| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| LILEKS: Hyperventilating Over Harriet |
| 2005-10-06 |
| The wailing! The gnashing! The rending of garments! If the conservative reaction to Harriet Miers is any indication, George W. Bush has no chance of winning a third term. The decision to appoint a relative unknown -- or, given her proximity to the Bush inner circle, an unknown relative -- has caused many on the right to open a vein and let the despair flow out into the warm bath of misery, disappointment and overextended metaphors. Why didn't Bush clone Antonin Scalia in a dish and appoint him? Here, use some stem cells if you have to. Anyone but another David Souter! That's the great fear on the right: Souterism. A mild-mannered cipher appointed by a Bush who dons the black robe and promptly starts to eat babies. Souter! How many times have you opened the door at Halloween and seen his face on a child's mask? How many times have you waited in the doctor's office, clammy with dread, waiting for him to slap the X-rays up on the wall and point to a grayish Souter-shaped mass? Miers could turn out to be the conservative's worst nightmare. She could regard the Constitution as a living document, still in its first trimester. She could, at this very moment, be in the attic assembling the shortwave she got while a member of the Resistance in Texas, dialing in Steinem One to report total success, repeat total success. Or not. Keep one thing in mind: Souter was nominated by Bush 41, who stood for genial, ideologically indifferent governance by the Establishment. Bush 43, we're constantly told by his opponents, is so besotted by neocon ideology that he cannot blow his nose without calling Paul Wolfowitz and asking if it's OK to touch his left nostril. He would nominate a squishy cipher? Maybe. Let's look at the reasons: 1. E-Z no-sweat confirmation. Everyone's still resting up from those brutal Roberts hearings, right? There still must be a quart of Chuck Schumer's blood on the walls. Perhaps the administration feared a controversial nomination would trigger the nuclear option and force the GOP to act like it has the majority, something it regards as a dirty secret best not aired in public. There will be attacks, but they'll be mild. Usually criticism of a professional woman would tar the critic as a gynophobic sexist, but in the case of conservative women you can attack all you like, because conservative women have to give up their uteruses to join the party. Totally true, dude. There's this big ritual in front of a giant owl and everything. 2. Because Bush was weakened by Katrina. By this logic, the failure of the administration to prevent nonexistent murders in the Superdome means he must nominate someone who's pro-choice. If the storm had veered 10 miles to the west, he would have been permitted to nominate someone pro-choice who disapproved of partial-birth abortion unless the life of the mother was endangered. 3. Because Bush isn't really conservative, his positions on immigration, spending and campaign-finance laws notwithstanding. Or perhaps Miers is not squishy. Perhaps Bush knows and trusts her to reflect his philosophy, and thinks this is the right choice despite what the headlines of the day happen to say. A wildly implausible idea! But it could be true. It shouldn't bother anyone that she gave money to Al Gore's campaign. As Dianne Feinstein reminded us, compassion and pity are just the qualities we want in a jurist. And it shouldn't bother the administration that hard-core conservative pundits aren't happy. They're never happy nowadays. These were the people who caught a whiff of Souterism in John Roberts' nomination, and wouldn't be happy unless a nominee announced his intention to back Souter into a corner in the cloakroom and give him a turbo-wedgie every day. Yes, the base would be happier if the Republicans acted like a party that had won all the elections, and pursued its agenda as unapologetically and brazenly as some accuse them of doing. But what does one expect? The operative word in that sentence is "Republicans," the party that dares not speak its own name. If it's pronounced Conservative, that is. Oct. 5, 2005 |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #41 Mark E, Yes, I know, that's the argument they used to "prove" that Roberts didn't really believe all those horrid Reaganite and Federalist things he wrote about. The folks at the Corner have already pointed out that the justification for Miers is the exact opposite. I ordinarily would take Voltaire's excellent advice and "cultivate my garden," but it was lost in a KELO taking... |
| Posted by: Ernest Brown 2005-10-06 23:30 |
| #40 I don't see her as a threat and her non-jurist, outside-the-beltway experience could be a real plus to the court. Of course I wanted Janice Rogers Brown because I wanted to see the Dems demonize a successful black woman who is the daughter of sharecroppers. If fought well by the Repubs (a dream I know) it could have been a telling exhibition of how the Dems hold the black electorate in disdain. I have heartburn with Bush's spending habits. That is where he and all the Republicans in Congress are failing mightily. |
