Saturday, October 8, 2005
Bork: Miers 'A Disaster'
Posted by on 10.8.05 @ 4:53PM
In keeping with Wlady's good example, and because nobody watches MSNBC any more, it's my duty to report Judge Robert Bork's take on Harriet Miers.
Asked his opinion of the Miers nom, Bork replied, "I think it's a disaster on every level." Why? Bork said,"...this is a woman who's undoubtedly as wonderful a person as they say she is, but so far as anyone can tell she has no experience with constitutional law whatever. Now it's a little late to develop a constitutional philosophy or begin to work it out when you're on the court already. So that -- I'm afraid she's likely to be influenced by factors, such as personal sympathies and so forth, that she shouldn't be influenced by. I don't expect that she can be, as the president says, a great justice."
As I wrote here on the day she was nominated, Miers is a very high-risk candidate because -- throughout her career -- she has only been someone's lawyer. She has never had the opportunity to be independent, to develop her own identity and -- as Judge Bork points out -- has yet to develop and prove (even to herself) what her constitutional philosophy is. Miers herself cannot predict today how she will be changed -- philosophically or morally -- by the acquisition of judicial power and influence. She may well turn out to be the conservative jurist the president expects her to be. But it is just as likely -- and I believe even more so -- that she will be a Supreme Court justice that her best friends will not recognize.
There is nothing that can possibly be asked or could be answered in the confirmation hearings that can predict accurately how Miers's judicial philosophy will evolve once she is on the court. Every Supreme Court nomination carries some measure of this risk. Some, such as Miers', carry immeasurably more risk than others. One Souter was too much. Miers is all too likely to be a second.
What You've Been Missing
Posted by on 10.8.05 @ 4:10PM
Because you would otherwise have to pay to access Maureen Dowd's New York Times' column, I am happy to do the altruistic thing and give you a Mo Snippet of the Day. Today, in "The Trouble With Harry," she hisses at the right for its opposition to the inadequate Harriet Miers, whose selection by President Bush has given liberals a new lease on life.
"Those on the left are perfectly happy to look away from mediocrity," she writes, "because they were spared the lesser of two evils, because they were spared the nightmare of a reactionary maniac."
Oh, what's the deal with Harriet as "Harry"? Earlier Dowd discovered Miers' friends often call her that. There was a time when feminists like Mo loved it when independent women were known by men's names, as for example the vengeful "Alex" in Fatal Attraction. So who's more dangerous? A progressive maniac like, say, "Alex," or a reactionary maniac like, say, Michael Luttig?
Of course, it's not out of the question that Dowd intends her cheap bites to serve as examples of her droll humor. If so, by her standards, in her final paragraph today, she is absolutely giddy:
"The old maxim goes that a neoconservative is a liberal who got mugged by reality. But if you're a conservative mugged by conservatives, neo and paleo, it might have the opposite effect and turn you into ... David Souter!!!"
Crack-Up in Virginia
Posted by on 10.8.05 @ 11:02AM
Russ Potts, the sometimes Republican, always bombastic independent candidate in the Virginia gubernatorial race, really cracked up this week. When Larry Sabato wouldn't admit him to Sunday night's televised debate because he hadn't reached a 15% threshold in any poll, he sued. That's a sure sign of a good sport.
The Commonwealth Conservative has more, and the Northern Virginia Daily has the blow-by-blow. Catch a TAS profile of Potts here.
Friday, October 7, 2005
Pish, Tosh, Melville
Posted by on 10.7.05 @ 9:24PM
Please, Mr. Melville. Now that we have learned that I engage in wishful thinking, that the president's speech was "just plain dumb," and that Victor Davis Hanson is the official historian of "that parallel universe," may we risk injecting some facts into this conversation?
I don't know on what basis you maintain that what Gen. Petraeus told me is not fact. If there are contrary facts we should know, then out with them, man. And while we're doing so, let me reflect on another conversation I had on 16 September. It was with a chap named Gen. George Casey, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq. He told me, directly and without hesitation, that the people in Tal Afar, in early September, sent their delegates to ask the Iraqi central government to come into their town and clean out the terrorists. That operation, which concluded around the time I spoke to Gen. Casey, was enormously successful. American and Iraqi forces captured or killed about 80% of those sought in Tal Afar. How could this have happened if the Iraqi government and its armed forces weren't respected by the leaders of Tal Afar? And those leaders, by the way, are a mixed bag including Turkomans.
I do not say that we've won in Iraq. I'm sure we aren't even winning the larger war on terrorists and the nations that support them. But to say that we're deluding ourselves about the steady and significant improvement in Iraqi forces is simply wrong at this juncture.
You say Mr. Bush should admit it if he wanted to take on Syria and Iran? He can't admit what isn't true. But it should be, because no matter if we stay in Iraq for another six months or another sixty years, terrorists will still be fed, armed, funded, and nurtured by the other terrorist nations. Unless and until we take the war to the source of the problem, nothing will be won. But much can be lost.
Re: Iraqi Troops and Police
Posted by on 10.7.05 @ 7:13PM
Mr. Babbin is a very knowledgeable guy, and I am sure he's right: Iraqi troops are "getting better." But I think he's doing a little wishful thinking when he says they're "respected and accepted by the population." More accurately, I think, the Shia may respect other Shia, and the Sunnis other Sunnis, and the Kurds other Kurds (assuming clan, tribal and family rivalries don't get in the way).
But level 1 or 2 troops aside, the larger point is that the president's speech was just plain dumb. The fight against terrorism is not nearly the same as the old fight against Communism, no matter how hard Bush tried to equate the two. Communism was centralized, dominated by Moscow; terrorism is free-floating and often ad hoc. For example, the Bali suicide bombers, we now learn, had nothing to do with Al Qaeda.
Also in his need to simplify everything in sight, the president linked the Beslan school slaughter with "radical Islam." In fact, Chechen-Russian animosities go back to the early Czars, and the Beslan atrocity was fueled by a sick nationalism.
The speech was the kind of thing only a Republican flack could love. On the one hand, Bush now rejects the notion of "state-sponsored terrorism"; on the other hand, Syria and Iran support the terrorists and, if I heard Bush correctly, "are equally guilty of murder."
But you can't have it both ways, of course, and if Bush wants to invade Syria or Iran let him say so.
And I stopped reading Victor Davis Hanson some time ago, Mr. Tabin. He's the official historian of that parallel universe.
Cautionary Tale
Posted by on 10.7.05 @ 6:59PM
As the winds continue to howl against GWB from the right, may I offer a word of caution? Last night at the National Review 50th Michael Novak and I recalled similar periods of discontent from conservatives towards President Reagan. If I were to remind you of the provocations now, you might snicker, as they have drifted into the past and lost their sting -- but really we were worried about the President's friendliness with Gorby and moments of seemingly selling out to Big Government.
As for GWB he needs our help and our criticism. We can give both and not lose our virtue. By the way, at the honoring of Bill Buckley yesterday in the Old Executive Office Building the President appeared before a few hundred members of the conservative movement and surprised me. He looked hearty. He was sharp-witted and genial. Most importantly, he seemed vigorous and ready for the fray. I would not count him out or even down.
GOP Email Offensive For Miers
Posted by on 10.7.05 @ 6:06PM
I just received the second pro-Miers email from the GOP this afternoon. This one begins:
This week, President Bush announced his choice to succeed Justice Sandra Day O'Connor as the next Supreme Court Justice: Harriet Miers. Ms. Miers is an extremely well-qualified and fair-minded individual who is committed to interpreting the law instead of legislating from the bench.
With Ken Mehlman and Ed Gillespie making their rounds about town on this nomination, their efforts appear only to be beginning.
Nomination Withdrawn!
Posted by on 10.7.05 @ 4:45PM
No, not that one.
Word out of the Senate Judiciary Committee is that Timothy Flanigan has withdrawn his nomination to serve as Deputy Attorney General.
Flanigan, who previously served as a deputy counsel to President George W. Bush, was a hard-nosed conservative who many believed would bring some order to the Department of Justice that had been lacking under DAG James Comey and since Attorney General John Ashcroft stepped down after the 2004 election.
Flanigan's nomination had been held up due to typical Democratic politics, but things further stalled when Sen. Dick "I Hate My Parents for Giving Me a First Name That Matches Perfectly With My Personality" Durbin attempted to tie Flanigan to the simmering Jack Abramoff scandal.
Flanigan had never been linked to any of the activities that have created legal problems for Abramoff. But the Abramoff case remains an open case that the Department of Justice is involved in, given the politicization of Flanigan's nomination by Democrats, the timing of his confirmation might have created problems for both him and the agency as the case moved forward.
Thus, Flanigan stands as yet another nominee slimed by the Durbin/Pat Leahy tag team, and the country fails to get a highly qualified professional in an important law enforcement and national security slot.
Re: Iraqi Troops and Police
Posted by on 10.7.05 @ 4:33PM
Blogger Bill Roggio has lots more on the topic. (Hat tip: Instapundit)
Confirmations
Posted by on 10.7.05 @ 4:28PM
Julie Myers' nomination was moved out of committee earlier today and will be voted on by the full Senate soon. Myers is nominated to direct the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The vote out of the Senate Homeland Security Committee was 7-2.
Before Harriet Miers came on the scene, Myers was the lightning rod for those screaming unqualified cronyism in the Bush Administration. And she still may be. Whereas Harriet Miers' rulings will effect our lives, should Julie Myers not be up to the ICE job, her failings may actually cost citizens their lives. It's a brutal fact, but it's probably true. She's young, with no real management experience and no immigration experience. But older folks have built the mess she is walking into.
ICE has long been identified as one of the most dysfunctional, failing agencies in all of government. In many ways it still is, and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff is counting on Myers to fix it. It's a safe bet that she won't, and while it isn't a safe bet, our guess is that she's capable and bright enough to not screw things up worse than they already are. She might even improve them.
But if Congress -- and in this case, the Senate -- were serious about immigration reform and security issues related to immigration, it 1) should do something about it, and 2) should show up and send a clear message about how much it cares about the position by actually voting on the nomination. 7-2 won't cut it.
