From: Eric Berlin @ Center-Left To: Phillip Winn @ Center-Right Subject: Harriet Miers
I'd like to propose a simple question this week that's likely not so easy to answer from my side or yours:
Should Harriet Miers be confirmed as Associate Justice on the United States Supreme Court?
The political winds are shifting. The latest blast finds some conservatives at significant odds with President Bush for the first time. For those of Democratic leanings, it might be tempting to make strange bedfellows with the likes of George Will and Charles Krauthammer by joining in the growing chorus now slamming the president's nomination.
Increasingly, it's looking as though a great deal will play out during the confirmation hearings. Though he likely regretted it and later backed off his statement, even Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R – PA) stated that Miers might do well to take a "crash course in constitutional law."
Shouldn't anyone nominated to sit on the highest court in the land be somewhere in the neighborhood of Expert (if not Wizarding) Level when it comes to constitutional law? Cases that come before the Supreme Court require spectacularly potent intellects and experience gained over a lifetime of considering such matters. In the wake of Katrina and the failures of FEMA, Bush had to know that he'd be vulnerable to charges of cronyism.
So should moderates and progressives want Miers to get confirmed? It's a complicated question, but I'll open by saying that I think the consensus will be: let the Republicans bruise and batter one another, but hope that Miers makes it through… because the alternative could be far worse.
And then we will promptly set the hope-ometer to Breathtakingly Optimistic that she'll turn out to be far more Souter than Scalia once on the court.
From: Phillip Winn @ Center-Right To: Eric Berlin @ Center-Left
You're right, that's not very easy to answer. I'm certainly glad that I don't have to vote one way or the other on Harriet Miers, because I really don't know what I would do.
Let cut to the chase here, shall we? Hardcore conservatives want the two new justices to tip the scales on Roe v. Wade, so that a future case goes 5-4 to overturn rather than 5-4 to uphold, while hardcore liberals want to preserve the status quo with regard to abortion.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Eric Berlin
Phillip, you last wrote:
It is interesting that you think the burden should be on Miers. Would the same be true of a relatively-inexperienced Democratic nominee, I wonder? Life has a funny way of demonstrating double standards, and I suspect that statement might someday come back to haunt you!
Absolutely I'd expect a Dem nominee to be qualified. Look at Clinton's nominees: qualified, with long paper trails, resumes, and well established positions.
I can sympathize with conservatives who would like to know that they're getting what they paid for, so to speak (and literally, in some senses).
2 - x Raven
1) The thing is, conservatives and evangelicals expect Miers to rule based on her religion. They want Bush to appoint someone to rule based on religion. That already is a rather, say, selfish reason. It's common sense that you cannot let your personal religious beliefs interfere with a decision that will affect every person living in America, because not everyone will be Christian. There are Buddhists, Catholics, Muslims, atheists, etc. What use is a religious justice if she's going to leave her religion behind in the dressing room? Ohh, but they certainly can't expect her to bring her beliefs with her into the courtroom, can they? *insert sarcasm*
2) WWGD? What Would George Do? That's the basic message coming from reasons why Miers should be appointed. The way people like Bush and Orrin Hatch (etc) word their "persuasions" makes it seem as though Miers will not rule because of her own personal beliefs--She will rule because of Bush's personal beliefs.
3) I don't see what conservative Republicans are worrying about. Why would a strong conservative Republican like Bush nominate a moderate? From the looks of it, Bush is trying to leave a "Great" Conservative Legacy. He nominated a conservative, religious judge alright. It's just that no one knows he did.
4) It would be very hard to attack Miers without someone screaming "SEXIST" at you--Oh wait, Laura Bush already did that! Many people are STILL afraid of criticizing Miers because they think they will be seen as sexist, whether their reasons have to do with sexism or not.
5) Does anyone find it strange that very little has been heard from Miers herself? I've heard from Bush defending her. Karl Rove defending her. Laura Bush defending her. Several senators defending her. Lots of people criticizing her. But nothing from herself.
3 - Matthew T. Sussman
Lots of people criticizing her. But nothing from herself.
I'm relatively new to the confirmation process, but don't we find out most of this stuff once the judiciary hearings begin?
4 - Eric Berlin
Miers announced today that she's planning on letting her fists do the talking come fight night.
Okay, I made that up.
You're right, Suss. Miers deserves a chance to prove that she's worthy of this critical and top position in the judiciary.
Some on the right are trying to bully her into withdrawing as it's pretty clear that Bush won't pull her name from consideration on his own.
