Edward Morrissey (Captain's Quarters), writes a guest editorial for the Washinton Post about the storm unleashed by the Miers nomination. "Most conservatives feel betrayed after working so hard to get enough Republicans elected to confirm almost any nominee," he writes, capturing my sentiment exactly.
In a blog entry Morrissey states, "What did we get? Another long-term Bush buddy getting a lifetime job on the basis of proximity instead of excellence." Later he adds, "Bush blew it, but Miers may still surprise us, so let's not compound the mistake."
In his WAPO column, Morrissey delinieates Loyalists, such as Hugh Hewitt, who have defended the Bush nominee, from the Rebel Alliance, who want to see Miers' nomination either withdrawn or defeated.
Responding to critics of Miers' nomination, Hewitt writes a lengthy post worth considering.
"I imagine that Justice Miers will vote most often with the new Chief, and that the new Chief will vote most often as did the old Chief, and that the SCOTUS will shift significantly to the right as a result. So what is the problem?" he writes. "I am quite certain that Harriet Miers has all the intellectual firepower she needs to join SCOTUS and get the decisions correct."
According to Morrissey, some think the president's move demonstrates a hidden brilliance that may take a decade or more to yield fruit.
"I think Miers is a punching bag meant to strengthen the backs and spines of the GOP, in order to get ready for a big match," writes the Anchoress in a recent blog entry. Previously she suggested Bush's hidden plan is based on an imminent third Supreme Court Vacancy. "Stevens is ancient. ANCIENT. And Bader-Ginsberg is reputedly unwell. Breyer may keel over from sheer boringness!"
"Believe that something greater than yourself is at work, that there are things seen and unseen, and that more is at work here than we know. Sometimes things happen that are not so easy to comprehend, at first." Along a similar vein, Beth lays the strategy out here.
On the other side of the fence are bloggers, such as Professor Bainbridge, who consider the stakes too high for compromise. Oppose the nomination? Yes! He writes, "This is a fight we can afford. It's the right fight. Those of us who oppose Miers need to keep on fighting."
Michelle Malkin is holding back, conserving energy and laying off the Harriet Miers nomination for a "brief spell". She'll be back.
A Certain Slant of Light calls the President to pull Miers from "the game."
Among conservatives, William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, and the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue called for Bush to withdraw the Miers nomination. Former federal judge Robert Bork - whose nomination to the Supreme Court the Senate rejected in 1987 - described the choice of Miers as "a disaster on every level."
There is also Charles (Withdraw This Nominee) Krauthammer.
One issue the "Rebel Alliance" faces is a formidable opponent whose nominee is likely to gain the support of Democrats. Captain Ed comments,
"Forcing a showdown with a President who has stared down Putin, Chirac, Saddam Hussein, the UN, and Tom Daschle wastes time and political capital, especially when he holds all the cards. He will get Miers on the bench, and probably on a voice vote on the floor of the Senate."Many are calling on conservatives to wait, to give Bush's nominee the benefit of the doubt. Joe Carter writes, "While I still think that Hugh is overselling the case for Miers, I think he may be justified in giving the President the benefit of the doubt."
But the concern with Miers is not that we know she won't be a conservative, it's that we don't have a strong basis for thinking that she will be.... We're disappointed because we expected not to be agnostic about a Bush Supreme Court nominee's conservatism.From a pro-lfe perspective we see a similar issue given the sparse yet contradictory informaton about Miers' stand on the sanctity of life. A former campaign manager says she opposed abortion while running for Dallas City Council in 1989 and was on the extreme end of the pro-life movement (more here). She also garnered the support of several national pro-life leaders including Jay Sekulow and James Dobson. And, a good friend and Texas Supreme Court Judge, Nathan Hecht, as well as her pastor have presented her as pro-life.
Much speculation concerns why Ms. Miers, as president of the Texas State Bar in 1993, urged American Bar Association execs not to decree a pro-choice position but to put the abortion issue to a referendum of the group's full membership. Judge Ed Kinkeade sees that as evidence of her pro-life beliefs: "Why's she going to take on that fight otherwise? Didn't help her politically."
According to Kyleen Wright at Texans for Life, Harriet Miers gave $150 to the organization — then known as Texans United for Life — in 1989. Miers was a bronze patron for their annual dinner in which Henry Hyde was the keynote speaker. She was listed in the program as a bronze sponsor.
So what's the problem?
To start with, see Paul Deignan (info theory) here, here and here. Among the issues he raises are the Bush Administration's consideration of pro-abortion Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales as a possible candidate for the Supreme Court and Miers' 1989 contribution to Al Gore's campaign.
