actually managed a business, a substantial one with hundreds of employees, and has had to meet a payroll and conform to tax, affirmative action, and other regulatory demands of the state. She has also been highly active in a White House during wartime, when national security considerations have been a matter of life and death. When the Supreme Court deliberates in private, I think most conservatives would agree that having such a perspective at hand is a good thing, not a bad thing.
I am digging the non-ivy league thing, that really is a plus. Running a business, friendly to the Executive branch, "conservative" in W's words.
I am concerned but I'm not jumping in front of the train just yet on this one.
I'll offer one more mark in the plus column: She's from a western state. Texas is its own special kind of western state, but it's still a can-do, good fences make good neighbors, honesty is what you do when no one's looking, more rural than urban kinda place. If she ever does start weighing "real world consequences" of the court's actions instead of their Constitutional merits, at least she may be inclined to consider the REAL real world, not the urban fantasyland of politically correct neoliberalism.
As to the "real" issue of abortion politics, it's ironic that as the replacement for O'Connor, Miers may vote to countermand Roe while, as the replacement for Rehnquist, Roberts may value precedent so heavily that he'll vote to sustain it. Regardless, in the arenas of property rights and objective law, I expect the "Bush court" to be an improvement upon what he inherited from President Pusillanimous.
Posted by: johngalt at October 5, 2005 1:31 AMI agree with JK's basic assertion that Ivy League credentials, legal academic prowess, even judicial experience should not be requirements for the Supreme Court. I do worry however that our political process has forced us into nominations of folks with little or no "paper trail" above those with more experience who might ignite a political firestorm. John Roberts commented after his ascension to judgeship about how much more demanding it was than he expected. This is the Supreme Court after all, major corporations do not invite people to sit on their board with no prior board experience (at least not without major political connections) nor do large law firms hire managing partners from the ranks of lawyers who have not yet made partner. Basically this is because experience counts. I will not judge Miers (pun intended) before I hear more, but I am concerned about her experience level.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at October 5, 2005 11:33 AMI am afraid that we may agree yet again. If the "lack of paper trail" becomes a standard, we will never again have a nominee who was a member of the Federalist Society or who worked for the ACLU. Never a Bork, never a Ginsberg -- fair to say, both of those would be a loss.
I find myself talking myself into liking this nomination. I tried to explain President Bush to some Europeans once with the old line about advice for new mothers, that "one grandmother was better than ten doctors." The elites of the left will always champion the Harvard or Wellesley grad (unless it's ... oh never mind!) but I see the GOP as championing the small businessman, the doer over the thinker.
Ms. Miers might represent the jurisprudential equivalent of that on the Court. Of course, she would be a grandmother IF SHE WEREN'T GAY!!!
Just kidding. Just rambling. It's a comment, not a post!
Posted by: jk at October 5, 2005 4:03 PMDid you see the Monday night game? The one with Brett Favre berating Robert Ferguson on the sidelines for not fighting hard enough to hold onto the ball... the ball that was stripped from his hands after the completion and run back, setting up a Carolina TD. "You got to fight, you've got to fight harder!" Watching that was like watching the president's handling of the latest SCOTUS opening. People worked tirelessly for decades to get us to where we are, ... Republican president, Republican controlled sentate and two open postions on the bench. They busted their hind ends to get the ball into this presidents hands and W let the other side strip the ball from him and run the other way. He wasn't willing to fight for it.
Posted by: Sugarchuck at October 6, 2005 10:15 AMI don't care much where Ms. Miers went to school, or what state she's from or where she goes to church; file all of that nonsense under "she has a really nice personality" and let's get to the point... she doesn't deserve to move to the head of the line over so many better qualified candidates. This is not an "earn while you learn gig" and for many of us, this was the single most important decision the president had to make. Republicans are supposed to believe in meritocracy.
And ya'all can keep the "I trust Bush" line because I don't, not any more. Not only that but his judgement on this was so bad it has me rethinking an awful lot of the rest we've had to trust him on. I don't know if this pick was hubris or idiocy, or both but I do know it stinks. We lament the fact that a truly engaging candidate seems to be a thing of the past. We weep and tear our garments over the mediocrity implied when there is no paper trail. But how many of us are going to write to our Republican Senators and demand better. There are enough Republicans and fence sitting democrats to put a real conservative on the bench, a conservative with the intellectual firepower not to simply vote as we would like, but to articulate the powerful arguments neccassary to uphold their decisions when future courts revisit things. Sadly, we won't get that nominee in Ms. Miers. I had serious doubts about W when he backed Arlen Specter over his primary challenger but I didn't expect him to completely roll over, placing political expediency over principal in such a critical area.