| Posted by: remoteman 2005-10-06 19:08 |
| #39 Suck rocks! Bush picked Harriet and there is nothing you can do about it. She will be confirmed, probably with more favorable votes than Roberts. The world goes on.... The Repub "brains" are all in a leather over not getting their favorite flame thrower nominated. Personally, I had two very conservative names on my short list. So she doesn't have the Haarvard and Yale jd, so what? We voted for W and she is a Bush in drag. I don't see her going coo-coo like Breyer, Souter, Ginsberg, and Kennedy, who have turned the Constitution over to the renderings of East Egypt. I am really tired of this bull shit about lack of experience. Did W have experience as president in 2000? I will take a pit bull in size 6 shoes to a tea drinker from Harvard or Yale any day. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2005-10-06 17:22 |
| #38 bah! That should read: doesn't reflect. |
| Posted by: Mark E 2005-10-06 15:52 |
| #37 Fair enough -- I resent "At whose behest, Darrell?" |
| Posted by: Darrell 2005-10-06 15:50 |
| #36 Don't confuse a lawyer with the clients he or she represents. If you are the lawyer for the executive, you will OF COURSE argue in favor of positions favoring your client. If you didn't, you'd be a pretty lousy attorney, and pretty soon you'd be fired. In my experience, citations or references to an attorney's representation of private clients reflects on or informs an individual IN ANY WAY regarding the personal beliefs of the attorney. We might bemoan that fact, but it is upheld in my experience. |
| Posted by: Mark E 2005-10-06 15:49 |
| #35 Not only that, but I resent the insinuation that I'm some LLL Gomer simply because Janice Rogers Brown would have been my preference for the SC. |
| Posted by: Ernest Brown 2005-10-06 15:40 |
| #34 Darrell, Are you out of your head? Roberts was a fine pick, which is why Miers is such a disappointment. |
| Posted by: Ernest Brown 2005-10-06 15:37 |
| #33 I think the thing that irritates you the most is that Bush made the pick. Tough cookies. We knew about Arlington long before we elected him. The President makes the pick -- he doesn't have to take a poll first, and he doesn't have to pick a judge, and he doesn't have to pick a lawyer who has never been a corporate lawyer. Hopefully she will be confirmed and the Bush-bashers can wail and gnash over it for at least another 20 years. |
| Posted by: Darrell 2005-10-06 15:32 |
| #32 Those of you who aren't willfully idiotic might enjoy my friend Bill's take on the Roberts hearings: http://saturninretrograde.blogspot.com/2005/09/hitlers-pants-mini-confirmation.html |
| Posted by: Ernest Brown 2005-10-06 15:29 |
| #31 Darrell, Try pasting in http://saturninretrograde.blogspot.com For some reason, Rantburg tries to combine its URL with mine. |
| Posted by: Ernest Brown 2005-10-06 15:27 |
| #30 Darrell, what part of KELO would he be offended by, especially since he joined with his fellow Rangers owners to demand KELO-style takings from Arlington? |
| Posted by: Ernest Brown 2005-10-06 15:25 |
| #29 And, like your logic, your saturninretrograde.blogspot.com cannot be found. |
| Posted by: Darrell 2005-10-06 15:23 |
| #28 Darrell, Warren was a disaster, Rehnquist had an illustrious career in the DOJ and the others were mostly noted legal reasoners famous for their writings. (save for Marshall, who came from a time when the judiciary was much smaller than it is now) If Miers was a man and not a friend of the President's, she would never have been considered for the post. |
| Posted by: Ernest Brown 2005-10-06 15:22 |
| #27 About all I can accept of that is "We know that Bush picked her because he gets along well with her and they allegedly see eye to eye on most things legal." And that's good enough for me. All the rest is raving. |
| Posted by: Darrell 2005-10-06 15:20 |
| #26 At whose behest, Darrell? Yep, I thought so. |
| Posted by: Ernest Brown 2005-10-06 15:19 |
| #25 Very well, Mrs. Davis, it was an inference based on known facts. We know that Bush picked her because he gets along well with her and they allegedly see eye to eye on most things legal. We also know that Bush loves KELO. We also know that Miers herself has fought for the expansion of corporate influence and power for years, it was literally her bread and butter. I am therefore justifed in concluding that she does not find KELO offensive in the least and most probably loves the decision, as it expands the economic and political power of the corporations that she has served all her life. Put shortly, I doubt very much that she is a dogmatic libertarian/strict constructionist on the issue AT ALL. |
| Posted by: Ernest Brown 2005-10-06 15:17 |