5 - Eric Berlin
x Raven -- I agree with your take on religion... which is why it's a little bit unsettling that Bush and his surrogates are touting Miers' evangelical faith. It's a hypocritical tactic, among other things, as the Bush administration strongly admonished the press not to bring religion into consideration during the lead up to the Roberts confirmation hearings.
6 - Phillip Winn
x Raven (#2), some comments:
1. You paint with an awfully broad brush there. Many religious people -- even evangelicals -- aren't conservative and many conservatives aren't evangelical. The same argument can also easily be turned around: are we really going to exclude someone based on their church membership? Everyone has personal religious beliefs, even if those beliefs are ostensibly a lack of belief.
2. So a Supreme Court Justice will be beholden to an ex-President on every decision, really? That is personally insulting to every Justice that has ever served, all of whom were appointed by Presidents of one party or another.
3. Bush's father nominated a candidate he promised his base was a conservative -- who then went on record to be counted among the liberal justices as often as not. I'm sure the conservative base is thinking "once bitten, twice shy."
4. Laura Bush was asked a question by an independent media source, and answered it. The label was introduced by the media source, not the first lady. How should she have answered it, in your opinion? The same argument, of course, is common in politics, and again, the opposite reasoning works as well: does any woman or non-white person get a free pass? If we ask questions of someone other than a white male, is that automatically racism or sexism? Or could it be that in fact some people do act out of racist or sexist animus?
5. Miers has not yet had her Senate hearing, at which point you should expect to hear a lot more from her. Nominees tend not to speak publicly before their hearings, and Miers is no exception.
7 - Phillip Winn
EB (#1), I just know a lot of conservatives who engaged in irrational partisanship against Clinton over issues like "nation building" that have since come back to bite them. That one hurts both sides -- why is unilateral war good in Bosnia but not in Iraq, or vice versa?
Be careful -- as the abortion issue heats up still more in future years, future nominees are more likely than ever to be outsiders, regardless of party . :-)
8 - Lisa McKay
The same argument can also easily be turned around: are we really going to exclude someone based on their church membership? Everyone has personal religious beliefs, even if those beliefs are ostensibly a lack of belief.
I agree with that in principle, Phillip, and certainly I know quite a number of liberals who are deeply religious. But I would argue that we (the generic, societal 'we') routinely exclude non-believers from public office. Even in local elections, candidates are very quick to point out their church affiliations. I find it hard to believe that a professed atheist could successfully run for President. I realize that a lot of politicians probably just pay lip service, but I think most people consider it an important part of a candidate's resume.
9 - Eric Berlin
I wouldn't call Bosnia unilateral -- that was under the auspices of NATO, wasn't it?
I feel safe in saying that Supreme Court nominees should be qualified. It doesn't matter to me about being an outsider. For example, a brilliant ex-politician with heavy experience in constitutional issues, bipartisan respect, etc. would make for a fine choice... as would an academic with similar accomplishments.
That said, a major point, again is that no one knows how qualified Miers is or isn't. I'm perfectly willing to have her go through a tough, fair confirmation process.
10 - Phillip Winn
Indeed, it seems that we (speaking broadly) want our candidates to be religious enough to attend a Christian church twice a year, but no more than that.
Even then, there's more to it than that. Carter's religion was and is devout, and yet he didn't get the same sort of criticism for it that Bush does for his. Clinton's religion was barely mentioned, while Reagan's often was, though from me perspective, each man's religion was roughly of equal importance to him.
You're right, though: I don't think an avowed athiest would win the Presidency in the USA for quite a while to come.
11 - Phillip Winn
EB, yes, this question will hopefully be a lot easier to answer at the end of the confirmation hearings. :-)
12 - Eric Berlin
Lisa -- this week's The West Wing did a brilliant job of exploring religion and national elections. Alan Alda, playing the moderate Republican candidate (The West Wing's America is clearly more liberal the real one!) is forced to deal with religious organizations who want to see anti-abortion judges appointed. It was great television, riveting stuff.
13 - Les Slater
> That said, a major point, again is that no one knows how qualified Miers is or isn't. I'm perfectly willing to have her go through a tough, fair confirmation process.
I'm sure she's plenty qualified.
14 - Eric Berlin
Well, that clears everything up then, thanks Les!
But seriously... many on the right (which is the important thing, with a Republican president and 55 Senators of GOP affiliation) need to be convinced of this, along with feeling out her "judicial philosophy," as Bush is fond of saying.
15 - DJRadiohead
Another job well done, boys. Allow me to wade in with a few thoughts.
Should Miers be confirmed? Based on what we know today... yes, and I'll tell you why.
She might not be the most qualified candidate set forth by a president but I don't think it can be said she is the least qualified. No precedent is being set here for her being unqualified.
