The word in all the media is that the conservatives are upset, and the Democrats are pleased, but it seems to me that there are varied motivations for both the pleasure and displeasure.
David Frum quotes a man who has this to say:
I would vote NO on Miers - and it would hurt my left-leaning heart.I am a left-leaning independent and I do not like Justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. However, I would prefer either of those two to Miers. Miers does not have a proven record of intellectual rigor and strong constitutional principles.
I would prefer a strong, clear, consistent thinker that I disagree with than a chance at a wandering mind with good policy instincts. That's why I liked Roberts. I trust that he will consider the facts and write strong opinions even if I disagree with the policy outcomes. Plus, although he wanted to look at original intent, he clearly stated that the framers intent is often murky and that modern day words have different meanings.
Other liberals seem positively gleeful, not least among them Harry Reid (from MSNBC:
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid was complimentary, issuing a statement that said he likes Miers and adding “the Supreme Court would benefit from the addition of a justice who has real experience as a practicing lawyer.”At the same time, he said he looked forward to the “process which will help the American people learn more about Harriet Miers, and help the Senate determine whether she deserves a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court.”
Reid had personally recommended that Bush consider Miers for nomination, according to several sources familiar with the president’s consultations with individual senators.
In other words, he can't wait for the ensuing Republican squabble, and he's just overjoyed that the base is rebelling.
Article comments
1 - Baronius
I like the distinction you made between schools of Republican thought. I've been trying to make a similar point on the boards these past couple of weeks.
I haven't heard much from Brownback, but I think you're right, that he wants an activist on the court. The Federalist Society crowd wants someone who reasons effectively.
There used to be a legal principle of rules (or tests) which would aid lower courts in understanding the Supreme Court's decisions. Some good examples are found in racial discrimination: Plessy's "separate but equal", and Brown's overturning of same. Post-Bakke, there haven't been clear-cut rules, making it impossible to guess whether a ruling will be upheld. In this environment, you might as well throw the long ball and take your case to appeals.
For some conservatives (like me) a better O'Connor isn't enough; we want someone who articulates law. For other conservatives (sometimes including me) a screaming partisan who five-fours the right way would be enough.
2 - Mihos
That's a silly dual choice to choose from. Policy or Principle?
How about Hamburglar?
Was Hambuglar Policy or Principle?
3 - Mihos
...and would Hambuglar do everything heshe could to cover Ronald McDonald's bush in the event that the public began to actually pay attention to the 911 commission's guilt by omission?
In my mind this nomination underscores the desperation of this administration to dodge accountability in the military industrialist piggy bank monopoly game. Someone better get into the supreme court to keep those records sealed pronto.
4 - Sam Jack
I'm afraid I don't know what you mean, Mihos.