If Julie Myers succeeds, it's a statement about her abilities and another example of President Bush's ability to spot talent. If new problems arise at ICE, we shouldn't blame Myers so much as we'll blame the Senate for failing to exhibit any spine in the advise and consent process its claims to care so much about.
Friday Bookshelf: Reagan, Christmas, and Helen
Posted by on 10.7.05 @ 4:06PM
Do you remember that Fox News Channel had short station identification spots last December wishing viewers, "Merry Christmas" and "Happy Hanukah"? I was surprised to see it. Pleasantly surprised, but surprised all the same. John Gibson, the FNC anchor, noticed the "collective gasp" and was disturbed that chairman Roger Ailes received a letter saying "You must be a very brave man." Additionally, Gibson say more and more stories reporting Christians' troubles in celebrating Christmas to the point that not even the secular seasonal symbols are acceptable. There's a "war on Christmas," and that's the title of Gibson's new book (just in time for the holiday, er, Christmas season), The War on Christmas: How The Liberal Plot to Ban The Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought.
Two sometimes lonesome and always courageous men who defeated great enemies through patience and resolve. Two men only recognized as bright political leaders quite late in life. Of the twentieth century, who first comes to mind from these descriptions? For most, it's Winston Churchill and Ronald Reagan. Steven F. Hayward, who has penned separate books on the two, noticed similarities beyond their Cold War connection over the years. Comparing their "parallel lives," political education, and conservatism, Hayward offers a double-shot short bio in Greatness: Reagan, Churchill & The Making of Extraordinary Leaders.
Really. How beautiful can one woman be? Can she launch a thousand ships? How about a thousand books, even thousands of years after her death? Knopf is betting on Helen's staying power with Bettany Hughes' very accessible biography of the lady who launched the Trojan War (heck, it even comes complete with a family tree and dramatis personae, timelines, and maps), Helen of Troy: Goddess, Princess, Whore. An
The Big Question For Bush
Posted by on 10.7.05 @ 2:12PM
The White House Press Corps didn't beat around the bush this morning, broaching the question to the President that is very much "in the air" around Washington these last couple days, including at the NR dinner last night.
Q Thank you, sir. The criticism from some conservatives of Harriet Miers is continuing and getting rather sharp, as you know. Are you willing to rule out ever letting her nomination be withdrawn?
PRESIDENT BUSH: Harriet Miers is an extraordinary nominee. She is a very bright woman. She is a pioneer in the law in Texas. In other words, she was the first woman hire of her firm, first partner of the firm, she's the first head of the Texas Bar Association. I mean, she has got a record of accomplishment that is extraordinary, in my judgment. She is a woman of deep character and strength. She is -- she didn't come from the bench, but so did -- you know, a lot of other people didn't come from the bench when they were named for the Supreme Court. I would ask people to look at Byron White, for example, or Judge Rehnquist, himself.
And I'm confident she's going to be a Supreme Court Judge who will not legislate from the bench, and will strictly interpret the Constitution. I am incredibly proud of my friend being willing to take on this task. She's going to be a great judge.
Q So are you ruling it out, any withdrawal?
PRESIDENT BUSH: No, she is going to be on the bench, she'll be confirmed -- and when she's on the bench people will see a fantastic woman who is honest, open, humble and capable of being a great Supreme Court Judge.
Reds
Posted by on 10.7.05 @ 1:40PM
George Clooney's tribute to Edward Murrow is too tendentious for the Washington Post. Clooney "leaves out," writes Stephen Hunter, "the Venona decrypts that proved how sophisticated and exhaustive the Russian intelligence initiative against the American target was."
In a Nutshell
Posted by on 10.7.05 @ 11:37AM
"If Harriet Miers were not a crony of the president of the United States, her nomination to the Supreme Court would be a joke, as it would have occurred to no one else to nominate her."
Further down in his devastating column today, Charles Krauthammer echoes John Wohlstetter's points yesterday on our site in "The Recusal Trap."
"For four years Miers has been immersed in war-and-peace decisions and therefore will have a deep familiarity with the tough constitutional issues regarding detention, prisoner treatment and war powers," Krauthammer writes. "...For years -- crucial years in the war on terrorism -- she will have to recuse herself from judging the constitutionality of these decisions because she will have been a party to having made them in the first place. The Supreme Court will be left with an absent chair on precisely the laws-of-war issues to which she is supposed to bring so much."
Meanwhile, speaking of cronyism a name making the rounds last night at National Review's dinner was that of Lyndon Johnson's old buddy Abe Fortas. Interestingly, though, as David Greenberg writes in Slate, Fortas went down not when he was first nominated to the Court, but three years later when LBJ tried to elevate him to Chief Justice. And it was a Republican-led filibuster put an end to that. Plus charges of financial impropriety were raised against him -- which, when amplified the following year, forced Fortas to resign from the Court altogether. Lucky for everyone that GWB is not LBJ and Harriet Miers is clean.
Fed Job
Posted by on 10.7.05 @ 11:08AM
Given what we have seen the President do with the appointment of his personal lawyer to the Supreme Court, and given that we have an upcoming nomination for Chairman of the Federal Reserve, does anyone know who the President's personal accountant is?
If so, let's try to find out if he or she was a "trailblazer" of some kind, with little or no actual financial markets experience. I think we've found our nominee!
N R Scuttlebutt
Posted by on 10.7.05 @ 11:04AM
A couple of things on last night's National Review anniversary dinner. The overriding undercurrent during the cocktail hour and thereafter was a kind of simmering outrage at the Miers nomination, but a general sense that her confirmation was inevitable.
We got the feeling those impressions had not been tempered by the the interview Hugh Hewitt did with Sen. Sam Brownback late yesterday. Brownback's response, was, how do you say it? Devastating. This is a man who clearly is going to be prepared to have a nice "conversation" with the nominee during the hearing process.
That said, Miers is getting somewhat of a bad rap. For example, Sen. Pat Leahy's staff was up to its old tricks of leaking the Senator's conversation with Miers to the media, but wholly inaccurately. Why the White House had her meet with Leahy so early in the process is beyond us.
Post-Katrina Spending Cuts
Posted by on 10.7.05 @ 9:59AM
The Chicago Tribune reports that in the wake of the Hurricane Katrina reconstruction pricetag, the Bush administration is pulling funding from a $20 billion Great Lakes restoration program. At first glance, this program seems to be more infrastructure and shipping spending than pork, but just about any cuts are welcome cuts these days.
EUnuchs Strike Again
Posted by on 10.7.05 @ 9:49AM
According to the Guardian Newspaper, the EUnuchs have thrown in with such free speech protectors as Cuba and China to overturn American control of the internet. The UN has been trying to do this for about two years, and plans to implement new controls by agreement of the assembled diplomutts at a "world information society" summit to be held next month.
This is a non-trivial problem. Controlling the internet means controlling access to a primary outlet for free speech, the ability to provide some measure of protection from cyber-attack on industry, finance, and government computer systems. To put the UN or any other body in charge means submitting these key elements of our freedoms and our economy to those whose only interests are in limiting freedom of speech and attacking the economic structure that fuels democracy. Acquiescence to this -- which Guardian delights in saying is our only choice -- would be an historic mistake.
Joining Carter, Annan, and Arafat
Posted by on 10.7.05 @ 8:17AM
As a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, Mohamed ElBaradei, the U.N.'s top nuclear proliferation "enforcer."
Thursday, October 6, 2005
Iraqi Troops and Police
Posted by on 10.6.05 @ 7:22PM
OK, Messrs. Tabin and Melville. Slow down, guys. You're running too fast to keep up with the terms you're using. Iraqi security forces -- troops and police both -- are getting better steadily. And the kerfuffle about "Level 1" vs. "Level 2" vs. "Level 3" -- terms that the generals testifying last week used without adequately explaining them -- are entirely misunderstood.
Please check out my interview yesterday with Lt. Gen. Dave Petraeus, who commanded the training operations in Iraq. Iraqi troops are fighting very well, in the lead in a great many operations and -- in some really tough places -- alone. Iraq is not a war we've won, at least yet. BUT we shouldn't believe the Iraqis themselves aren't fighting. They are fighting well, and -- in increasing numbers -- in the place of U.S. and other Coalition forces. Most importantly, they are respected and accepted by the population, which is a fundamental difference between Iraq and Vietnam.
National Review Night
Posted by on 10.6.05 @ 5:29PM
You know the truism about conservatives coming to Washington to do good and staying to do well? For once the cliche fits: My real payoff comes tonight when I attend National Review's 50th anniversary gala. It will be held at a magical location downtown, the National Building Museum. I heard Bill Buckley speak there a year or two ago at the Intercollegiate Studies Institute's own 50th anniversary dinner. Tonight will be even finer. Any event Buckley heads is a coronation. Who else could have turned conservatism into a magnificent celebration of life?
Re: "Iraq is a Disaster"
Posted by on 10.6.05 @ 5:01PM
H. Melville: Yes, only one Iraqi battalion is currently at Level 1 capability, able to operate with no U.S. support whatsoever. But 36 battalions (of a total 116 army and special police battalions in Iraq) are at Level 2 capability, able to lead counter-insurgency operations with U.S. support. That's double the number of Level 2 battalions there were only 5 months ago. We've already handed over security operations to Iraqi forces in Najaf, Karbala, and, yesterday, Baghdad.
You mention parallel universes. Perhaps you'd prefer the one outlined by Victor Davis Hanson last week, where Saddam was left in power? That, to me, would be the real disaster.
Tip of the Hat to Drudge
Posted by on 10.6.05 @ 4:19PM
To brighten up everyone's day… this from Louis Freeh's new book, My FBI, about Clinton:
"Whatever moral compass the president was consulting was leading him in the wrong direction... My role and my obligation was to conduct criminal investigations. He, unfortunately for the country and unfortunately for him, happened to be the subject of that investigation."
Richmond Murder
Posted by on 10.6.05 @ 3:43PM
A sad, sad outcome for a girl just beginning her freshman year at Virginia Commonwealth University.
