"Just a Matter of Trust"
Some people, quite understandably, have objected to the President, in effect, telling everyone to "trust him" that Harriet Mier won't legislate from the bench.
But in fairness, I hope that everyone who is denouncing her has personally read the work and are intimately acquainted with the life histories of Luttig, Alito, McConnell and all the rest of the judges that we were hoping for. Because if they haven't, they are instead just relying on the conservative opinion leaders whom we all respect, who have assured us that they're the "best" choices.
And if that's the case, then it's just a matter of conservatives deciding whom (President Bush or the conservatives opposed to his choice) they will trust on this nomination. On the one hand, President Bush (and VP Cheney) are assuring people that her judicial philosophy is consistent with theirs. On the other are a lot of disappointed people saying, "But how do we know that?" and pointing to statements or writings from candidates they would have preferred more.
Well, we don't know. And it's unsettling, to be sure. But it's worth remembering that no one -- no one -- can predict with absolute certainty how any nominee will vote once he/she is on the bench. While his/her existing body of work provides hints and clues, nothing says that the views can't or won't change. And other than that, all we have are the assurances of well-placed conservative opinion leaders who "know" the potential nominees, just as President Bush and VP Cheney say they "know" Harriet Miers.
Finally, Harriet Miers may yet provide some rationale for the outrage her nomination has elicited, but at least it seems she doesn't display the intellectual vanity and showboating tendencies that lead to judges who attempt to forge a "juriprudential legacy" rather than simply following the law and the Constitution.
But in fairness, I hope that everyone who is denouncing her has personally read the work and are intimately acquainted with the life histories of Luttig, Alito, McConnell and all the rest of the judges that we were hoping for. Because if they haven't, they are instead just relying on the conservative opinion leaders whom we all respect, who have assured us that they're the "best" choices.
And if that's the case, then it's just a matter of conservatives deciding whom (President Bush or the conservatives opposed to his choice) they will trust on this nomination. On the one hand, President Bush (and VP Cheney) are assuring people that her judicial philosophy is consistent with theirs. On the other are a lot of disappointed people saying, "But how do we know that?" and pointing to statements or writings from candidates they would have preferred more.
Well, we don't know. And it's unsettling, to be sure. But it's worth remembering that no one -- no one -- can predict with absolute certainty how any nominee will vote once he/she is on the bench. While his/her existing body of work provides hints and clues, nothing says that the views can't or won't change. And other than that, all we have are the assurances of well-placed conservative opinion leaders who "know" the potential nominees, just as President Bush and VP Cheney say they "know" Harriet Miers.
Finally, Harriet Miers may yet provide some rationale for the outrage her nomination has elicited, but at least it seems she doesn't display the intellectual vanity and showboating tendencies that lead to judges who attempt to forge a "juriprudential legacy" rather than simply following the law and the Constitution.
posted by LadybugUSA at 2:40 PM
5 Comments:
At least she isn't fond of showboating? That sounds like damning with faint praise.
Your point on trust iw well-taken; in a sense it does come down to "who's your daddy?"
On the one side, George W. Bush, Hugh Hewitt, Jay Sekulow, Thomas Lifson, et al. On the other side, Stephen Bainbridge, Brent Bozell, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, et al.
One point needs clarification: I've no doubt that Harriet Miers has a judicial philosophy that is consistent with the one held by the president and vice-president. Both men are stand-up guys who fulminate appropriately at judges who "legislate from the bench," and for that I say "oooh-rah!"
But neither man is conservative enough to be reassuring to those of us who are more conservative, so the "she agrees with us" argument remains unconvincing because in many ways that's precisely the problem. Example: GWB had Ted Olsen arguing *in favor* of affirmative action. GWB is weak on border issues.
Are we looking at someone who consistently joins the tag team of Scalia and Thomas, or are we looking at an O'Connor Lite whose unpredictable "swing vote" muddies jurisprudence even though it sometimes aggravates the ACLU? The jury's out and some of the natives are restless...
My favorite Miers quote yet from Rick Brookhiser in the NRO, "It's not as bad as Caligula putting his horse in the Senate."
Hahahahahahahahaha. Now that is funny.
Thank you Carol!
A little reason is a good thing at this crazy time.
I haven't seen Republicans eat their own in a long time, and I admit it makes me sick.
I find it interesting, when Bush makes a pick and the Liberals don't like it we all say: "It's his choice to make.....They should get over themselves".
Well, the same goes for this pick......It is his to make!!!
And if she ends up being "Conservative Lite" none of us should be surprised, because this is exactly what Bush is.......No one should really be surprised.
That said, I bet she ends up being more Conservative than Roberts.
Carol, you either don't get it or you are putting on a brave face for your crowd. I haven't quite figured out which. and it is kind of fun looking for clues in what you are writing.
All of this talk about trusting the President is misguided. All of his pronouncements about knowing Harriet Miers (and her heart) are a smokescreen. All of Karl Rove's phone calls are a diversion.
The President didn't pick Harriet Miers because of her judicial philosophy. The President doesn't care if Harriet Miers is an originalist. The President nominated Ms. Miers because he is comfortable with her, because Laura likes her, and because she thinks he is the most brilliant man she ever met.
Discerning Harriet Miers's judicial leanings are well-nigh impossible, because she wasn't selected based on them. If the President wanted to pick someone based on their originalist judicial philosophy, he had plenty of bench talent to pick from. He chose to foreswer this route, because he always backs his friends.
It's a crap shoot as to whether or not Harriet Miers will end up to the left or to the right of Sandra Day O'Connor.
American by Choice, it looks like you have read way more into what I wrote than what I meant to put in there. Let me clarify...
I didn't say (nor did I mean to imply) that Carol is either stupid or lacking in integrity. I was commenting on the fact that Carol's posts on Harriet Miers strike me as either trying to read tea leaves to find the Hidden Originalist(tm) the President nominated or stretching to find the silver lining to boost the morale of the troops. I am still unsure which of these is the correct interpretation.
I also wasn't slamming the President in my comments (although I am happy to take credit for slamming Turd Blossom). I was merely pointing out that Harriet Miers was not nominated primarily because of her judicial philosophy. She was chosen because the President is comfortable with her. In the end the President's comfort level was the overriding factor in this nomination.
Harriet Miers is a huge Rorschach test. Everyone projects onto her whatever they want to see.
Post a Comment
<< Home