| #24 "In Her Time In The Administration, Ms. Miers Has Addressed Numerous Legal And Policy Questions At The Highest Levels Of Decisionmaking, Most Recently Serving As The Counsel To The President Of The United States." "In 1985, Ms. Miers Was Selected As The First Woman To Become President Of The Dallas Bar Association." " In 1992, She Became The First Woman Elected President Of The State Bar Of Texas. Ms. Miers Served As The President Of The State Bar Of Texas From 1992 To 1993." "The Women And The Law Section Of The State Bar Of Texas Has Awarded Its 1993 Sarah T. Hughes Women Lawyers Of Achievement Award To Louise Raggio And State Bar President Harriet Miers." "In March 1996, Her Colleagues Elected Her The First Female President Of Locke, Purnell, Rain & Harrell, At That Time A Firm Of About 200 Lawyers. She Was The First Woman To Lead A Texas Firm Of That Size." "Harriet Miers, President Of Dallas' Locke Purnell Rain Harrell, Was One Of 20 Other Women Nominated For The [1996 Texas Trailblazer Award]." "[In 1997] She Was Named To The [National Law Journal's] List Of 100 Most Powerful Attorneys." "[Miers] Received A Distinguished Alumni Award From The SMU Law School In 1997." In 1998, National Law Journal Named Harriet Miers One Of The Fifty Most Influential Women Lawyers In America. In 2000, National Law Journal Named Harriet Miers One Of The One Hundred Most Influential Lawyers In America. "Miers Was Given The Women Of Excellence Award By Women's Enterprise Magazine In 1997 ..." Miers Was Awarded The Sandra Day O'Connor Award For Professional Excellence By The Texas Center For Legal Ethics And Professionalism In 2005. Fact: Numerous Senators Urged The President To Pick A Non-Judge For This Opening: MSNBC's Bob Kur: "[I]t's Interesting To Note That The President Was Urged By Members Of The Senate Judiciary Committee, Some Of Them At Least, Not To Pick Someone Who Has Had A History As A Judge, Who Has Been In The Appellate Court System. That's Exactly What He Did. ... We Know The President Wasn't Offering Any Names From What We Were Told, So It Was A Name That Seemed Acceptable To At Least Some Of The Top Senate People That The President Consulted With." (MSNBC's "News Live," 10/3/05) Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): "I Said The Same Thing To President Reagan, To Former President Bush, To President Clinton, And Now To This President, That Think Of Going Outside The Judiciary Monastery." (Sen. Patrick Leahy, Press Conference, 9/21/05) * Leahy: "[I] Remember Having A Conversation With President Reagan When He Was Asking Some Of Us What We Thought About The Supreme Court; A Similar One With President Clinton. In Both Cases, I Said, 'Consider Somebody Outside The Judicial Monastery.'" (Sen. Patrick Leahy, Press Conference, 7/12/05) Leahy: "You Know, Not All The People Most Qualified To Be On The Supreme Court Are In The Judiciary; Think Of Going Outside The Judicial Monastery. There Are A Lot Of Very, Very Well Qualified People. It's Happened In The Past." (Sen. Patrick Leahy, Press Conference, 9/21/05) * Leahy: "Some Of Our Finest Justices Are People Who Came From Outside And Then Proved Themselves On The Court. And Having That Diversity Of Thought Would Not Hurt The Court At All." (Sen. Patrick Leahy, Press Conference, 9/21/05) Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV): "[I] Had At The Table - There Were Four Of The Supreme Court Justices There - They Said That They Thought What Would Be A Good Idea Is To Start Calling People From Outside The Judicial System. I Think That's Something That We Should Listen To." (Sen. Harry Reid, Press Conference, 6/28/05) Fact: Numerous Supreme Court Judges Have Had No Judicial Experience: "Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Justice William O. Douglas, Chief Justice Earl Warren, Justice Felix Frankfurter, Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone, Justice Louis Brandeis, And Even Chief Justice John Marshall All Were Appointed To The United States Supreme Court Without Prior Judicial Experience." "In All, Thirty-Eight Previous Justices Had Never Been A Judge At Any Level Before Their Appointment To The Court." http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=5821 |
| Posted by: Darrell 2005-10-06 15:10 |
| #23 The statement "George Bush used eminent domain to grab private property for his own private ends" is a statement of FOOLISHNESS. The City of Arlington, Texas used eminent domain, just as many cities before it. George Bush didn't invent urban renewal. |
| Posted by: Darrell 2005-10-06 15:04 |
| #22 No, it rejects Miers for being a corporatist hack. She's manifestly unqualified to be an appellate judge. I'm fine with Roberts, or anyone else like him who has QUALIFICATIONS. |
| Posted by: Ernest Brown 2005-10-06 14:56 |
| #21 Geez, Darrell, the statement "Gay marriage would be good for the country" is an OPINION. The statement "George Bush used eminent domain to grab private property for his own private ends" is a statement of FACT. When did Rantburg get infected by the DU anti-reasoning virus? |
| Posted by: Ernest Brown 2005-10-06 14:53 |