Family Research Center reports that The Chronicle of Higher Education published a story that spoke of Miers "playing a key role" in the late 1990s in establishing the Louise B. Raggio lectureship at Southern Methodist University, Miss Miers' alma mater. Among those tapped to enlighten young law students were Gloria Steinem, founder of Ms. Magazine and a veteran campaigner for liberal abortion laws.
Operation Rescue President Troy Newman said, "As more influential conservatives are recognizing Harriet Miers to be the wrong person for the Supreme Court, we once again call upon her to give evidence of her sound conservative judicial philosophy or withdraw her name from the confirmation process."
Right Wing Agenda concludes,
The point is we expected President Bush to nominate a no-compromise, unapologetic strict constructionist justice. Miers does not qualify under this vigorous standard; no one knows what she is!
Updates:
See Beth's critical response to the FRC statement on Miers in the comments below.Paul writes,
I think you overstate the ABA bit as being an indication of a pro-life position when those surrounding the situation say it was not (links provided). She wanted a neutral position, for technical reasons that could easily be interpreted either way as pro-life or a better founded pro-choice position. ...The difficulty in the debate surrounding Miers, especially on life related issues, is that it centers on speculation and interpretation derived from a limited set of associations and actions that are not necessarily indicative of her position. What's more, given the current political climate, it is unlikely that additional useful information about Miers' presuppositions concerning the sanctity of human life will be forthcoming. Yet, those who know Miers (and are talking) characterize her position as "pro-life". I'm not aware of any close confidents who suggests otherwise.So if we agree not to speculate as to whether this benefited her politically (this is just before she made a big move into GOP politics in a state that was trending strongly GOP), then I think we would have to drop the entire thing as equally indicative one way or the other.
I might add that there is no reason for the current controversy. A "pro-life" President backed by a Republican Senate majority should have gone to battle by nominating a known conservative, respected by his or her peers, that forthrightly and publicly endorses the ideals the President holds so dear.
Tim,
That idiocy from FRC about the Raggio program was spammed in my comments from some guy yesterday. I responded with this:
------------------------------
A few points:
1) I hope you're not going around spamming everyone's sites with just a link. That is, as far as I'm concerned, spam. I'm pretty sure you didn't even read the post, because this did not address it, nor did you even bother to leave any comment other than dropping a link. I will be looking around other sites now to see how many other places you left it.
2) If you are SERIOUS about the hysterical post that you left the link to, you should note the following from the SMU Raggio lecture series site:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If you are a woman living and working in Texas today, you owe Louise Ballerstedt Raggio a debt of gratitude. A woman's legal right to own property, secure a bank loan, or start a business without the consent of her husband is a direct result of Raggio's efforts in drafting the Texas Marital Property Act of 1967. Moreover, her pioneering achievements as a woman attorney, her distinguished career in the practice of family law, and her personal qualities of leadership make her an exemplary role model for women everywhere. Some highlights of her extraordinary career include:
* Only woman in her law school class at SMU (while rearing three young sons)
* First woman assistant district attorney in Dallas
* First woman director of the State Bar of Texas and chair of the board of the Texas Bar Foundation
* Chair of the Family Law Section of the Texas Bar and the American Bar
* Bar awards: Outstanding Trial Lawyer (1993), Presidents' (1987), Citation of Merit (1967)
* Recipient of one of the most prestigious awards for women, the American Bar Association's Margaret Brent Women Lawyers of Achievement Award, along with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, and the late U.S. legislator Barbara Jordan
* Listed in "The Best Lawyers in America," "Who's Who in America," and various law lists for many years
* Honorary Doctor of Laws degree from SMU, 1996
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I STRONGLY suspect that Ms. Miers is or was a personal friend (she's definitely a peer) of Ms. Raggio, considering their strikingly similar backgrounds, and thus Ms. Miers' work to help start it up is utterly unsurprising--rather, it's commendable, in that she supported a fellow pioneer in the legal field for women. It would be ridiculous to assume that Ms. Miers is responsible for the choice of speakers for the series, and furthermore, what about other speakers? There was a woman last year who is the President of Southwest Airlines (she's the highest "ranking" female in the airline industry) who gave the lecture with the company Chairman--a MAN. I seriously doubt she's a bra-burning old-style feminist, being in the highest echelons of the corporate world.
I suggest you take some time to consider who the recipient of your spammy "comment" is, because I have a lot of admiration for women like Miers and Raggio due to their breaking ground for women in the workplace. Gloria Steinem? No, but her work decades ago DID do some good. I guess it's something ONLY A WOMAN could appreciate.