Ignoring the President
Posted by on 10.6.05 @ 2:50PM
Coverage of the President's "major address" is the surest indication of the decline of the office, or at least of the deference the big boys now feel they must pay. None of the major broadcast networks carried it. Martha Stewart held forth unassailed on ABC. Even Fox's local, channel 5, ignored it. Some cable outfits carried it and Mr. Bush held forth up in a corner of the quadri-sected Bloomberg report.
What if he really did have something new to say? Ten new terror attempts, with three aimed at the U.S. but thwarted, is new. Now the scramble begins to find out what they were, when, etc.
It was not what he had to say, but what the big boys said by ignoring him, that makes news, ominous news.
It Is Just Not So
Posted by on 10.6.05 @ 2:50PM
We now know, via Drudge, that Louis Freeh has taken his measure of Clinton in print. But Clinton started it in My Life, making it known that he regarded Freeh as "too political and self-serving" to cover up for him. Clinton makes vague reference to a "retired FBI agent" who warned him not to nominate Freeh. This, Clinton says, "gave me pause, but I sent word back that it was too late; the offer had been extended and accepted. I would just have to trust Bernie Nussbaum's judgment."
Jed, Dave
Posted by on 10.6.05 @ 2:10PM
Jed: Thanks. I'm just trying to call 'em as I see them, even if I do have a lot of horses in this race. Leadership is a hit or miss thing. But once so many on the right join in with the left to wash their hands of Bush, I think there could be no going back. And I also worry we ain't seen nothing yet, at least regarding Miers. While Bush and the right engage in civil war, the left sharpens its knives. For all it knows or cares, Miers is anti-abortion. Pro-life views will become synonymous with lack of qualifications. No Democrat will back her. The Collins-Snowe types may not either. Specter will flex his muscles. Lott will shake out further gazillions for Pascagoula relief. And too many others will be too demoralized to care, one way or another.
I see that Dave is hopeful the hearings will show Miers in calmer light. Can there be "more informed judgment" if minds are already made up?
Not Just Yet
Posted by on 10.6.05 @ 1:55PM
Jed, I can't speak for Wlady, but our discussion may have blurred the distinction between our personal patience and the conservative movement's patience. For the conservative movement, the tank's just about on empty. This could blow over, especially with a stellar performance by Miss Miers in the confirmation hearings. And W. has also tossed conservatives a bone this week on offsets -- the Republican Study Committee was excited about his speech Tuesday to put it lightly. Again, this isn't where I am, this is just my assessment from talking to folks. Maybe our perspective is skewed from within the Beltway. But our Reader Mail from the heartland shows little difference in the level of outrage.
Speaking for myself, I still like the guy. I remembered today those tense moments last October, hoping like nothing else for re-election. This is who we voted for. We knew the warts then, from the prescription drug benefit and No Child Left Behind to campaign finance. And he's had a solid pro-life record. Besides his August 2001 stem cell speech, he's at his strongest when discussing life issues. The Miers nomination was a disappointment. It's even more worrisome in terms of the White House's attitude toward the folks who brought them to the dance. But RET (below) said it well, as did John Fund today in the Political Diary:
While skepticism of Ms. Miers is justified, the time is fast approaching when such expressions should be muted until the Senate hearings begin. At that point, Ms. Miers will finally be able to speak for herself. And those on both sides of the political spectrum will be able to make a more informed judgment.
The Conservative Up-Roar
Posted by on 10.6.05 @ 1:50PM
Now that the Conservative Up-Roar has resounded for the better part of four days let us get back to the other part of politics. The first part was for us conservatives to let the President know we are here. The second part is to spread throughout the polity. Harriet Miers in the judiciary will be markedly better than Ruth Bader Ginsberg -- and by a lot. During every conservative presidency there is a dust up between 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and the conservative movement. This was a good one, but beyond trusting the President I trust Ms. Miers' present record and values to be at least an acceptable justice. Carry on.
Re: The Speech Thing
Posted by on 10.6.05 @ 1:41PM
The White House said the President's speech would be be "new" and "informative," but of course it was not. Intead it was a tedious compendium of cliches, bereft of substance, and proving nothing at all except that the president and those closest to him live in a parallel universe. Our generals told Congress last week that Iraq had but a single battalion that could fight on its own; they also said insurgencies can, and usually do,go on for years. In other words, Iraq was a disaster. The president, however, was in denial. He seemed to think that if he said "freedom" and "democracy" often enough -- they're on the march, our enemies hate them, blah blah and so on -- he was saying something profound. But he wasn't, and his performance was an embarrassment. It was painful to watch his smug smile when he thought he had said something clever. Meanwhile you suspected that one of the president's men, or women, was holding up an applause sign. Nonetheless the applause never seemed more than dutiful.
Lost Patience?
Posted by on 10.6.05 @ 1:41PM
Wlady, Dave: Your conversation reminds me of the day, many years ago, that I read Bill Buckley's exasperatedly witty pronouncement that his magazine had officially lost patience with the then recently-inaugurated President Jimmy. We're not quite to that point with Dubya, guys. Close, but not yet. Okay, make that mighty close.
The Speech Thing
Posted by on 10.6.05 @ 1:26PM
If there's no way to calm to storm over Miers, change the subject. No doubt many will say that apropos the President's speech to the National Endowment for Democracy this morning. But that's a cheap shot, given that, for one thing, the president's NED appearance was scheduled long ago. It also marked a return to Bush's number one reason for his presidency after 9/11. We'll see to what effect, i.e. who still is willing to his respect his vision and leadership in the War on Terror. It could turn out that some of his harshest critics on Miers will turn around to laude his remarks. At least, at NRO's Corner, John Podhoretz promises to do just that in his New York Post column tomorrow. But what about those less committed to the war in the first place?
Democracy In the Balance
Posted by on 10.6.05 @ 12:02PM
When he is not appearing on Jay Leno in cowboy boots, Al Gore finds time to decry the "strangeness of our public discourse." Liberals normally regard the Founding Fathers as insufficiently enlightened. But Gore today found it useful to praise the Founding Fathers as "probably"  the "most literate generation in all of history." He said they "used words with astonishing precision and believed in the Rule of Reason. Their faith in the viability of Representative Democracy rested on their trust in the wisdom of a well-informed citizenry."
It also rested on not letting the illiterate and manifestly irrational vote -- a safeguard of republics Gore will no doubt address in his next high-minded talk.
McCain For Segregation?
Posted by on 10.6.05 @ 11:29AM
That is, segregation Hawaiian style. Sen. John McCain supports S. 147, the Native Hawaiian Reorganization Act, or the "Akaka bill." Haven't heard of it? It would recognize native Hawaiians as an indigenous sovereign group, as with Indian tribes, thereby constitutionally permitting a race-based government in Hawaii.
TAS Politics columnist John Fund, who has been doing most of the heavy lifting against the Akaka bill, sees little good coming of it:
Creating a race-based government in Hawaii would create a dangerous precedent for groups in other states to also seek special status, whether they be African-Americans or Hispanics who believe that many of the Western states were illegitimately seized from Mexico and should be accorded a special status as an entity called Aztlan. The Akaka bill would carve out a path of racial balkanization that is fraught with constitutional peril and political mischief.
Catch yesterday's Washington Times editorial.
It's Over, More Than Ever
Posted by on 10.6.05 @ 11:01AM
Dave, it takes two to breach. The alarming thing is not what grassroots and their leaders and or reps in D.C. might be thinking, but what the White House is. If Peggy Noonan is right about the White House sending out "We don't need you" and other bleep-you messages to conservatives, then I don't know if there's even going to be any alimony.
Deli Dems
Posted by on 10.6.05 @ 10:44AM
As you might imagine, Wonkette's having a field day with this on-air exchange between Chris Matthews and Howard Dean:
MATTHEWS: Do you believe that the president can claim executive privilege?
DEAN: Well, certainly the president can claim executive privilege. But in the this case, I think with a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, you can't play, you know, hide the salami, or whatever it's called.
Legislating From The Bench, That's LFTB
Posted by on 10.6.05 @ 10:22AM
Does the political term "Legislating From The Bench" have a fixed meaning? University of Chicago Law Professor Cass Sunstein doesn't think so.
Ivy League vs. Church
Posted by on 10.6.05 @ 10:10AM
Via the Post's Supreme Court blog, John Dickerson explores further "The Enemy of My Enemies" phenomenon. The White House has cast its lot with the evangelicals in the heartland versus "the Republican Party's own whiny Beltway intellectuals." Easy choice.
Sandy in the Fast Lane
Posted by on 10.6.05 @ 8:51AM
Former Clinton national security advisor Sandy Berglar -- he of the famously overstuffed underwear, chock-full of top secret documents being smuggled out of the National Archives -- is charged with violating his federal probation by being charged with reckless driving on Route 66. Berglar was charged with doing 88 mph in a 55 zone. Reflecting on my recent purchase of a certified go-fast machine, a longtime friend and distinguished member of the Virginia Senate admonished me that if I were caught speeding at 80 mph or more, I could be sure of spending a night in whichever jail was handiest. So why is Berglar exempt from that rule? There are no reports of Sen. Clinton's reaction to Berglar's latest escapade. We should hope he continues on his current path at whatever speed he chooses. Now that Monica and Web Hubbell are long gone, Team Clinton needs a new mascot.
More Sneak Peeks
Posted by on 10.6.05 @ 8:39AM
The Los Angeles Times also managed to break details from the ATR meeting, with quotes that the Post apparently didn't have.
UPDATE [9:20 a.m.]: Ralph Z. Hallow, of the Washington Times, takes the taboo breaking one step further than the Post or the L.A. Times: his own observations and quotes from ATR meeting as if it were on the record.
Re: It's Over
Posted by on 10.6.05 @ 8:25AM
I'm not sure the breach is irreparable. Wlady, I'm just a pup by Washington standards, so could you compare the level of grassroots unrest to any other situation in your time here?
At least the grassroots groups aren't yet in outright opposition to Harriet Miers. And the key word is yet. They've raised millions of dollars for this moment. They wanted to spend it. Now they'll hold onto their money. But they're also holding their fire. The only loudly critical figure I can find is Manuel Miranda, who has a prominent quote in today's Post piece. It could be worse: they could be spending their money against the nomination. Groups like the Family Research Council and senators like Brownback are playing "wait and see," but barring a crisis they'll quietly nod and let Miers onto the Court.
