No Wimp
Here is a bio of Harriet Miers.
No one is sure about Ms. Miers' philosophy (at least outside The White House, and maybe not even there) -- which is an understandable cause of unhappiness. But I think perhaps some of the criticism that is emanating from some D.C. conservatives is not only frustration with an opportunity wasted, but may also be a function of the fact that she is not a member of the Harvard/Yale/Supreme Court clerk/elite D.C. legal insider axis. (Don't get me wrong -- I love some "elite D.C. legal insiders." Some of my favorite people from law school fall in this category, though not the ones I'm referring to here).
The fact is that Harriet Miers graduated with a math degree in 1967. She rose to a number of prominent positions (several female firsts) in Texas -- not an easy task, given that she came up in the pre-flex time, pre-sexual harassment era.
She can't be a wimp. That much, at least, is clear. And just because she's not an insider in conservative elite judicial circles doesn't mean she's presumptively unqualified. The real question, however, is whether she's a judicial conservative. Appointing them seems to be important to the President, and he knows her well. So a lot of the wailing and gnashing of teeth may turn out to be as premature as the full-throated liberal opposition to David Souter.
No one is sure about Ms. Miers' philosophy (at least outside The White House, and maybe not even there) -- which is an understandable cause of unhappiness. But I think perhaps some of the criticism that is emanating from some D.C. conservatives is not only frustration with an opportunity wasted, but may also be a function of the fact that she is not a member of the Harvard/Yale/Supreme Court clerk/elite D.C. legal insider axis. (Don't get me wrong -- I love some "elite D.C. legal insiders." Some of my favorite people from law school fall in this category, though not the ones I'm referring to here).
The fact is that Harriet Miers graduated with a math degree in 1967. She rose to a number of prominent positions (several female firsts) in Texas -- not an easy task, given that she came up in the pre-flex time, pre-sexual harassment era.
She can't be a wimp. That much, at least, is clear. And just because she's not an insider in conservative elite judicial circles doesn't mean she's presumptively unqualified. The real question, however, is whether she's a judicial conservative. Appointing them seems to be important to the President, and he knows her well. So a lot of the wailing and gnashing of teeth may turn out to be as premature as the full-throated liberal opposition to David Souter.
posted by Carol Platt Liebau at 9:27 AM
7 Comments:
Hi I´m Chris. Greatings from Germany Bottrop !!
I assume (and hope) that the president has gotten to know Mier's jurisprudence through her work as White House counsel and therefore he knows she will be in the Scalia-Thomas mold, as he promised. He may even know her views of cases likely to come before the Court. Whether the rest of us will get to know this is unclear: attorney-client privilege may preclude the release of documents revealing her jurisprudence.
Upside: a nominee with little reason for Middle America, or the right, to oppose.
Downside: we have to really trust the President.
Yes, we have to trust the President. Hmm, could that be the President , who hasn't got one judicial nomination wrong yet?
Carol, I hope you can drum some sense into your pals at Confirmthem - wonderful site, doing a wonderful job but totally off the rails since 8.02 this morning!
See http://www.confirmthem.com/?p=1413#comment-32418 over there, for a more trusting perspective.
Of course she may turn out to be a solid conservative, and I hope she does. But even if she votes the way I would on every case for the next 15 years (and why, for the love of actuarial tables would you put a 60 year old on the court!) that will not change the fact that, compared to many other men and women, she is painfully underqualified for the job.
1. Most of the talk about Miers is based on pure speculation, because Miers does not have a track record. So, we should keep this in mind, when discussing her.
2. here are several scenarios:
(a) Pres. Bush knows Miers is in the mold of Scalia/Thomas as a textualist/originalist, because during late night tea, or discussions about the Lord, or her recommendations for/against choosing a nominee, or her legal advice on matters of taxes, foreign policy, gay rights, politics, etc. Bush got to know her judicial philosophy first hand.
However, its merely a hope on our part. That's not a reassuring way to conduct a public policy and/or judicial nomination.
(b) Pres. Bush is taking a gamble. However, its less likely, because (i) he nominated strict constructionist /originalist judges before; (ii) the conservative base will take its revenge on Jebb Bush during 2012 nomination, (iii) Bush is concerned a about his legacy; (iv) the conservative base will be demoralized and will not support the Rep. in 06, or even in 08, while Bush/Rove want to build a permanent majority and a conservative realligment.
On the other hand, Bush betrayed his base with his fiscal policies, and spending habits, and failure to veto overbloated bills.
(c) Bush avoided a fight in the Congress, because he believes
(i) the Senate Rep. won't support him against any filibuster. If so, he is acting on the basis of weakness and fear.
(ii) that needs to "unite" the country. If so, he is politically naive (not very likely).
3. At this stage, there is very little anyone can do, short of a conservative filibuster.
4. Miers will be nominated soon, and hopefully before 2006, she will rule on several issues, including abortion cases, which will put all the speculations to rest. If Bush's nominee fails, the Rep. Party will see a bloodbath like never before. And Bush can forget about his legacy.
Will the Dhims be able to mutter, "extreme positions, out of the main stream, doesn't represent America!" at a nevered married, public school fledged, SMU graduated woman with Evangelical credentials? The President has shoved a sock into their mouths. OK, she is not Luttig. We won't have the Great Marianas Turkey-Democrat Shoot just yet. Winning by outmaneuver rather than outgunning is still winning. And the Dhims must yield ground. So quiver those arrows,or at least point them at the other side.
The objection to Harriet Miers of this conservative, at least, is not because she's not part of the Harvard/Yale elite. It's because she's wholly unqualified for a life-tenured appointment to the United States Supreme Court.
A sitting Supreme Court justice is the second most powerful person in the three-branch system of government, after the executive. How can anyone look at Ms. Mier's experience and think she's even remotely qualified? It's like someone running for president after being an attorney generalof some 10-electoral vote state.
I don't trust W's judgment anymore. You just can't get something this important this completely wrong and be trusted.
Post a Comment
<< Home