More Than Just Trust
In this post over at Confirm Them, it's suggested that the only rationale Newt Gingrich puts forth in his piece for supporting Miers is that we should "just trust the President." With respect, there are many more arguments than that, many of them meritorious:
(1) The President has a history of making excellent appointments to the federal courts -- and being willing to withstand controversy to do so.
(2) In opposing the ABA's support of abortion, including taxpayer-funded abortion, Harriet Miers showed the kind of tenacity that suggests she's "not for turning" -- in contrast to the Supreme Court justices some conservatives fear she'll resemble.
(3) Despite divisions within the Texas bar on the topic of abortion, Harriet Miers was able to win a consensus that the ABA should put the topic to a vote of the membership. (And such consensus building skills are important on the Court; even the most brilliant jurist's impact is diminished if, by his behavior, he drives other potential "concurrers" into dissent by his behavior).
(4) She has a diversity of experience -- and would be the only justice who didn't come straight from the bench. I'd add that even the fact she's a trial lawyer is important. It means that she understands the difficulties in practical application of "squishy", balancing-test jurisprudence.
(5) Harriet Miers was instrumental in selecting conservative judicial nominees. For my part, I'd add that the President may well have become intimately acquainted with her philosophy by hearing whom she thought merited nomination (or not) and why. By spending ten years by her side, he's also well positioned to decide whether or not she's likely to drift left.
(1) The President has a history of making excellent appointments to the federal courts -- and being willing to withstand controversy to do so.
(2) In opposing the ABA's support of abortion, including taxpayer-funded abortion, Harriet Miers showed the kind of tenacity that suggests she's "not for turning" -- in contrast to the Supreme Court justices some conservatives fear she'll resemble.
(3) Despite divisions within the Texas bar on the topic of abortion, Harriet Miers was able to win a consensus that the ABA should put the topic to a vote of the membership. (And such consensus building skills are important on the Court; even the most brilliant jurist's impact is diminished if, by his behavior, he drives other potential "concurrers" into dissent by his behavior).
(4) She has a diversity of experience -- and would be the only justice who didn't come straight from the bench. I'd add that even the fact she's a trial lawyer is important. It means that she understands the difficulties in practical application of "squishy", balancing-test jurisprudence.
(5) Harriet Miers was instrumental in selecting conservative judicial nominees. For my part, I'd add that the President may well have become intimately acquainted with her philosophy by hearing whom she thought merited nomination (or not) and why. By spending ten years by her side, he's also well positioned to decide whether or not she's likely to drift left.
posted by LadybugUSA at 4:06 PM
2 Comments:
But, Carol, your "national treasure" Charles Krauthammer even said of Harriet Miers: "The issue is not the venue of Miers's constitutional scholarship, experience and engagement. The issue is their nonexistence."
Has your national treasure just fallen from grace?
Carol, this is thin gruel you are trying to pass off as a Thanksgiving feast. Let's look at the arguments in order.
1) [Presidential history] This is, of course, just another version of "just trust the President."
2) [ABA leadership shows "not for turning"] Unfortunately, as you are well aware, holding a leadership position in the ABA is strongly correlated with moderate or liberal tendencies. Secondly, you are talking about political skills here, which at best bear little relationship to judicial philosophy. Chief Justice Earl Warren is a good example of the disconnect between political and judicial philosophies.
3) [Consensus building skills important] See above point about the ABA. Once again, having good consensus building skills shows nothing of nominee's jucicial philosophy. Justice Brennan had great consensus building skills.
4) [Diversity of experience] Well, if being a trial lawyer is so all fire important, maybe the President should have appointed someone who is still a practicing trial lawyer like Barry Scheck. Seriously, though, I thought one of the things you conservatives hated about Sandra Day O'Connor was how her years as a prosecutor made her overly worried about the pragmatic results of SC rulings.
5) [Miers selected other judges] By this token, 99% of the members of Confirm Them would also be qualified to be an associate justice. Of course the "she's worked closely with the President" spiel is nothing more than a reiteration of the "just trust the President" argument that you are claiming Gingrich went beyond.
All in all, not a very good effort, Carol. Even if someone disagrees with everything I've written above (how they could do so, is beyond comprehension), you are still left with a vastly watered-down list of secondary qualifications for the Supreme Court.
Judge Roberts had all of these qualifications, and you never focused on them. You said, "What a brilliant jurist." Only when you got tired of talking about how well qualified he was did you add on the "and he'll be a consensus builder too".
Post a Comment
<< Home