Long term is the most problematic for the party and the conservative movement. This fact makes Peggy Noonan's column a must-read:
The headline lately is that conservatives are stiffing the president. They're in uproar over Ms. Meirs, in rebellion over spending, critical over cronyism. But the real story continues to be that the president feels so free to stiff conservatives. The White House is not full of stupid people. They knew conservatives would be disappointed that the president chose his lawyer for the high court. They knew conservatives would eventually awaken over spending. They knew someone would tag them on putting friends in high places. They knew conservatives would not like the big-government impulses revealed in the response to Hurricane Katrina. The headline is not that this White House endlessly bows to the right but that it is not at all afraid of the right. Why? This strikes me as the most interesting question.
Here are some maybes. Maybe the president has simply concluded he has no more elections to face and no longer needs his own troops to wage the ground war and contribute money.
This is precisely what's at the root of the conservative uproar: the White House says, "We don't need you," and then sends out surrogates to smooth things over afterward. Fool me once, shame on me; fool me twice...
It's Over
Posted by on 10.6.05 @ 2:19AM
Here's how Washington works. Each Wednesday morning conservative activists and operatives gather at a large meeting room at Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform in downtown Washington to discuss matters. Sometimes or even often times a prominent guest drops by. But the meeting operates under a simple rule -- it's off the record. Everyone respects it. No one goes rushing off afterward to spill the beans on a blog site like this one about what was said.
Yesterday at ATR, even though a few prominent Bush representatives showed up to defend the selection of Harriet Miers -- and were soundly criticized for their efforts -- it didn't make news. Not until the Washington Post reported on the event, among others, in the first editions of today's paper. Its reporters clearly aren't honor-bound by the rules of the Wednesday gathering. Enough gossip was flying about town after the meeting at ATR that they could easily piece things together.
Conservatives end up taking the higher road, but the media bias brigade controls the spin. On page one.
We're now in day four of Miers-Bush. Usually a storm in Washington lasts no more than an hour or two, if that long. But this one is different. It hasn't really let up. The breach that has opened up between Bush and the right now seems permanent. This is one no Army Corps of Engineers can fix. Robert Novak has the definitive take.
Wednesday, October 5, 2005
A Call for Transparency of the Punditocracy
Posted by on 10.5.05 @ 9:56PM
With the right columnists calling for nominees from the right schools who will be taken seriously in the right circles, I hereby call on all pundits and columnists to disclose fully their academic resume at the end of each article or TV appearance. Clearly, as The American Spectator was founded on the campus of a state school, the staff tosses and turns at night, hoping, praying that one day we too will be taken seriously in the right circles.
This transparency must begin, of course, right after this post.
Blacks Killing Black Babies
Posted by on 10.5.05 @ 9:33PM
Post Metro columnist Courtland Milloy caught my eye this morning on the Metro, but I forgot to mention it. He defends Bill Bennett's comments about aborting all black babies lowering crime. Nothing huge here -- other mainstream types have shown reason on this mini-kerfuffle.
But then he turns his pen on blacks. The left doesn't put up a fuss about incredible mismatch of the percentages of black women and black abortions (that's 13% versus 32%, respectively). Prior to Bennett's comments, that's not a "genocide," but business as usual in the District of Columbia, where half of all pregnancies end in abortion.
That is, until Bennett spoke of aborting "black babies," and suddenly those fetuses become precious pre-born black people who must be saved from the evil Dr. Bill.
It's just a different twist to the same old story. If the Ku Klux Klan were killing blacks the way blacks kill blacks, we'd be up in arms. If whites in blackface were filling the airways with degrading lyrics and minstrel shows, we'd at least shoot the TV and radio. But as along as it's just us acting a fool, who cares?
Blasphemy! But wait for it...
This is the consequence of our corrosive moral inconsistency: a dependence on the opposition of whites to give meaning and value to black life.
His words, not mine. But moral consistency would require equal outrage at abortion as for Bennett's comments. Sadly, most bloggers and pundits who waded fearlessly into this controversy have never done any such thing. Don't count on them to change.
To that end, we might welcome the controversy about abortion and black babies and the long-overdue focus it brings to the black womb -- home to hope unbound as well as unspeakable tragedy. Who is responsible for the protection and care of this amazing uterine environment, where the most wonderful fetal programming can occur just by having a loving husband kiss his pregnant wife?
Bennett? Sorry, he ain't in it.
The Enemy of My Enemies...
Posted by on 10.5.05 @ 6:29PM
...is my friend. At least that's a decent rule of thumb on today's political scene. Is it intellectually sound? Admittedly, no. But when the left begins smearing Miers for her faith, I'm compelled to defend her. Left-wing opposition to Miers for illegitimate reasons may be enough to rally a conservative defense.
With MoveOn now weighing in, a conservative defense appears more likely. And what's worse, it's clear George Will-provided ammo:
Cronyism on the Supreme Court is a serious threat to our democracy. In fact Alexander Hamilton
specifically argued that the Senate should be empowered to confirm or reject judicial nominees in part to prevent the President from using the Court to reward friends and political allies.The call to reject cronyism and secrecy is bipartisan. As conservative columnist George F. Will put it today, "The president's "argument" for [Miers] amounts to: Trust me. There is no reason to, for several reasons." We may have different reasons not to take Bush at his word, but we can all agree on the need for more information.
Forced to choose between the President and a George Will/MoveOn team, I'll take W.
Can Miers Be Stopped?
Posted by on 10.5.05 @ 5:38PM
I'm not as down on George Will as Wlady, The Prowler, and George N., though I do agree that rooting for Wilkinson wasn't exactly a credibility-builder for Will. But I wonder how much conservative critiques of Miers even matter. So far, as the Prowler says below, there are six Republican Senators who might not support Miers. But how likely are Democrats to go along with a conservative revolt, knowing that the next nominee will probably be (by their lights) worse than Miers?
My big fear is that Miers will prove reliable on abortion but not on federalism. That could split the Social Right from the Judicial Right; the priorities of the pro-life movement and of Federalist Society-types won't necessarily line up as neatly as they do now if we can no longer count on an anti-Roe judge to be pretty good across the board. The results for the conservative movement would not be good. I'm left where I was yesterday: holding my breath and hoping Miers exceeds expectations.
On Air at 6 EDT
Posted by on 10.5.05 @ 5:20PM
We're just about an hour away from the Hugh Hewitt show on Salem Radio Network. I'll be subbing for Hugh and our guests include Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, just back from Iraq where he was in charge of training the Iraqi forces. We're going to inject some facts in the debate about Iraqi progress. You don't want to miss this.
Pat Kelly, RIP
Posted by on 10.5.05 @ 5:08PM
What a sad day in sports. I've just read in the New York Times a short obit from AP for Pat Kelly, a former Baltimore Orioles outfield who died on Sunday of a heart attack. Wouldn't you know it -- the Times omitted the memorable exchange Kelly had with his manager, the famously cantankerous Earl Weaver, that is included in the full AP writeup (which can be found on the Washington Post's website -- though the paper's paper edition has not yet run anything on Kelly):
Kelly was known as much for his religious conviction as his left-handed swing. During his stint in Baltimore, this exchange between Kelly and fiery manager Earl Weaver supposedly occurred:"Skip, don't you want me to walk with the Lord?" Kelly asked.
To which Weaver replied, "I'd rather you walk with the bases loaded."
Meanwhile, the AP neglected to note that Kelly was the younger brother of Leroy Kelly, the greatest Cleveland Browns running back this side of Jim Brown who lasted longer than Brown and whose running style epitomized ball control and eating up time on the clock on dank, late fall afternoons.
Trent Lott, Vote Counter
Posted by on 10.5.05 @ 2:53PM
You get the impression that Trent Lott's decision to withhold full support of Harriet Miers has a lot to do with his penchant for vote-counting.
Right now, with Lott, the boys from Georgia, Tom Coburn, Sam Brownback and Rick Santorum, you have six Republican Senators standing up and not fully endorsing the SCOTUS pick. We know that earlier this week there was real concern inside the White House about losing Republican support that Miers was starting out her confirmation process lacking 50 Republican votes.
Lott wasn't viewed as one of the six the White House was worried about, but Lott has never been one to do this White House or this President any favors.
Our guess is that in the end, Brownback and Coburn quickly fall in behind Miers after meeting with her. Lott will look to keep his "dear" friend Santorum out there on a limb with him, with perhaps a few others just to make some mischief.
Peanuts
Posted by on 10.5.05 @ 2:45PM
What's interesting about Jack Carter's decision to run for the Senate in Nevada is that Democrats have had a terrible time finding someone willing to step up against Republican John Ensign. And a number of Democrats in Nevada have been grumbling that Harry Reid has been a key barricade to finding a good opponent.
Reid and Ensign are said to be pretty good friends, and the perception on Capitol Hill among Democrats was that Reid was not working terribly hard to find someone willing to run a race and become the new "junior" Senator from Nevada.
Reid wasn't involved in the recruitment of Carter, so their meeting next week will be interesting.
At least Carter can't be accused of being a carpetbagger in a state founded by them!
A Third Grand Jury Rejected DeLay Charge
Posted by on 10.5.05 @ 2:11PM
As Mark pointed out below, Ronnie Earle's case against Tom DeLay appears weaker by the day. The Austin American-Statesman reports that it took Ronnie Earle two grand juries (after the conspiracy grand jury) to return a money laundering indictment against DeLay -- the first grand jury turned him down! The fishy part is that when a grand jury turned a prosecutor down, he's supposed to file a "no-bill" document. As of Tuesday, he'd failed to do so.
Ronnie
Posted by on 10.5.05 @ 1:45PM
Sounds like the Travis County Javert is starting to feel a little more heat in light of his Hollywood debut plans having become so very public.
