ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Tuesday, October 04, 2005

More on Miers

Be sure to check out additional posts that followed this one... click here to go to the main page.

Patrick Ruffini agrees with our original post (Let's Play Some Poker, where we argue that the Rightward Blogosphere is asking Bush to win at poker with his cards face up on the table)...

As our picture of Miers comes into clearer focus, the Souter II narrative begins to strain credulity. It requires us to believe that the President who gave us Janice Rogers Brown, Michael McConnell, Bill Pryor, Priscilla Owen – and no RINO that I could name at the Circuit or District Court level, who fought the fight on Miguel Estrada, and who had originally orchestrated the masterful trade of Roberts-for-O'Connor, would suddenly punt at this critical moment. It also requires us to believe that Miers, who has worked with Bush for a decade, who is the White House staffer most intimitately involved with vetting nominees' judicial philosophies, and is one of the people Bush knows best, has been able to hide her true beliefs from her boss until – Ah, ha! – she donned the judge's robe. I'm sorry, but I don't think this is the same thing as an unknown from New Hampshire handpicked by Warren Rudman.

At what point will our side of the blogosphere realize that the goal of a nominee isn't to have a philosophical fight during the nomination process, but to win the philosophical fight in the Court. Seriously... the struggle to get to this position to change the court wasn't a struggle to have a stupid debate about original intent vs. living-breathing Constitution. The whole point was to get justices in the Supreme Court who understand and believe in Original Intent. We elected a President who we thought would live up to that goal - and his appointments thus far surely cannot be characterized as anything other than that. For us to go wobbly over another "unknown" simply because we won't be able to rub Shumer's face in the confirmation of a Janice Rogers Brown is short-sighted. It's similary short-sighted to say that we can't trust Bush on judicial nominees simply because he's spent like a drunk sailor - look at his record on judicial nominees and you should be pleased. And as we discussed previously, Bush might have a third pick - and if that vacancy ever occurs, it will likely be when he's a lame duck. THAT'S the time to have the debate over judicial philosopy, since confirmation might be unlikely anyway.

See PoliPundit as well:
Tuesday, October 04th, 2005
Miers: Second Thoughts

I’ve had a day to reflect on the Miers nomination, and I’ve come to the conclusion that this is an exceedingly good decision. Let’s line up the objections and knock ‘em down.

1. Miers may not be a conservative.

The President has known Miers for a long time, in every sense but the Biblical one. George W. Bush is a conservative who wants to appoint conservative judges. His word on Miers’ ideology is good enough for me.

2. Miers isn’t the best-qualified person.

This matters not a whit. Ideology trumps all. If a mangy yellow dog were the SCOTUS nominee, I’d support it, if it would consistently vote with Scalia-Thomas.

3. Miers is too old.

At first glance, yes. She’s 60; I’d prefer someone 10-20 years younger. But Miers isn’t the typical 60-year-old. She’s very “physical,” and joins the president in some of his more arduous “vacation” activities on the ranch. If she eats her wheaties and continues to stay “physical,” she might frustrate liberals until she’s 90. The fact that she’s unattached is another plus: No family that might cause her to retire early.

4. Democrats, like Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer, seem to like Miers.

So what? Reid’s recommendation of Miers to Bush seems to have been based on senatorial stupidity - she returned his calls promptly; so he supported her for SCOTUS. Having recommended Miers to Bush, Reid will look very weak if his caucus shoots her down; so he’s now stuck shepherding her nomination through the Senate.

And be sure to read BeldarBlog (a Texas Lawyer, btw) who rebuts this Cronyism Op-Ed in the WSJ.

***UPDATE***
Even after President Bush's press conference this morning, conservatives are still concerned about Miers. This just demonstrates that what the Right really is interested in is arguing over judicial philosophy for political gain. Bush again reassured his base that he's a pro-life President and his nominee agrees with his judicial philosophy. Miers isn't Souter - Souter was from New Hampshire after all, and almost anyone from Texas is to the right of a Repulican in New Hampshire. ;-)

And, as pointed out by Ruffini above, HW Bush had to rely on Senators from New Hampshire on the Souter nomination. W is only relying on himself. My only concern here is that Bush's reading of Miers may be similar to his reading of Putin - but that's not a huge concern.

As I listen to the callers into Laura Ingraham this morning, it's clear that the whole argument against Miers is that the Right wants to "educate" the public on the role of the Court and the impact of judicial philosophy. Sorry, but that's not the primary reason that Bush was elected. He was elected to put people on the court that agreed with his judicial philosophy. He has told us that this is the case with Miers. Why push this any more?

I'm not a Washington insider by any means (although I do get the kool-aid shipment from Rove each week), but I think the Right may be shooting itself in the foot here. The more they clamor for an "open" conservative nominee that results in an "open debate about judicial philosophy" the more Bush has to show his hand, convincing us that Miers is a strict constructionist. I don't know about you, but when ARC:Brian and I were listening to Rush & Cheney talk yesterday, I got the sense that Cheney wanted to tell him: Sssshhhhh, don't blow this. This is not good poker and we're probably going to regret it.

See this update as well. There's a link to an interview with Miers' pastor, which provides some insight. Also see Missing the Point.

***UPDATE 2***
Check out Independent Conservative for details on the Lesbian/Gay Political Coalition questionnaire that Miers filled out. The Left is trying to get the Right riled up to kill this nomination.

***UPDATE 3***
See this most recent update...

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler