Knowing Her Heart
So President Bush has nominated Harriet Miers to serve as the replacement for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
Predictably, and perhaps understandably, conservatives aren't thrilled. Very predictably, liberals appear to be picking at the nomination ("cronyism"), too.
Don't get me wrong -- I would have preferred a Luttig, McConnell, Jones pick. And superficially, it seems as though the President (1) gave into gender politics and (2) chose someone with the express intent of avoiding a protracted nomination fight (in contrast to Reagan, who may have ended up with Kennedy -- but tried for Bork and Ginsburg first).
But the fact is that the President has known Ms. Miers for a long time, and well. There's no reason to believe that he is any less committed than any of us to seeing judges on the bench who understand the proper role of the Court, with a strict constructionist judicial philosophy. And he had to know that the "cronyism" charge would accompany a Miers nomination, and yet felt as though she was good enough to be worth the trouble.
It's hard, because unlike the Reagan White House papers of John Roberts, this nomination gives us hardly any tea leaves to read. We'll just have to wait and see.
Predictably, and perhaps understandably, conservatives aren't thrilled. Very predictably, liberals appear to be picking at the nomination ("cronyism"), too.
Don't get me wrong -- I would have preferred a Luttig, McConnell, Jones pick. And superficially, it seems as though the President (1) gave into gender politics and (2) chose someone with the express intent of avoiding a protracted nomination fight (in contrast to Reagan, who may have ended up with Kennedy -- but tried for Bork and Ginsburg first).
But the fact is that the President has known Ms. Miers for a long time, and well. There's no reason to believe that he is any less committed than any of us to seeing judges on the bench who understand the proper role of the Court, with a strict constructionist judicial philosophy. And he had to know that the "cronyism" charge would accompany a Miers nomination, and yet felt as though she was good enough to be worth the trouble.
It's hard, because unlike the Reagan White House papers of John Roberts, this nomination gives us hardly any tea leaves to read. We'll just have to wait and see.
posted by LadybugUSA at 7:49 AM
1 Comments:
A friend asked me if Bush would betray the conservative movement with his next SCOTUS nominee. My response was, "I think he'll do the right thing." I'm eating my words a bit this morning.
Harriet Miers seems to be well qualified and experienced. She has many advancements as a female lawyer in a state (Texas) dominated by the male personna--excepting Ann Richards, and we all know what a wonderful thing that was for the Lone Star State.
While reading through the RNC talking points email today, I was struck by the repeated references to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and the similarities draw between Miers and her. Especially this one,
"Like Justice O’Connor, throughout her career, Ms. Miers has been a female trailblazer.
It is evident that this choice was strongly influenced by a fear of two things:
1) A nomination fight based on hysteria drummed up by the Democrats if a male nominee was chosen.
2)The desire to avoid any comparisons to Justices Thomas or Scalia.
How sad.
Maybe I am wrong and she is a star, but I doubt it at this point. Will she be bad? Who knows. One thing is for sure, it is likely we won't get any worse than O'Connor. It just seems likely we won't get much better. And the one who said in 2004, "I want Justices who have the temperment of Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia," in an attempt to drum up the conservative base in a tough election seems to have buckled under the pressure of falling poll numbers in the aftermath of Katrina.
Post a Comment
<< Home