From a legal standpoint, Tom DeLay is entitled to have "Ronnie Earle the Movie" turned over in discovery. If Mr. Earle, playing himself (even Ben Affleck "wasn't available") is seen gabbing about the case and the evidence on film, it will most certainly be submitted as evidence of prosecutorial misconduct. It is hard to imagine that he isn't trying the case in technicolor... after all, what would be the point of making a movie about a political corruption investigation if the hero is not going to do his best Mickey Spillane impersonation? The entertainment value may be priceless -- who says farce is dead?
At any rate, even a Democrat Judge in Travis County may find it too difficult to allow the case to go forward. And with the evidence being so incredibly vague and flimsy, the movie gives the judge an airtight reason for saving the taxpayers' time and money on this turkey of a case.
Prediction: Tom DeLay will walk. The movie will go straight to DVD and Ronnie Earle will have to return his SAG card for impersonating an actor.
And an Evangelical Smear
Posted by on 10.5.05 @ 12:59PM
Bill Donahue, president of the Catholic League, just fired off a press release denouncing the religious smear of Harriet Miers.
The anti-religious secularists on the Left are more concerned about keeping abortion-on-demand legal and keeping our society free from religious influence than any other issues. It is what defines them. Imbued with hate, they are already targeting the Christian status of Harriet Miers. And when it comes to hate, few can match the vitriol of Mollie [sic] Ivins, the syndicated columnist from Texas.
Ivins' column so far is only available online at the Salt Lake Tribune:
Miers, like Bush himself, is classic Texas conservative Establishment, with the addition of Christian fundamentalism. What I mean by fundamentalist is one who believes in both biblical inerrancy and salvation by faith alone.
Gasp!
Nevertheless, we are now beset by people who insist on dragging religion into governance - and who themselves believe they are beset by people determined to "drive God from the public square."
This division has been in part created by and certainly aggravated by those seeking political advantage. It is a recipe for an incredibly damaging and serious split in this country and I believe we all need to think long and carefully before doing anything to make it worse.
You'd hope Ivins would have a little more
tact than to raise this tired shibboleth. In effect, she's saying
those with, as Chuck Schumer would call them, "deeply held
religious beliefs" are not welcome in the public square.
Christians, only apply if you can check your values at the door.
Now who says liberals are more tolerant?
Later thoughts on this: I don't really
care what Molly Ivins thinks. If anything, folks on the left
smearing Miers for her faith will inspire a sympathetic defense.
But this is just the opening shot in a long campaign.
A Bush Pro-Life Highlight Reel
Posted by on 10.5.05 @ 12:46PM
From the level of the outrage over the Miers nomination, it's clear conservatives have on their minds many other long standing beefs with the White House. But let us not forget Bush's pro-life advantage over a President Gore or a President Kerry. Rick Garnett at Mirror of Justice points to an extensive list at Free Republic. He writes, "I would urge everyone -- particularly those inclined to think that, on the abortion issue, the Bush administration has not performed markedly different than the alternative administration would have -- to review the list. It is quite striking."
Will and Wilkinson
Posted by on 10.5.05 @ 12:40PM
George Will had championed for the court J. Harvie Wilkinson. He was the judge who let it be known that Bush had questioned him on his exercise schedule. Wilkinson had a careful sensibility and wasn't an "extremist," wrote Will, arguing against pure orginalism. So Will's constitutional jurisprudence is itself a species, albeit it more intelligent than most kinds, of liberal thought. Will's ideal justice would be neither an originalist nor an outright living-constitution-style activist.Â
Will scores at least one point in his column on Bush's use of identity politics as a crutch. That can't be defended. Yesterday Bush at the press conference kept saying that Miers was a female "pioneer" in Texas. So? Does that confer upon her some special insight into the meaning of the Constitution? How can he make the case for justices as apolitical and justify them on representational grounds?
The Evangelical Slot
Posted by on 10.5.05 @ 8:54AM
So Harriet Miers is an evangelical Christian, not that there's anything wrong with that.
That seems to be the MSM's approach today with front page splashes in the Washington Post and New York Times. The Foreign Desk's musings last night on the Beltway treatment of Miers' faith could be confirmed here -- the establishment will discuss her faith as a bio bullet without exploring what it means outside of abortion. But these articles provide both ammo and comfort for folks on the left and right. The conservative non-country club types will love this news, but could flinch at Justice Nathan Hecht's assertion to the Times, "'You can be just as pro-life as the day is long and can decide the Constitution requires Roe' to be upheld."
Plame Game
Posted by on 10.5.05 @ 8:50AM
There are rumors swirling this morning in certain circles that the Plame case is going to hit the media hard very, very soon. More to come ...
On the Air for Hugh Hewitt
Posted by on 10.5.05 @ 8:47AM
I'll be subbing for Hugh Hewitt again this evening (6-9 pm EDT) on the Salem Radio Network. I'll post later on guests, but we'll surely be talking about the Miers nomination, the Plamegate kerfuffle and everything else that's hot on the political plate. The call-in number is 800-520-1234. Which is not, for you non-math types, a mathematical progression.
Just remember: there are only 10 kinds of people in this world: those who understand binary, and those who don't.
Will's Idiocy
Posted by on 10.5.05 @ 8:45AM
From a friend who knows what he's talking about ... unlike George Will.
He begins by suggesting that President Bush is uninterested and/or incapable of making sophisticated judgments about the SCOTUS and judicial philosophies. This charge is patently unfair. The President picked John Roberts, and has a stellar first term record of selecting conservative judges for the appellate bench. There hasn't been a single liberal in the bunch with the exception of Rodney Gregory, whom the President obviously nominated as part of a political compromise. This is a man who almost lost the Presidency because of the liberal activism of the Florida Supreme Court. He understands the power of the Court and has been serious about his appointments in the past.
Will's second argument is that the President didn't consult with serious people before making the choice of Miers. This is also a specious charge. We know that the President consulted with 80 members of the Senate, including all of the Republicans on Senate Judiciary. He also reached out to serious people like Leonard Leo and Jay Sekulow. And he has serious, principled conservatives in the White House Counsel's Office. These aren't cronies or toadies who will only tell the President what he wants to hear. They are, for the most part, very comfortable with the Miers choice. And some of these people have seen Miers up close -- vetting the choices for the first vacancy, taking Roberts through grueling moot court sessions, and recommending judges for the lower courts.
Will's third argument is equally weak. He basically says the President has forfeited his right to be taken seriously because he didn't veto McCain-Feingold. As an initial matter, if the President can't be taken seriously for signing it into law, the Senate can't be taken seriously for having passed it. McCain-Feingold was a bad law, but bad laws get enacted all the time, and at least the President had the sense to have his political lawyers challenge significant components of the law in court. The President has expressed great seriousness about the Constitution during his tenure, particularly as it relates to the power of the Executive under Article II.
Will's fourth argument is the most dangerous and absurd. He suggests Miers shouldn't be approved because she hasn't shown a "talent" for "constitutional reasoning" honed through years of "intense interest" and practice. Judging takes work, but the folks who think "constitutional reasoning" is a talent requiring divination, intense effort and years of monastic study are the folks who will inevitably give you "Lemon tests," balancing formulas, "penumbras" and concurrences that make your head spin. The President sees through that mumbo jumbo and recognizes that good Justices are the ones who focus on the Constitution's text, structure and history and who call balls and strikes. Bush is in favor of demystifying the Court and the Miers choice is part of that effort. Will seems to be buying into the Nine Wisest Men mythology that is a root cause of the Court's aggrandizement of power over time.
Will's final argument is that Miers is an affirmative action quota pick. Underlying this theme is a subtle snobbery that conservatives should dismiss out of hand. One need not go to Harvard or Yale Law or be a member of the right Inn of Court to serve with distinction. Miers's career suggests she is plenty smart and obviously hard working. She also happens to be an evangelical who packs a gun and gives money to pro-life organizations. She's served as a public official, a commercial litigator, a policymaker and Counsel to the leader of the free world. These aren't the qualifications that have led to appointments in the recent past, but maybe they ought to be. Miers lives in the real world. She knows what the practical impact of a Kelo decision will be and that the laws of Nigeria and the European Union aren't terribly relevant to U.S. constitutional analysis. And as important, the people that she hangs out with don't give a hoot what Linda Greenhouse and the New York Times think. That's not evidence of a quota pick -- it's solid progress.
Chin Music From George Will
Posted by on 10.5.05 @ 2:02AM
When he collected a $250,000 prize last spring, the most memorable thing George Will had to say was that he was all excited because the Chicago Cubs pitchers and catchers that very day had reported to spring training. As I recall, he had just returned from the team's Arizona camp to which he's made a special trip just to partake of that momentous event. And this is the same jock who is now pulling rank on President Bush to denounce his selection of Harriet Miers in terms only Chuck Schumer and the New York Times editorial page could admire?
In what is surely to be the most widely discussed column of the day, Will declares Bush is due absolutely no senatorial deference on this choice. Of a sudden he discovers that Bush "has neither the inclination nor the ability to make sophisticated judgments about competing approaches to construing the Constitution." If only Will had taught Cubs pitchers his skill at throwing knockdown pitches.
Before he's through, Will is going after Bush as if Bush were a dolt umpire. "In addition," he spits through his chewing tobacco, "the president has forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution." What he added about the president's mother and sister isn't included in the Post's version of the column.
Somehow, I suspect that Bush is paying the price for not cultivating Will. Miers too. They've had five years to do so. Now they're being thrown at. They must not have been informed of how Will and Nancy Reagan used to lunch regularly, making sophisticated judgments about competing approaches to construing the day's menu.
Tuesday, October 4, 2005
First Things Right Now
Posted by on 10.4.05 @ 10:08PM
The best philosophical/religious/political journal in the land, First Things, began a blog, "On the Square," last week. Rejoice and adjust bookmarks accordingly.
Fr. Neuhaus explains that it will allow for the timely comment that a monthly periodical makes especially difficult. And what a wonderfully honest caveat emptor:
Items in a monthly magazine have, if not the quality of timelessness, a longer shelf life. Plus, people don't get to talk back, which is fine with me. Except, of course, when they write to-the-point letters to the editor. In short, with this new feature I am not delivering myself to the torrent of endless chatter that is the imperious kingdom of the blog. ...
