Harriet E. Miers and Blood in the Water
Published October 24, 2005
That's nice for her, but what we're really in the market for is a constitutional scholar who can forcefully say, "No - that's not my job."
We've been waiting 30 years to end the lunacy of nine demigods on the Supreme Court deciding every burning social issue of the day for us, loyal subjects in a judicial theocracy. We don't want someone who will decide those issues for us - but decide them "our" way.
Exactly. We don't just need a vote against Roe, but a major level geek scholar who can break it down in words and cite precedents and all that to explain exactly where they went off track constitutionally with that and many other decisions.
We're precisely NOT looking for "common sense," which just means some gut reaction in line with the gut reactions of other people. Barney Fife could have used some common sense, but it will do us no good on the court. It's as if we're trying to appoint Judge Judy to the Supreme Court. The difference, of course, is that Judge Judy actually has judicial experience.
Meanwhile, the Democrats are almost all going to vote against her. That's a political given. The main thing, of course, is that they would dearly LOVE to stick it to President Bush. This would be a major rebuke.
Also though, Miers would obviously vote to overturn Roe in a heartbeat. She's on record supporting a constitutional amendment to ban abortion. You can try to argue that this theoretically doesn't necessarily say anything about how she'd vote on Roe. But nobody believes that of someone such as Miers with no hint of exhibiting any deeper constitutional philosophy- nor should they.
This clear opposition to Roe would compel most Democrat senators to vote against her, but they've got a lot more cover. She just legitimately has a very weak resume for this ultra-important job. Even all the right wingers say that she's simply flatly professionally unqualified for the job, regardless of any specifically political considerations. The right wing nutjobs thus provide legitimate cover for Democrat senators, and they're right in doing so.
Meantime, President Bush seems to be depending on nothing but absolute party loyalty to get ANY Republican support. With nearly every Democrat likely to vote against her, it would take not much more than half a dozen Republicans to absolutely sink the nomination.
In fact, Bush seems likely to lose half the Republican senators for various reasons, starting with that the politics are all running against supporting this weak nominee. For starters, it seems highly unlikely that any Republican senator intending to run for president in 2008 would support Miers. With big chunks of the base madder than a wet hen about this, Republican presidential hopefuls absolutely don't want conservative activists thinking that they're just Bush toadies.
- Harriet E. Miers and Blood in the Water
- Published: October 24, 2005
- Type: Opinion
- Section: Politics
- Filed Under: Politics: Law and Rights, Politics: U.S.
- Writer: Al Barger
- Al Barger's BC Writer page
- Al Barger's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
Oh Bush is bullheaded alright, but if this nomination is just absolutely going down bad, reality will kick in at some point.
I wouldn't expect a Republican filibuster, but it wouldn't likely be necessary. If they're in a position to have one, then it'll be unnecessary.
I don't know...the Bolton nomination went down pretty bad, bad enough that even Bolton apparently questioned whether it was worth it. But Bush held him to the confirmation....although whether that was because he knew he could make the interim appointment, I don't know.
Those waiting for "common sense to kick in" on the part of W. Bush are hopefully not holding their breaths meanwhile. This particular president has shown an uncommon lack of that commodity to date - including needing to be herded by his handlers into attending to hurricane victims nearly three days past the storm date. His experiences, on the contrary, have shown him to date that the GOP congress members are indeed nothing more than Bush toadys. If there weren't an election coming up next year, and a bigger one lining up in 08, you can bet your bottom dollar Republican congressmen would be solidly behind W, hissing & indignantly shredding the reputation of anyone who dared to point out Mier's failings. They could care less about the quality of the next SC justice; they're just practicing good ol' political CYA. To ascribe nobler reasons for their balking would be to give them credit for motives they're far too venal to entertain.
Oh Nancy, I'm not counting on Dubya showing any sense- I'm figuring that some Republican senators will knock him in the head with it.
In fairness, not all politicians are completely venal all the time- not even all Democrats! Still, self-interest and the public good are liable to be lined up together in this case.
Al, I'm not counting on any of them doing anything because it's GOOD & the right thing to do, of either party. They're all overprivileged, they're all wealthy - & guaranteed of all kinds of special benefits for the rest of their lives, even long after they've left office, the rest of us will never know. Not one of them certainly can speak from the point of view of a "normal" working stiff citizen of the US, because they aren't, & never will be again. They operate in a total vacuum of disconnect, self-centered, selfish interest, and a "culture of corruption" that is so pervasive most of the time they can't even realize that what they say or do stinks in the nostrils of the average citizen. And I do include BOTH parties in this.
I went from being a McCain supporter in early 2000, to a Bush-supporter in mid-2000, to a Bush-admirer in late-2000, to a Bush-lover in late 2001, to a hesitant Bush-lover in 2003, to an anti-Kerry voter in late-2004, to a hesitant Bush-supporter in early 2005.
After Miers, I'm not sure I even respect the guy anymore.
However, he isn't Hillary, so at least he's got that going for him...
For once I actually agreed with George Will on this: she is NO choice at all. She still isn't. I am sure she's a nice lady. Suitable for the bench - no.
Maybe Bush will find some other nice church lady to nominate. I heard there's a bunch of them down on the corner of Pennsylvania Ave., having selling homemade perserves...
Alethinos
Al, This post was chosen by the section editor as a BC pick of the week. Go HERE (link) to find out why.
And thank you
- Temple
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/38400)
One thing I'm seriously wondering is this: what are the chances that, if it looks like she could be confirmed, the most ardently opposed Republicans will be the ones to filibuster? Given the ferocity of the opposition, it's not so far-fetched.
That said, I have absolutely no doubt that Bush will NOT withdraw the nomination unless Miers herself asks him to. And even then, he will do everything he can to convince her to stick it out. This is a man who apparently prizes personal loyalty above all else, and he gives as good as he gets.