Whats Your Position on Miers?
Posted on October 22, 2005
There has been alot of reaction around the blogosphere to this article in the Washington Post, by George Will. Here’s a little sample.
Such is the perfect perversity of the nomination of Harriet Miers that it discredits, and even degrades, all who toil at justifying it. Many of their justifications cannot be dignified as arguments. Of those that can be, some reveal a deficit of constitutional understanding commensurate with that which it is, unfortunately, reasonable to impute to Miers. Other arguments betray a gross misunderstanding of conservatism on the part of persons masquerading as its defenders.
Miers’s advocates, sensing the poverty of other possibilities, began by cynically calling her critics sexist snobs who disdain women with less than Ivy League degrees. Her advocates certainly know that her critics revere Margaret Thatcher almost as much as they revere the memory of the president who was educated at Eureka College.
On the day Miers was nominated, I made the soft prediction that legal conservatives would force her to withdraw her nomination. We shall soon see precisely the kind of pull they have with this White House, as the Miers charm offensive, I think it safe to say, has failed miserably…
So. Unless and until I can be convinced of her judicial conservatism (and that will require more than bromides about how she “won’t legislate from the bench”)
Jeff opposes the nomination.
And that’s all very well, if we can be sure that this line of questioning can — and be understood to — differ from simply asking nominees what their views are on this or that case. Because once nominees can be asked about — and voted up or down on — their views on particular cases and their outcomes (including some that may come before them for review and reversal), then the nomination process has become inextricably and eternally intertwined with politics.
Many are also reacting to this article titled: Miers Backed Race, Sex Set-Asides.
I’m not prepared to oppose Miers over this issue - it was, after all, from more than a decade ago. But I’m going to have to get a clear indication from Miers during the hearings that she is adamantly opposed to government mandated affirmative action programs, or I will have to oppose her.
And now the Washington Times reports:
White House senior staff are starting to ask outside people, saying, ‘We’re not discussing pulling out her nomination, but if we were to, do you have any advice as to how we should do it?’ ” a conservative Republican with ties to the White House told The Washington Times.
California Conservative Reacts:
This is sure to be seen as a setback to the White House but it might be a positive in the longterm. If her nomination is withdrawn, it’s very possible that he’ll pick a more known quantity that conservatives will go to war with. My personal choice in that instance remains J. Michael Luttig but if the President chooses to nominate a woman, I hope it’s Priscilla Owen or Edith Hollan Jones. I don’t see much chance of him nominating Janice Rogers-Brown but I might be wrong. I didn’t see the Miers nomination coming either.
No doubt, this nomination has conservatives completely divided, and fighting in house. I’m trying to hang in there with the chillin crowd, but its getting hard to hold on to. NZ Bear is asking bloggers to take a postition: For now, “I am neutral on the Miers nomination.” Looks like the majority oppose. For sure it has been a controversial pick, and may have done damage to the conservative movement. It wouldn’t hurt my feelings one bit to see someone else take this important position. I’m certainly uncomfortable with it. Help me make up my mind. What are your thoughts?
» Filed Under Supreme Court
Trackback URL
Comments
4 Responses to “Whats Your Position on Miers?”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
Sorry to be a bother, but by quoting Jeff’s opposition to Miers including the “I oppose” phrase, my scans for your position are getting confused. If you simply tweak his quote slightly to not have that exact phrase, they’ll work properly (like making it “[Jeff opposes] the…”.
Thanks…
I know very little about Miers and because of that, I am troubled. Recent reports have done very little to give me a warm and fuzzy feeling about her either. My thought from the very beginning was that Bush folded holding a Royal Straight Flush. He had a lot of known quantities from which to pick and chose Miers who is anything but. I’m completely clueless as to why he would do it. I sincerely hope it is not because he is putting politics before the good of the country. In my opinion, the stakes are too high to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.
“Help me make up my mind. What are your thoughts?”
Ok, here’s my take. Nominating his personal lawyer of many years, and a WH insider is really only a few steps from nominating say his wife, or his brother, or maybe his dad.
It smacks far too closely of “the boys club” or near nepotism. If I knew a law student who someday wished to be on the SCOTUS I’d hope their plan of action would to be an outstanding lawyer and move to being a good and respected judge. FOcus on Constitutional Law, and arguing cases before the Court would be a reasonable plan of action.
Rather than having them think “hey, I should be a personal lawyer to this politician, if s/he rises high enough, I could be a SCOTUS member for life”.
She may well be qualified, but so far her best qualification is her personal/professional relationship with GWB. Somehow I don’t see that as a plus.
I voted for Pres. Bush twice. Both times knowing what his Presidential resposibilities encompassed.
Aware that he would more than likely be nominating 1-3 Supreme Court Justices.
Since I am confident (and thankful) that Bush relies on dependable and knowledgable advisors and not just a bunch of finger-in-the-wind political pundits, I’ll stick with him.
He hasn’t disappointed me yet with any of his Judicial appointments or nominations, so I have no reason to believe he will now.
The Constitution clearly gives him the authority to nominate whomever he deems fit.
When RBG was nominated, I didn’t hear near the noise I’m hearing now! Wonder why!
I guess I’m just getting tired of all the noise!