Finally, and continuing in the negative mode, I do not expect to be contributing to this feature every day. What my colleagues do is up to them. They are overflowing with ideas and are convinced that are so many things that everybody needs to know, and the sooner the better. So it may turn out that "On the Square" has new entries every day, or even several times a day.
Harriet Miers as a Conservative Shibboleth
Posted by on 10.4.05 @ 7:03PM
While I'll be dealing with mostly foreign policy issues, felt like I should weigh in on the Harriet Miers nomination. Miers may be a conservative Republican But long before she was a Republican she was a Christian. That her faith may have steered her toward her political transformation shouldn't be overlooked or discounted. Why this matters underscores a continuing type of elitist tension that has long existed within the Republican Party and the conservative movement.
From that perspective, Miers is the nominee that stands to satisfy a Bush constituency that has been under-represented in this Administration since the exit of Attorney General John Ashcroft, and certainly is under-represented on the high court. Jay Sekulow wasn't exaggerating when he rhetorically asked: "Do you know the last time there was an evangelical nominated to the Supreme Court? Back in the 1930s." While there isn't much to go on -- and admittedly that is a stumbling block for many conservatives -- it's clear that the President has enough faith that Miers will indeed bring diversity to the Court, but of the kind that should make the Right rejoice and the Left howl. The problem is, many conservative commentators either can't or don't want to see beyond the standard Beltway qualifiers for such a job.
Beltway types -- including folks here -- say Miers is a "complete mediocrity" (Ann Coulter), someone who lacks "the spine and steel necessary to resist the pressures that constantly bend the American legal system toward the left" (David Frum), and "less than sterling" (Rich Lowry). And those are the positive things they are saying. Of greater concern to conservatives should be what appears to be pure institutional elitism (i.e., that she didn't attend the "right" schools or doesn't belong to the "right" organizations).
For example, in an op-ed today, Rich Lowry mocked Miers' academic and public-service background, saying: "Watching Bush strain to pump up her accomplishments was cringe-making.... She was a leader with Child Care Dallas, Meals on Wheels and other charitable groups! She has a law degree! From Southern Methodist University!" To a Washington insider such a background appears middling. But to a raft of men and women who have consistently voted Republican, and who have an abiding faith in God, country and family, this is a background worthy of celebrating and respecting.
RE: Mutts
Posted by on 10.4.05 @ 5:29PM
Or how about this movie quote regarding the Miers nomination, from Crimson Tide starring Gene Hackman as Capt. Frank Ramsey, who said:
"We are here to defend democracy, not practice it."
Giving Harry Hell
Posted by on 10.4.05 @ 4:01PM
If you haven't heard, Harry Reid has launched a website in hopes of Democrats winning the Senate in 2006, Give 'Em Hell Harry. Gone are the glasses, suit, and general whimpering demeanor: this is Super Harry, Happy Alpha Male of Lake Tahoe. Same message, different packaging. Best of luck.
Mutts
Posted by on 10.4.05 @ 3:38PM
Reading the conservative blogosphere on the Miers nomination, I can't help but think of that speech Bill Murray made in "Stripes":
"We're all very different people; we're not Watoosie, we're not Spartans. We're Americans, with a capital A, huh? You know what that means? Do ya? That means that our forefathers were kicked out of every decent country in the world. We are the wretched refuse. We're underdogs, we're mutts! ... But there's no animal that's more faithful, that's more loyal, more loveable than the mutt. ..."
That pretty much sums up the President's nomination of Miers.
We'll try to write a bit more about this, but the level of nose-in-the-air elitism playing out now among conservatives is getting to be a bit much.
Hatch Piles on For Miers
Posted by on 10.4.05 @ 3:03PM
He likes her: "A lot of my fellow conservatives are concerned, but they don't know her as I do." Like Miers or not, her confirmation looks more like a fait accompli as the hours go by.
Poor Richard
Posted by on 10.4.05 @ 2:04PM
I was disappointed that the Washington Post's clown in residence Richard Cohen didn't come out today and apply his Roberts Perfection Standards test to Harriet Miers. You remember how last month Cohen variously attacked Roberts for not having "a touch my incompetence" and for not ever having been poor and for being too perfect in every way and for having too easy a life? So what happened with Miers? Cat get Richard's tongue?
As it happens every so often with Cohen, he did the right thing today and came out blasting those on his side who would demagogue and distort Bill Bennett's recent remarks.
But that doesn't get him off the hook for not reacting to Ms. Miers.
On The O'Reilly Factor Tonite
Posted by on 10.4.05 @ 12:33PM
I guess this is the most appropriate way to tell you that I'll be on with Bill O'Reilly tonight talking about blogs and their place in the political process. What say you? I think blogs are not just for fun. They are a valuable outlet for facts and commentary the public wants and needs because the news cycle has been reduced to real time. In the commentary biz today, if you ain't bloggin', you ain't in the game. See ya on the Fox News Channel.
Latest in the VA Gov. Race
Posted by on 10.4.05 @ 12:30PM
Kilgore up by 3 points in the latest Zogby poll. This tracks closely with recent Survey USA and Rasmussen polls. It also finds that everyone's favorite foul-mouthed maverick, Russ Potts, siphons votes off Democratic candidate Tim Kaine.
Where's the Beef?
Posted by on 10.4.05 @ 12:05PM
Contrived questions, contrived answers. Liberal reporters pretend like they care about runaway spending, President Bush pretends like he cares about his talking points. Yet another forgettable presidential press conference. The only subject President Bush really warmed to was "avian flu." Terry Moran, the annoying John-Boy of the press corps, made it clear to one and all that he can annunciate clearly LBJ's middle name. Bush's talking points on Miers weren't very convincing. "She will be a real good judge," should dispel all doubts. Â
Dubya Duckin' and Weavin'
Posted by on 10.4.05 @ 11:53AM
This president is best when he takes questions head-on. Which he wasn't doing. First, when asked about Miers being another Souter, he said, "I know her well enough to say she's not going to change." This is Washington, Mr. President. Respectfully, you don't know anyone that well. And when asked -- pointedly and repeatedly -- if he'd talked with her about Roe v. Wade, he would only say that he had no litmus test. When pressed further, he said - in a comment that's going to haunt both him and Miers - that he didn't recall ever sitting down with her, implying he'd never talked with her about Roe. It's inconceivable that he has never talked with her about abortion, her religious views, and how they combine to form her judgment on the subject of abortion. This will be used, effectively, against her in the hearings. Miers is still a very high-risk nominee, for exactly the reasons I wrote yesterday. When the president said "she knows exactly the kind of judge I'm looking for," he set her up for a devastating cross-exam by the Dems.
Signing Off
Posted by on 10.4.05 @ 11:41AM
Terry Moran's instant analysis: he can't recall a president "personally vouching" for a Supreme Court nominee as he did in his press conference. At least he didn't say "special pleading." In all, ABC's crew was stunned: it was a long press conference. They'll have the rest of the day to sort it out, just in time for Biased News Tonight.
People Will
Posted by on 10.4.05 @ 11:27AM
The NYPost's Deborah Orin is recognized. A strong conservative question of the sort you never used to hear at presidential press conferences. Bush here hits his stride -- Miers as a way to go around the "special interests" that try to control judicial nominations.
Chillin's Back
Posted by on 10.4.05 @ 11:27AM
Patrick Ruffini isn't sweating the Miers nomination. In fact, he's resurrected his "Coalition of the Chillin.'"
Times Aren't A-changing
Posted by on 10.4.05 @ 11:20AM
Finally, part two, a Plamegate question. All bases now covered: Miers, Katrina, spending, Iraq, DeLay. After all this, does Bush have any political capital left, the LA Times' Ed Chen asks. Probably more capital than in the coffers of Chen's paper. But for another answer, check Bush's address: 1600 PA Ave. NW is the home of political capital.
The 'ic' Factor
Posted by on 10.4.05 @ 11:10AM
Great anti-Democratic Party slur: The president has just referred to it as the "Democrat Party." Nothing irks Democrats more than that dismissive formulation.
The Press Conference as Shrink Couch
Posted by on 10.4.05 @ 11:07AM
What a tired question. Elisabeth Bumiller must have drawn straws for this Bush presser question, a variation of, "Where have you made mistakes?" How lazy. Pick a specific failure and ask him to comment.
Bumiller Time
Posted by on 10.4.05 @ 11:06AM
The NYTimes' Elisabeth Bumiller remains mired in New Orleans muck. Is there anything the president would have personally now done differently? Some people used to always have Paris. We'll always have New Orleans.
Moran in America
Posted by on 10.4.05 @ 11:02AM
Terry Moran now. A morning poison pill. But Bush is ready to take his medicine. Once "spending" becomes the topic, all eyes can glaze over.
Best in Class
Posted by on 10.4.05 @ 10:57AM
Again, for the third time, the President has stressed he picked the "best person" he could find. Now comes the abortion question. "I have no litmus test." "What matters is her judicial philosophy." "So there's no litmus test." "Not to my recollection have I ever sat down with her." John Roberts (of CBS, not the Supreme Court) to the rescue. An Iraq question.
Bush Live
Posted by on 10.4.05 @ 10:54AM
This is exciting, blogging while the President speaks (our timer is 12 minutes fast). Oh, oh, the Clarence Thomas moment: a President Bush has described his nominee as the most qualified he could have chosen. This is an odd event, a president on day two reintroducing, for all intents, his nominee. He has also had to explain he wants the private sector to lead post-Katrina/Rita recovery efforts. He's having to plug gaping holes in his political levee.
Bush, Fiscal Conservative
Posted by on 10.4.05 @ 10:52AM
At this morning's press conference, President Bush vowed to help Congress cut "non-security spending" to offset Katrina and Rita spending. He even said the word "offsets." It's a start.
The Miers Salve
Posted by on 10.4.05 @ 9:56AM
Amid the noise over Harriet Miers, what do the law profs think? Better yet, what do those law profs whose judgment I trust think? Two of them should give conservatives pause in their reaction to President Bush nominating Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.