She has committed no acts and expressed no view that makes her unfit for the Supreme Court based on what I have seen and read of the public record.
I guess where I am coming from here is in the absence of a legitimate reason to reject her nomination, presidents get to choose the justices. Is she the best America has to offer? Perhaps not but that has not been the standard by which previous candidates were judged, either.
16 - Eric Berlin
DJR -- First, thanks!
Second: Under the conditions you've set, a rock would be "qualified" to sit on the Court. That's a bit extreme, but don't you think a candidate should bring more to the table than the confidence of the President?
The Senate is charged with "advice and consent," which is an important check on presidential power... even when the same party controls both.
I maintain that it is incumbent upon Miers to prove why she's qualified. She's obviously bright, talented, and has accomplished much, particularly as a female lawyer breaking barriers in the south.
But the Supreme Court should be an entirely new standard. Her complete lack of public statements / writings and lack of judicial experience is what really sets apart this candidate.
17 - Matthew T. Sussman
Is public opinion really that important when weighing in on a Supreme Court candidate?
18 - Eric Berlin
Here's what's important about public opinion in this case:
President Bush's (and Congress') polls are in the tank. Add on top of that the fact that conservative groups and intellectual are going crazy right about now. With a very murky political landscape looming for midterm elections in 2006, Republican Senators are asking many of the questions we're asking right here.
19 - DJRadiohead
EB, I don't disagree with you entirely in what you are saying but allow me to try and clarify my thoughts just a little bit better.
I don't think the Senate should just rubber stamp Miers' nomination. What I was saying, though, is that she is not unqualified in an unprecedented sort of way. She is less qualified than some who have served but as qualified as others - maybe moreso than others (we have had non-lawyers on the court).
If she is not unqualified (and I am basing this on what we know to be true today and I contend it can't really be argued that she is unqualified) then what is the problem?
The Senate will hold hearings. At the end of them if we know only what we know today or nothing has contradicted what we know today I think she should be confirmed.
I am not at all sure she will rule the way I want but I don't know that we are entitled to know that a justice will rule the way we want beforehand. Our society seems to always want to 'write the story' before the news has happened.
20 - Eric Berlin
DJR, I hear you, but again, based on your criteria, you're saying that if other unqualified nominees were passed through, then so it should be the same for Miers.
I'm not asking for any sort of incredible standard here -- just a high one. This is the Supreme Court we're talking here.
And I should also emphasize that because so little about Miers is known, part of the nominating process should include the Senate committee and the American public learning a lot more about her beliefs. Between her lack of judicial experience, lack of familiarity with constitutional law, and the confidential nature of her White House years, I fear we're going to learn precious little.
And if that's the case, that's not enough if I had a vote.
21 - Alethinos
A week ago or so, (10/5)for one of the first times I agreed with George Will - putting Miers up for a seat on the SC is wrong - on a number of levels. One thing that Will hinted at is that she is nothing more than a political animal.
I'll say what I've said before here: she's a blank slate. Other than being Curious George's friend and the fact that she said he's the brightest man she'd ever met (either an example of her wit or LACK of brilliance on her part) we do know this...
Shortly after she began to rise to power in a Texas, a throughly Baptist State, she suddenly had a revelation and left the Catholic Church and joined an evangelical one.
I don't trust anyone who so easily abandons the Faith they've been reared in for political exediency.
"But Alethinos, she had a real epiphany!"
Really... Can we get a phone record or some such showing the call from Heaven?
Alethinos
22 - Eric Berlin
Alethinos -- Personally, I don't care about her religion, her faith, etc. It's none of my business, really, until she and/or her surrogates bring it in as a factor.
23 - Lee Richards
U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Clause 3: "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
So why is President 'Strict Constructionist' Bush making such an issue of Miers' religion in an effort to convince conservatives? Does this administration indeed HAVE a religious qualification for office, in violation of the Constitution?
24 - Eric Berlin
Between religion and gender (Laura Bush's assertion that sexism is behind some of the anti-Miers sentiment), you can certainly make the argument that Team Bush is grasping at straws in trying to bolster Miers' chances in the Senate.
25 - DJRadiohead
EB, you and I actually agree more than we disagree on this (so I am going to quit harping... mostly). I agree the standards should be high(er) but to reject Miers' nomination on those grounds would be breaking with previous precedents. Maybe that is the right thing to do.
The last bit of your response reminds me of the first thing I nearly typed was: aren't we having this conversation a little bit early? Shouldn't we wait for the hearings? I see nothing to disqualify her but let's hear from her and hear what she has to say.