| #20 You all-emcompassing "logic" would reject pretty much anybody Bush nominated, just because Bush had a part in a stadium deal. Fine. Who would you nominate that has absolutely no association with Bush, professional sports, or corporate America? Al Gore? |
| Posted by: Darrell 2005-10-06 14:50 |
| #19 We knew that about Bush long ago. But you wrote She's a corporate hack who undoubtably loves KELO. How does that prove anything about her? |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-10-06 14:49 |
| #18 You say that's his "opinion" that you cited for me to face as facts. LOL |
| Posted by: Darrell 2005-10-06 14:46 |
| #17 So what? That's his -opinion.- He can be right on eminent domain and wrong on gay marriage, they aren't mutually exclusive positions. It doesn't change the historical -fact- that Bush employed KELO style tactics to rob people of their property for private gain. Stop acting like a LLL and face FACTS. |
| Posted by: Ernest Brown 2005-10-06 14:41 |
| #16 Cyber Sarge, If I was a LLL, you'd have a point. I'd advise you to educate yourself before you open up. It is true that the conservatives nobly opposed KELO. I fail to see how a defender-described corporate hack would fail to side with the lefties on the subject, especially after taking the money of the two biggest corporations that love to parasitize the work of others. |
| Posted by: Ernest Brown 2005-10-06 14:38 |
| #15 Oh, well that's definitive, EB. And author Jonathan Rausch's latest book is "Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America", so he's certainly a objective centrist. |
| Posted by: Darrell 2005-10-06 14:38 |
| #14 My my, pudding and pie, her long experience as a shill for Microsoft and Disney puts her right in that category. The love that Bush has for KELO is documented right here: http://www.reason.com/rauch/072902.shtml |
| Posted by: Ernest Brown 2005-10-06 14:30 |
| #13 "she's all for aborting puppies - from conservative dogs"! Gah! |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-10-06 13:28 |
| #12 I love it when the LLL tries pin Kelo on the Conservatives when they voted AGAINST it. They can't run from that fact and better not try. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2005-10-06 12:57 |
| #11 Besides the big publicity Constitutional questions about abortion, gun control, etc, the court spends a heck of a lot of time on corporate issues. How many of the current justices have significant experience in corporate law? Seems if you're defining qualifications, you'd better look at the actual case load and have people who've actual worked in those areas. She's a corporate hack who undoubtably loves KELO as the man says, prove it. Too many are projecting their fears and anger. Almost sounds so Paleo in nature. |
| Posted by: Elmealing Hupealet7382 2005-10-06 12:40 |
| #10 I was fine with making cases for / against an issue. But snide sniping is something else, lotp. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-10-06 12:35 |
| #9 ROFL! What a pathetic petty pissant. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-10-06 12:28 |
| #8 Seemed more like a nice friendly Rantburg discussion than a Turkey Shoot. EB, however has made a claim that is utterly unsupportable from everything I know, and been called on it. Crickets? |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-10-06 12:28 |
| #7 Or tried, anyway. |
| Posted by: lotp 2005-10-06 12:21 |
| #6 Be careful how you flap, EB. .com has already shot down one Turkey today. |
| Posted by: Darrell 2005-10-06 12:04 |
| #5 Prove it, EB. You flapped, now prove it. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-10-06 11:58 |
| #4 Cyber Sarge, She's a corporate hack who undoubtably loves KELO, just like Bush himself does. |
| Posted by: Ernest Brown 2005-10-06 11:54 |
| #3 They do if they have a sense of humor. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-10-06 11:45 |
| #2 The wailing! The gnashing! The rending of garments! If the conservative reaction to Harriet Miers is any indication, George W. Bush has no chance of winning a third term. As if he can run. When idiocy like this is in the first sentence does anyone need to read the rest of it |
| Posted by: Cheaderhead 2005-10-06 11:31 |
| #1 What gets me is the hyperbole on the left concerning the âparty base is unhappy.â I am not so sure, I am the party base (I think) and I am happy that Bush picked someone that A) looks and feels Conservative, B) Makes a difficult target for the LLL, and C) Injects some realism and common sense into the Supreme Court. Letâs face it, after the Kelo decision who can argue that the court has not run amok? I could care less if she went to Harvard, Yale, or any other big school, that just tells me she might have normal prospective when it come to interpretation of the Constitution. Any Judge that looks at Kelo and canât remember the Fifth Amendment really should not be sitting on the court. Yes I would relish a fight with Brown or any other of what were considered the âfront runnersâ but the pick was made so lets get on with it. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2005-10-06 11:24 |