Notre Dame Law Professor Rick Garnett is pleased. And Douglas Kmiec, former Catholic University Law School dean and Pepperdine law professor, writes today that the critics are rushing to "prejudgment":
Conservative and liberal alike were dumbfounded. With a long list of distinguished federal jurists and formidable constitutional minds to choose from, how could the president select someone lacking not only a Supreme Court clerkship but, as far as anyone knows, even a Supreme Court appearance?
Easy. The president actually believes that, as Alexander Hamilton put it, the Supreme Court is intended to be "the least dangerous" branch of government.
"Wait and see" sounds much better this morning.
Miers
Posted by on 10.4.05 @ 9:26AM
President Bush does a newser at 10:30. We'll be there.
I'm sure he'll be asked about this. Not sure what to make of it. If Miers had no interest in the group's endorsement, why bother? The answers in themselves don't reveal much, beyond a sensibility that no one would appear to object to.
There is some pessimism about this nomination inside and outside the White House with current and former aides. But in the past 18 hours, the White House has done a good job of getting the right people talking about Miers. Given where we stood yesterday morning on this nomination, it's fair to say we've moved over to the supportive side of things. Will go into specifics later, but there is now a comfort zone with Miers that we didn't have a day ago.
This is the problem, however. This comfort zone is based entirely on personal relationships. Friends telling friends that Miers can be trusted, that she's solid. There is nothing more. And that is a huge problem for the White House right now.
WWHD
Posted by on 10.4.05 @ 8:26AM
Cronyism? It's not just a partisan charge, but a constitutional one and one of the main reasons for the Senate's advice and consent. Boston University Law School Professor Randy Barnett asks, "What would Hamilton do?" about the Harriet Miers nomination and finds he would be none too happy.
John Roberts' Big Day
Posted by on 10.4.05 @ 8:15AM
Chief Justice Roberts had no problem slipping into his new role yesterday, quickly letting lawyers before the Court know who's running the show. Hey, one for two isn't bad. Right?
Brock Meets Baudelaire
Posted by on 10.4.05 @ 2:05AM
Our old friend David Brock has been back in the news, smearing Bill Bennett with unrestrained glee. Well, every bad boy gets his comeuppance, and Brock's occurs in the November issue of the Atlantic. Bernard Henri-Levy, in the fourth installment from his travels across America, has this to report on one of the Democrats he met in Washington. It isn't pretty. The only mitigating factor is that we're not reading it in the original French:
We are always a little ashamed, Baudelaire wrote, of mentioning names that won't mean anything to anyone in fifty years.In the case of David Brock the shame is redoubled.
First of all because you won't need fifty years, or twenty, or even ten, to see this name disappear from American political memory. But also because the character himself is in many respects one of the most objectively loathsome I've met in the ten months I've been traveling through this country.
He is a little over forty years old. Dark brown hair, smug good looks, thin wire-rimmed glasses. The well-defined square jaw of a tennis pro. Yet in the corners of his mouth; in the self-satisfied bitterness of his smile; in his morose, fugitive glance; last, in his odd complacency in not sparing any detail of his shadowy past, there is something that makes me deeply uneasy....
No kidding. More mysterious is why "bigwig" Democrats urged Monsieur Levy to see him. Is he really their most valuable property? Wasn't Sidney Blumenthal available? Or Rahm Emanuel? (Speaking of whom, if Emanuel is the best the Democrats have to speak against Tom DeLay, as he did ever so unctuously on Sunday's "Meet the Press," DeLay is already home free.)
Monday, October 3, 2005
Passed Balls
Posted by on 10.3.05 @ 8:13PM
When I got to the office today I found a phone message left over from Friday asking who I was for this past weekend, New York or Boston. Neither, was my response. I was for Cleveland. As it happened, Cleveland lost its final key games and failed to qualify for baseball's playoffs. Boston won two of three to qualify. The Yankees, by winning just once, ended up division champions.
But wait a second. I check the final standings and they indicate New York and Boston ended with identical records. New York's won the eastern division by beating Boston more often than Boston beat it. What a rinky-dink rule. Senator McCain ought to hold a hearing.
And did you notice that Washington remains first in war, first in peace, and last in the...National League East? But otherwise it was a wondrous year for the local Nationals. They ended the season 81-81, a textbook case of gridlock. Vice President Cheney wasn't allowed to cast the deciding vote.
Prediction: Conservatives boycott Nationals' opener next year. Justice Harriet Miers throws out the first ball.
Method in the Miers Madness?
Posted by on 10.3.05 @ 8:09PM
Pat Buchanan is wrong in writing that Harriet Miers lacks any qualification that justifies her nomination to the Supreme Court. An administration source I spoke to late this afternoon emphasized her Evangelical Christian belief. Miers is not a casual church goer, the source said, but one of the real faithful. Is there method in the president's Miers madness? Is she the anti-Roe stealth weapon? And to what lengths are the Dems prepared to question her religious belief? If James Dobson is happy, then the liberal alphabet -- ACLU, PFAW, NOW, NARAL -- and all the Michael Mooron Dems cannot be. Curiouser and curiouser.
Civil Liberties on Retreat in Chicago
Posted by on 10.3.05 @ 7:08PM
Ah, the Windy City. Where you get "cooler by the lake," two baseball teams on the same "L" line, a park running uninterrupted for miles and miles along the water, dozens upon dozens of distinct neighborhoods, one of the biggest Mexican populations, a street that looks straight out of New Dehli, highways only known by their given names, and great free music festivals. In short, it's my favorite big city, as big cities go.
That status may be quickly spoiled this week as the city Health Committee may pass a public smoking ban Wednesday, for consideration by the City Council Thursday. It would be a victory for the finicky lungs of the few over the civilization of the many.
Charge Number Two
Posted by on 10.3.05 @ 6:55PM
For Tom DeLay. The conspiracy charge alone seemed flimsy to observers last week. If Ronnie Earle were planning to file both charges, why didn't he wait until both were ready?
White House Spin
Posted by on 10.3.05 @ 5:16PM
This is the latest document the White House is putting out to shut down conservative unrest over the Miers nomination.Â
A couple points before you all buy into it however. Consider that Miers had little to nothing to do with the renomination of the conservative judges Owens, et al. Planning for those nomination had been done by the previous inhabitants of the White House Counsel's Office and the Department of Justice in the winter of 2004. By the time Miers showed up, the deal was done, and most of the folks involved were either back in the private sector or over at DOJ with Gonzales.
There is no evidence of any kind of "deal" involving the White House and senior Democrats, such as leader Harry Reid and ranking Judiciary Dem Patrick Leahy. But Leahy, while cagey during his statement this afternoon, definitely had Miers on his list of five acceptables he presented to the White House. And now, the spin:
MEET PRESIDENT BUSH’S SCOTUS NOMINEE HARRIET MIERS
Conservative Leaders Support Harriet Miers:
James C. Dobson, Focus On The Family Chairman:
"We Welcome The President’s Nomination Of Harriet Miers To The U.S. Supreme Court. … Harriet Miers Appears To Be An Outstanding Nominee For The Supreme Court."(Focus On The Family Action, "Dobson Welcomes Miers’ Nomination," Press Release, 10/3/05)Hugh Hewitt, Conservative Talk Show Host:
"The President Is A Poker Player In A Long Game. He’s Decided To Take A Sure Win With A Good Sized Pot. I Trust Him. So Should His Supporters."(Hugh Hewitt, "Do You Trust Him," www.hughhewitt.com, 10/3/05)Jay Sekulow, American Center For Law And Justice Chief Counsel:
Sekulow: "Harriet Miers Is An Excellent Choice With An Extraordinary Record Of Service In The Legal Community And Is Certain To Approach Her Work On The High Court With A Firm Commitment To Follow The Constitution And The Rule Of Law. I Have Been Privileged To Work With Her In Her Capacity As White House Counsel."
Spence Abraham,
"I Have Had The Chance To Work Closely With Harriet Miers For The Past Four Years And Am Confident That She Will Bring The Same Integrity And Intelligence To The Court Which She Has Displayed In The Important Legal And Governmental Posts She Has Held."(Committee For Justice, "CFJ Congratulates President On Miers Nomination," Press Release, 10/3/05)Leonard Leo:
"In Nominating Harriet Miers, The President Has Once Again Kept His Commitment To Select Supreme Court Justices Who Are Very Well Qualified And Share His Philosophy Of Interpreting The Law, Not Legislating From The Bench." (Leonard Leo, Memo To Interested Parties Re: Nomination Of Harriet E. Miers, 10/3/05)·
 Leo: "She Has Also On A Number Of Occasions Demonstrated Her Commitment To Conservative Legal Principles And The Principles Of Judicial Restraint In Fairly Applying The Law, And Not Making Public Policy From The Bench."(Leonard Leo, Memo To Interested Parties Re: Nomination Of Harriet E. Miers, 10/3/05)Ronald A. Cass, Committee For Justice, Co-Chair:
"The President Promised Another Nomination Of Someone Who Would Be A Thoughtful, Accomplished Lawyer Who Respects The Rule Of Law. His Nomination Of Harriet Miers Is Fully In Keeping With This Model."(Committee For Justice, "CFJ Congratulates President On Miers Nomination," Press Release, 10/3/05)Wendy Long, Judicial Confirmation Network:
"[Miers Is] Going To Modestly And Strictly Interpret The Constitution And Laws. It’s A Lot Of What We Heard From John Roberts."(CNN’s "Live Today," 10/3/05)Long: "I’ve Met [Miers] During The Course Of The Administration. She’s A Very Bright Woman, But She’s Modest And Understated. She’s Very Prudent. She’s Discrete. All Those Are Important Qualities For A Judge."
Brian McCabe, Progress For America:
"Harriet Miers Is A Superb Choice For Associate Justice Of The United States Supreme Court. … Like The Late-Chief Justice Rehnquist, She Has Practical Experience Outside The Bench."(Progress For America, "Harriet Miers Merits Same Fair Treatment As John Roberts," Press Release, 10/3/05)Rev. William Owens, President Coalition Of African-American Pastors:
"We Are Pleased With The President’s Nomination Of Harriet Miers To The U. S. Supreme Court. The President Pledged To Appoint Judges Who Will Apply The Law Rather Than Make Up New Law, And We Believe He Has Not Disappointed Us So Far." (Coalition Of African-American Pastors, Press Release, 10/3/05)Miers Has Contributed To Conservative Republicans:
Harriet Miers Has Given $16,500 To Republicans And Only $3,000 To Democrats.
