Responding to Ramesh
Over at National Review, Ramesh Ponnuru responds to my post from yesterday over at ConfirmThem (also found here on this site), this part in particular:
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.
Ponnuru notes:
But there's a difference between having numerous people who know the ins and outs of constitutional law and the right convictions on it vouch for someone and having a president do it. Partly the difference is between dispersed knowledge and centralized knowledge. Plenty of conservative academics and lawyers would have vouched for Michael McConnell and did vouch for John Roberts.
The question is whether one needs people "who know the ins and outs of constitutional law" in order to identify someone who is a (1) strict constructionist and (2) likely to have the character to withstand pressure to move to the left (which, as far as I'm concerned, are the two absolutely indispensable qualities in a justice). I'm not sure that one does, particularly if, in the course of time spent with Ms. Miers during the judicial search process, the President has had ample time to see the kind of judges/judging she admires and to hear why. In terms of the character/predictability issue, I'd note that the President has spent more time with Ms. Miers than many of the other contenders' strongest adherents have with them.
As to the "difference is between dispersed knowledge and centralized knowledge": Certainly, it would be preferable (and most reassuring) if prominent conservative legal experts were intimately acquainted with Ms. Miers and willing to vouch for her as they did for John Roberts (although, as I recall, many were vouching more for his intellect rather than his judicial philosophy). But in the end, this "dispersed vs. centralized" knowledge argument comes down to the fact that "we" don't "know" Miers. And although that in itself is suboptimal and unfortunate, it's not dispositive proof that she is therefore unacceptable -- unqualified, weak and the second coming of David Souter. It means that "we" need to take time to get to "know" her -- so that if objections must be forthcoming, they're based on fact rather than foreboding.
Ponnuru then goes on to divide those who are "vouching for Miers' legal conservatism" into categories:
Bush, who doesn't strike me as someone whose determinations on this specific point should inspire great confidence. . . . People in Bush's employ. People who are very close to being in his employ--e.g., people who were brought into the administration's deliberations about the nomination on the de facto condition that they would sign off on and defend whoever was chosen. And, then, finally, there are people who don't have much firsthand experience of Miers but are, in my view, placing too much weight on the previous groups' assessments.
The issue of the President vouching for Miers is addressed above -- and to it, I would only add that to the extent he has been involved in selecting his appeals court judges, his judgment has been excellent. To the extent that Miers, too, has been involved in that project -- well, that's reassuring. (If she hasn't been, that's worth knowing, but we can't blame her for the administration's stance on affirmative action cases and other matters without crediting her for the judge picks unless we know, for a fact, that she was involved in the former and not the latter.)
The second category of "vouchers" is to be expected. But on the third, I think Ponnuru is a bit unfair to people like Jay Sekulow -- who does, after all, have his own credibility and reputation to maintain, both of which are likely to suffer if he signs off on a Souter redux simply as the condition of having been "brought into the administration's deliberations about the nomination."
As for the final category, to the extent that it includes people like me, let's be clear: I'm not "vouching" for Miers' credibility, but I do note that there are those whose opinions are worth hearing who are. Accordingly, I'm willing to wait to see how she performs before taking to my fainting couch, smelling salts clutched firmly in hand.
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.
Ponnuru notes:
But there's a difference between having numerous people who know the ins and outs of constitutional law and the right convictions on it vouch for someone and having a president do it. Partly the difference is between dispersed knowledge and centralized knowledge. Plenty of conservative academics and lawyers would have vouched for Michael McConnell and did vouch for John Roberts.
The question is whether one needs people "who know the ins and outs of constitutional law" in order to identify someone who is a (1) strict constructionist and (2) likely to have the character to withstand pressure to move to the left (which, as far as I'm concerned, are the two absolutely indispensable qualities in a justice). I'm not sure that one does, particularly if, in the course of time spent with Ms. Miers during the judicial search process, the President has had ample time to see the kind of judges/judging she admires and to hear why. In terms of the character/predictability issue, I'd note that the President has spent more time with Ms. Miers than many of the other contenders' strongest adherents have with them.
As to the "difference is between dispersed knowledge and centralized knowledge": Certainly, it would be preferable (and most reassuring) if prominent conservative legal experts were intimately acquainted with Ms. Miers and willing to vouch for her as they did for John Roberts (although, as I recall, many were vouching more for his intellect rather than his judicial philosophy). But in the end, this "dispersed vs. centralized" knowledge argument comes down to the fact that "we" don't "know" Miers. And although that in itself is suboptimal and unfortunate, it's not dispositive proof that she is therefore unacceptable -- unqualified, weak and the second coming of David Souter. It means that "we" need to take time to get to "know" her -- so that if objections must be forthcoming, they're based on fact rather than foreboding.
Ponnuru then goes on to divide those who are "vouching for Miers' legal conservatism" into categories:
Bush, who doesn't strike me as someone whose determinations on this specific point should inspire great confidence. . . . People in Bush's employ. People who are very close to being in his employ--e.g., people who were brought into the administration's deliberations about the nomination on the de facto condition that they would sign off on and defend whoever was chosen. And, then, finally, there are people who don't have much firsthand experience of Miers but are, in my view, placing too much weight on the previous groups' assessments.
The issue of the President vouching for Miers is addressed above -- and to it, I would only add that to the extent he has been involved in selecting his appeals court judges, his judgment has been excellent. To the extent that Miers, too, has been involved in that project -- well, that's reassuring. (If she hasn't been, that's worth knowing, but we can't blame her for the administration's stance on affirmative action cases and other matters without crediting her for the judge picks unless we know, for a fact, that she was involved in the former and not the latter.)
The second category of "vouchers" is to be expected. But on the third, I think Ponnuru is a bit unfair to people like Jay Sekulow -- who does, after all, have his own credibility and reputation to maintain, both of which are likely to suffer if he signs off on a Souter redux simply as the condition of having been "brought into the administration's deliberations about the nomination."
As for the final category, to the extent that it includes people like me, let's be clear: I'm not "vouching" for Miers' credibility, but I do note that there are those whose opinions are worth hearing who are. Accordingly, I'm willing to wait to see how she performs before taking to my fainting couch, smelling salts clutched firmly in hand.
posted by LadybugUSA at 10:55 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home