Nice try. I suppose this is just the latest DESPERATE attempt to divide the GOP--making Miers out to be a left-wing feminist. And I'll bet you whined when some have called her opponents "sexist." Well, THIS certainly proves some of you are.
Stay away from my blog. Forever.
Beth
EEEK! I see that looks like I directed the last part of the comment towards you! To clarify: the entire text below the first "------" was what I emailed to the spammer!
(I say spammer because he just left a link in comments, without even reading the post or commenting in any way, and the link wasn't even to his own site.)
A thousand apologies for any misunderstandings! Please NEVER stay away from my blog! :-D
xoxoxoxo!
The arguments for Miers as a pro-life nominee are reasonable and might be persuasive if being pro-life was like having an opinion on a favorite flavor of ice cream.
The problem is that abortion strikes not just at the core of our spirit--whether we have a soul or are just biological material--abortion also strikes at our democracy as we have seen in the Schiavo situation. Without a natural right to life we have nothing in an increasingly dehumanizing world.
If Miers' pro-life ideas extended to more than a matter of personal taste (an it ought to be when considering her as the vote that might later decide the life or deaths of millions), that fact is not evident. She did not take a pro-life stand in the ABA, she took a neutral stand. She did not even give a significant amount of money to a pro-life cause while she gave thousands to pro-abortion candidates earlier. Did politics play a role in her giving? Almost certainly. She did not get to where she is by not being ambitious.
Unfortuately, that ambiton also ruled out a family. Career took first place in her life, not children.
She is not a person that we ought to support at this time. In fact, since a strongly pro-life justice can be had (we have worked so long for it) we must demand that Bush withdraw the nomination. That may not sound "fair", but it is not Harriet Miers career aspirations that are foremost in my mind.
I urge all to strongly lobby your representatives to reject this nomination.
"Most conservatives feel betrayed after working so hard to get enough Republicans elected to confirm almost any nominee." Solid values-guided Americans put the Repubs in the majority for this? A strong muscle can be just as effective if not used. Someone needs to send a message to GWB, the Senate and the House( they don't vote, but can influence) that we, who hold life values will just stay at home during the elections of 2006. Trust me, fellow Americans, the mere threat, not the execution is all that's needed. Politicians are concerned with only one thing: reelection. Threaten to deny them reelection, and you will have their ear. And the results you seek. God Bless!
>>>>> In 1996, George (Trust Me) Bush learned the hard way it is a mistake to try to remove the anti-abortion plank in the GOP platform. He sent a messenger to the Resolutions (Platform) Committee of the Texas State Republican Convention asking that the pro-life plank not be included in the platform. It was voted for unanimously. As a result, Bush was denied the privilege of leading his own delegation to National Convention because too many delegates did not trust him on the pro-life issue.
>>>>> Many Republicans believed that Mr. Bush would be naming people of a more conservative bent to the U.S. Supreme Court. Before making such a supposition, it would be a good idea to look at Mr. Bush’s track record. He had signed a bill naming a highway after an infamous abortionist from Houston, John B. Coleman, who, among other things, faced medical malpractice lawsuits involving abortions at the time of his death. There were many excuses given for his signature on the bill, but the fact remains that President Bush had promised not to sign it.
>>>>> Was it just pandering to the pro-choice vote that had him comment, when visiting New Jersey, that he couldn't wait to campaign with Christine Todd Whitman not only in New Jersey but all over America. As the governor of New Jersey she consistently stood with the pro-abortion, feminist lobby and even vetoed the partial birth abortion ban passed by the New Jersey legislature.
>>>>> While Governor of Texas, President Bush also appointed Martha Hill Jamison to the 164th District Court in Houston. Mrs. Jamison is the daughter of former Democratic Attorney General, John Hill, and had just recently turned Republican. She was still a supporter of Planned Parenthood and the Gay and Lesbian political caucus.
>>>>> In Texas when a Supreme Court place is vacated during mid-term, the governor may appoint someone to fill that spot until the next election. Bush appointed four members to that court. Texas law required that parents be notified prior to the performance of an abortion on a minor. In March, the Texas Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision refused to uphold a decision by a lower court ruling that a 17 year old girl is not mature enough to make an abortion decision without notifying her parents. Three of the votes vacating the decision were from Bush’s four appointments to the Texas Supreme Court. They were instrumental in virtually nullifying the parental notification law which Mr. Bush proclaimed that he supported. Are we supposed to believe that his current choice for the Supreme Court will be any better?