One last thing... damned if I know why liberals are all so giddy about this lady. I would be darned scared of an evangelical church lady that jumped parties after finding God. Those folks tend to be pretty serious and shouldn't be trifled with. She will most likely be another yes vote for the right. My guess is that I will agree with her votes more often than not. That still doesn't mean she belongs on the court.
I'll put you down for a "no," then...
I am far from confident that this is a great pick. But I reject a few things that I continue to hear from the detractors.
Idiocy or hubris? Running from a fight? I don't get it (well, yeah, maybe idiocy...) But I don't agree with the running from the fight sect, and by extension your fighting for the ball (I did see the game and I did see Farve's disapprobation, I thought I'd rather get hit in the ribs catching a high one up the middle than face Farve like that!)
Like Emerson, I will look for the best in others. I may doubt whether this is a good pick, but don't doubt for a second that W thinks it is a great pick.
Throw out "Trust W" for an argument. The best arguments I have from club Polyanna are:
-- non-elitist, western state, non-academic;
-- pro business;
-- pro executive;
-- pretty certain vote against Roe.
Your pessimism to me is betrayed by your inclusion of Chief Justice Roberts. I had my questions when that one came down, but after the Senate hearings, I am sold on our new Chief.
A concern with my party is that the right wants a fight. I would have loved a good scuffle over Janice Rodgers Brown as much as anybody, but if a constructionist gets on the bench with Leader Reid's blessing, we can get on to other items.
I agree that the Democrats will rue the day they let "church lady" through and, yes, she is a vote and not a leader. Neither of those depresses me that much.
Posted by: jk at October 6, 2005 1:59 PMLet me ask you this...what did you hear from Mr. Roberts that leads you to think he won't be another Souter. What did he say that set you at ease. I didn't hear a thing. Is he brilliant? Yes. Is he qualified to be on the court? Yes. Was it fun watching him reduce Biden to rubble? Of course. Should Bush have picked him? I don't know. The fact is, Alan Dershowitz is samrt and facile and qualified to be on the Supreme court but I wouldn't have wanted Bush to nominate him. If you are right and Bush truly believes he put up the best nominee in Ms. Miers then Bush's critics are right and he shouldn't be president. If I am right and he chose to back down from a fight he should have been preparing for prior to his first inauguration then he is a weasel and he has betrayed a large number of the folks that got him elected in the first place. I've put up with record spending and compasionate conservatism and Republican Lite all in the hopes that he would get this one thing right and he has blown it. I don't fault him for Katrina or 9/11 aftermath or any of the other things that have been dropped in his lap but this, along with his signature on McCain Fiengold, suggests he doesn't take the court seriously.
Posted by: Sugarchuck at October 6, 2005 3:07 PMYou know how to hurt a guy. Signing McCain-Feingold is one of the worst things President Bush has done. And, yes, it's a clear abdication of his Constitutional responsibility.
What did I see from (now Chief Justice) Roberts? Exactly what we're not seeing today from Ms. Miers. A man who belonged on the court for his skill and intellect (like, say, Robert Bork).
Safe to say, I'll trust the President on his ideology. I don't know what happened with Blackmun, but those who bring up Souter forget that Bush pere took his eye of the ball and trusted John Sununu. I do trust Bush file not to do that. Maybe an O’Connor, maybe a Kennedy, not a Souter.
I have also had to trust others. I don't know Chief Justice Roberts but I liked what I saw (Biden-abuse!) and I liked even better what I read on PowerLine and other lawyerly blogs. The PowerLine guys know more than I do and are less interested in another Souter than I am.
Posted by: jk at October 7, 2005 10:51 AMThe truly lamentable fact is that the Supreme Court, like so many modern institutions, has forgotten the primary guiding principle this nation was founded upon - Liberty for all. The purpose of the Constitution is to limit government's intrusion upon the rights of the people. The Supreme Court, as final arbiter of the Constitution's principles, should hold an individual's freedom from government coercion as its highest principle. Federalism is a valuable concept, but upholding it cannot be allowed to trump liberty.
JK takes solace in the estimation that Miers is a "pretty certain vote against Roe." Reversal of Roe is an example of the government infringement upon liberty that I'm referring to. But I take no solace in the fact that, despite this estimation, anti-Roe conservative luminaries such as Robert Bork, Ann Coulter and Sugarchuck consider Miers' nomination a "complete disaster." She is still "the church lady."
The Supreme Court was never meant to function as a "jury of our peers." The court was to enforce the Constitution's restrictions upon the government. Its justices were presumed to be ever loyal to the Constitution they swore an oath of allegiance to. But when politically motivated presidents promote command-economy liberals and science-phobic theists to the court, that court eventually devolves into a mini-legislature with its members casting ideological votes rather than rendering objective judgments. It is a case of Left vs. Right vs. Liberty.
Posted by: johngalt at October 10, 2005 12:53 AMVery nicely put johngalt.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at October 10, 2005 10:25 AM | What do you think? [9]