Bush nominates White House counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. Now, I don’t know anything about her, perhaps she’ll end up being a excellent Justice. But it boggles the mind — buffeted by accusations of cronyism and unqualified appointees, Bush needs to choose a Supreme Court Justice and nominates his own lawyer from his days in Texas. As David Bernstein says at the Volokh Conspiracy (no left-wing rag, trust me), the agenda seems pretty clear:
What do Miers and Roberts have in common? They both have significant executive branch experience, and both seem more likely than other potential candidates to uphold the Administration on issues related to the War on Terror (e.g., Padilla and whether a citizen arrested in the U.S. can be tried in military court). Conservative political activists want someone who will interpret the Constitution in line with conservative judicial principles. But just as FDR’s primary goal in appointing Justices was to appoint Justices that would uphold the centerpiece of his presidency, the New Deal, which coincidentally resulted in his appointing individuals who were liberal on other things, perhaps Bush sees his legacy primarily in terms of the War on Terror, and appointing Justices who will acquiesce in exercises of executive authority is his priority, even if it isn’t the priority of either his base or the nation as a whole.
The conservatives at ConfirmThem are also pissed. People of every ideological stripe are united in the conviction that they would prefer someone with some strong convictions (preferably their own), beyond simply loyalty to the President. See, he is a uniter!
Update: Ezra Klein links to what David Frum (of all people) has to say about Miers:
I believe I was the first to float the name of Harriet Miers, White House counsel, as a possible Supreme Court. Today her name is all over the news. I have to confess that at the time, I was mostly joking. Harriet Miers is a capable lawyer, a hard worker, and a kind and generous person. She would be an reasonable choice for a generalist attorney, which is indeed how George W. Bush first met her. She would make an excellent trial judge: She is a careful and fair-minded listener. But US Supreme Court?
In the White House that hero worshipped the president, Miers was distinguished by the intensity of her zeal: She once told me that the president was the most brilliant man she had ever met. She served Bush well, but she is not the person to lead the court in new directions – or to stand up under the criticism that a conservative justice must expect.
October 3rd, 2005 at 10:15 am
Sean, I’m sorry to say this, but for once I agree with you.
Zero
October 3rd, 2005 at 10:25 am
The right-wing blogosphere seems generally very unhappy with this, indeed. Michelle Malkin has a summary of reactions: http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003660.htm
Bush knows her best, and I guess that he may be able to persuade his base to fall in line. I wouldn’t be surprised, though, if it’s up to the Dems to decide whether she goes through, which is somewhat interesting. If they knock her down, who’ll he put up instead? That said, if Bush can’t sell her to his base, maybe she’ll conveniently step down for some reason or other.
The fact that she’s not been a judge doesn’t seem to be such a big deal (indeed, Rehnquist himself had no judicial experience before his appointment to the Supreme Court); in this case, presumably part of the reason that people with short or no judicial history are Bush’s picks is primarily because of the increasingly forensic examination of past judicial decisions and writings; many of the conservatives fear another Borking and certainly, they fear getting another Souter (indeed, some of the people at redstate.org appear to fear that Miers is another Souter).
October 3rd, 2005 at 11:11 am
The Public Advocate folks are pissed too:
“The president’s nomination of Miers is a betrayal of the conservative, pro-family voters whose support put Bush in the White House in both the 2000 and 2004 elections and who were promised Supreme Court appointments in the mold of Thomas and Scalia. … When there are so many proven judges in the mix, it is unacceptable this president has appointed a political crony with no conservative credentials.” — Eugene Delgaudio, president of the conservative group Public Advocate.
October 3rd, 2005 at 11:30 am
Seriously, you’d think that Bush had knocked Hillery up, the way they’re reacting. I imagine they’ll calm down, though, unless Bush really fumbles.
October 3rd, 2005 at 11:41 am
It’s not all doom and gloom on the Social Conservative front, though. One poster at http://www.worldmagblog has this to say:
‘Anything that angers the lefties on this blog is praiseworthy to me. I think Bush is very smart to choose Miers and I think all of us conservs will be delighted with his choice for the next 20+ years. Now all we need is one more handpicked christian supreme court appoinment and we can get back to the original intent and purpose of the USA, to be the salt and light to the world of a Christian nation and to be the dominant world superpower and economic power so that we can provide leadership tot he rest of the world, even the often thought “lost” middle eastern Islamic nations and the secular, atheist European has beens.’
Moshe might be interested in that, in light of the conversation in another thread about constitutional seperation of church and state. It’s not over yet at all, that debate. Significant elements of Bush’s base have been literally praying for years in order to get a pro-christian stacked court.
October 3rd, 2005 at 12:09 pm
Unfortunately, just because the right wing is unhappy about the appointment doesn’t mean that it’s a good one.
I hope that the discussion doesn’t focus on the fact that she has never been a judge — it’s a recent development on the Supreme Court that virtually all nominees have judicial experience, and some people I respect argue that this has been bad for the court.
P.S. I think a lot of people would be upset if Bush knocked up Hillary, assuming that’s even possible at her age. (Yes, I know the British idiom is different.)
October 3rd, 2005 at 12:16 pm
Oh, no, that is what I meant by ‘knocked up’. It’s be worse than congress with an underaged sheep, from the perspective of the Bush base.
October 3rd, 2005 at 12:18 pm
Bah, “it’d”, not “it’s”.
Anyhow. It seems to me that with a solid Republican majority in the Senate and a Republican president, the best that Democrats can hope for is damage control. Miers is, after all, a name that Harry Reid himself put forward to Bush.
October 3rd, 2005 at 12:19 pm
It reminds me of something Bill Maher said in response to Karl Rove being put in charge of hurricane reconstruction, “It’s bad enough that Bush only trusts people he knows personally, but even worse, he only seems to know six people.”