(Political Money Line Website, www.tray.com, Accessed 10/3/05)Miers Contributions To Conservative Republicans Include:
·
 Miers Gave $2,000 To Bush-Cheney ‘04 In 2003.(Political Money Line Website, www.tray.com, Accessed 10/3/05)·
 Miers Gave $1,000 To George Bush For President In 1999. (The Center For Responsive Politics Website, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 10/3/05)·
 Miers Gave $1,000 To The Bush-Cheney 2000 Compliance Committee In 2000. (Political Money Line Website, www.tray.com, Accessed 10/3/05)·
 Miers Gave $5,000 To The Bush-Cheney 2000 Recount Fund In 2000. (Political Money Line Website, www.tray.com, Accessed 10/3/05)·
 Miers Gave Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) $1,000 In 1999 And 1997. (The Center For Responsive Politics Website, www.opensecrets.orgAccessed 10/3/05)·
 Miers Gave Phil Gramm (R-TX) For President $1,000 In 1995 And Phil Gramm For Senate (R-TX) $1,000 In 1996. (The Center For Responsive Politics Website, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 10/3/05)·
 Miers Gave Pete Sessions (R-TX) $500 In 1991, 1994 And 1995. (The Center For Responsive Politics Website, www.opensecrets.orgMiers Challenged American Bar Association’s Pro-Abortion Stance:
"As President Of The Texas State Bar In 1993, Harriet Miers Urged The National American Bar Association To Put The Abortion Issue To A Referendum Of The Group’s Full Membership."
(Anne Gearan, "Miers A Leader In Unsuccessful Move To Revisit American Bar Association’s Pro-Abortion Stance," The Associated Press, 10/3/05)"Miers Was Among A Group Of Lawyers From The Texas Bar And Elsewhere Who Had Argued That The ABA Should Have A Neutral Stance On Abortion."
(Anne Gearan, "Miers A Leader In Unsuccessful Move To Revisit American Bar Association’s Pro-Abortion Stance," The Associated Press, 10/3/05)·
 "[Miers] Questioned At The Time Whether The ABA Should ‘Be Trying To Speak For The Entire Legal Community’ On An Issue That She Said ‘Has Brought On Tremendous Divisiveness’ Within The ABA."(Anne Gearan, "Miers A Leader In Unsuccessful Move To Revisit American Bar Association’s Pro-Abortion Stance," The Associated Press, 10/3/05)"Although Miers’ Personal View Of Abortion Was Not Explicit In 1993, Leonard Leo, A White House Adviser On Supreme Court Nominations Highlighted Her Efforts As Part Of The Reason That ‘Conservatives Should Be Very Happy With This Selection.’"
(Anne Gearan, "Miers A Leader In Unsuccessful Move To Revisit American Bar Association’s Pro-Abortion Stance," The Associated Press, 10/3/05)Miers Heavily Involved In The War On Terror:
"As White House Counsel, Miers Describes Herself As Lawyer To The Presidency And The President. It Is A Job That Has An Impact On Almost Every Major Decision Made In The White House …"
(Michael A. Fletcher, "Quiet But Ambitious White House Counsel Makes Life Of Law," The Washington Post, 6/21/05)·
"Working With Her Staff Of 13 Lawyers, And In Cooperation With The Justice Department, Miers’s Office Provides Guidance On Issues From The Legal Parameters For The War On Terrorism To Presidential Speeches."(Michael A. Fletcher, "Quiet But Ambitious White House Counsel Makes Life Of Law," The Washington Post, 6/21/05)As Staff Secretary, Miers Was "The Person Who Screen[ed] All The Documents That Cross[ed] The President’s Desk."
 (Michael A. Fletcher, "Quiet But Ambitious White House Counsel Makes Life Of Law," The Washington Post, 6/21/05)Harriet Miers Helped President Bush Choose Strong Conservatives For America’s Courts:
Miers Became White House Counsel On February 3, 2005 Upon The Confirmation Of Alberto Gonzales To Be Attorney General.
(Gonzales Nomination, CQ Vote #3: Confirmed 60-36: R 54-0; D 6-35; I 0-1, 2/3/05; U.S. Department Of State Website, http://usinfo.state.gov, Accessed 10/3/05)·
 On July 19, 2005, President Bush Nominated John Roberts To Be Associate Justice To The Supreme Court.(President George W. Bush, Remarks At The White House, 7/19/05)o
 On September 5, 2005, President Bush Nomination John Roberts To Be Chief Justice Of The United States (Roberts Was Later Confirmed). (President George W. Bush, Remarks At The White House, 9/5/05)·
 During The 109th Congress, President Bush Resubmitted The Nomination Of Janice Rogers Brown To The D.C. Circuit Court Of Appeals (Rogers Brown Was Later Confirmed).(U.S. Department Of Justice Website, http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/nominations.htm, Accessed 10/3/05; Brown Nomination, CQ Vote #131: Nomination Confirmed 56-43: R 55-0; D 1-43; I 0-0, 6/8/05)·
 During The 109th Congress, President Bush Resubmitted The Nomination Of Priscilla Owen To The 5th Circuit Court Of Appeals (Owens Was Later Confirmed). (U.S. Department Of Justice Website, http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/nominations.htm, Accessed 10/3/05; Owen Nomination, CQ Vote #128: Nomination Confirmed 55-43: R 54-1; D 2-41; I 0-1, 5/25/05)·
 During The 109th Congress, President Bush Resubmitted The Nomination Of William Pryor To The 11th Circuit Court Of Appeals (Pryor Was Later Confirmed). (U.S. Department Of Justice Website, http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/nominations.htm, Accessed 10/3/05; Pryor Nomination, CQ Vote #133: Nomination Confirmed 53-45; R 51-3; D 2-43; I 0-0, 6/9/05)·
 During The 109th Congress, President Bush Resubmitted The Nomination Of Brett Kavanaugh To The D.C. Circuit Court Of Appeals.(U.S. Department Of Justice Website, http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/nominations.htm, Accessed 10/3/05)·
 During The 109th Congress, President Bush Resubmitted The Nomination Of Henry Saad To The 6th Circuit Court Of Appeals. (U.S. Department Of Justice Website, http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/nominations.htm, Accessed 10/3/05) , Committee For Justice, Co-Chair:
Miers Plays For ABA
Posted by on 10.3.05 @ 4:24PM
One of the good early moves of the Bush administration was to eject the ABA from any formal role in the vetting process for judicial nominees. That dumb practice had hardened into custom, and the left howled when the Bush administration dispensed with it. Miers opposed that decision. So the welcome news that Miers urged the ABA to knock off its pro-abortion propaganda may be counterbalanced by her cooperation with the ABA in other dubious areas.
Walk on the Bright Side
Posted by on 10.3.05 @ 4:14PM
Temperamental contrarian that I am, I'm trying hard to find something nice to say about the Harriet Miers nomination. It isn't easy! But here's my first stab:
1. She's not that unqualified, when compared to other non-judge Supreme Court nominees. Compare her resume to those of Pierce Butler or Lewis Powell, for example.
2. She's a member of an evangelical church, and she advocated changing the ABA's official stance on abortion (they're for it). You don't have to be pro-life to be anti-Roe, but it's very unusual to find pro-lifers who are pro-Roe. (It is theoretically possible, I suppose, for a person to think that abortion should be illegal but that Roe was correctly decided, or at least sacrosanct on stare decisis grounds. This hypothetical person, who would presumably be a vocal proponent of a Human Life Amendment, is not someone I've ever met.)
The big problem is that there are important issues apart from just abortion to worry about in contemporary jurisprudence -- and someone like Miers, who hasn't worked on constitutional law much, probably hasn't thought much about those issues. So I'm not completely sanguine, but I'm trying.
Miers' Tepid Reception
Posted by on 10.3.05 @ 3:19PM
The press releases are out.
On the left, the National Organization for Women can only guess what it doesn't know:
Miers' potential as a justice is unknown at this point.... It remains to be seen where Miers stands on those and virtually every other issue. She has no paper trail and has never served as a judge - quite simply, her future conduct on the Court may be impossible to determine. Should the Senate confirm someone to a lifetime appointment with so little information? We think not. NOW urges the Senate to ask tough questions, insist on answers, and refuse to confirm this nomination unless they can establish that Miers supports the fundamental rights of women.
Tough questions? Not exactly scathing. And from the right, the Family Research Council is holding fire after waiting most of the day to issue a release:
...However, our lack of knowledge about Harriet Miers, and the absence of a record on the bench, give us insufficient information from which to assess whether or not she is indeed in that [Scalia and Thomas] mold.In the days to come, Harriet Miers will have the chance to demonstrate such a philosophy. We will be watching closely as the confirmation process begins, and we urge American families to wait and see if the confidence we have always placed in the President's commitment is justified by this selection.
In other words, it may not be as bad as you think. James Taranto has a similar take: "Glenn Reynolds declares himself 'underwhelmed,' and that pretty well captures our feeling too. We hope we're proved wrong -- but we hate it when we have to say that."
Vice President Cheney
Posted by on 10.3.05 @ 2:40PM
"Well, we've never backed off from a fight with this Congress or any other Congress. ..." This was the Vice President's response to Rush Limbaugh in discussing the perception that perhaps the Miers nomination was to avoid a fight with Senate Democrats.
The problem is, the Vice President is just wrong. The White House promised a veto of the transporation bill, then punted. The White House had an opportunity to take a more market-oriented Katrina recovery approach and turned it into the New New Deal. The White House was told by more than a dozen Republican Senators that they would fight hard for a Scalia-type conservative Supreme Court nominee this time around, and instead they get someone who looks like an also-ran in a Norma Desmond lookalike contest.
White House Strategy
Posted by on 10.3.05 @ 2:01PM
In strategy meetings this morning, senior White House presidential advisers stressed to their staffs that the conservative anger they were hearing about regarding the Harriet Miers nomination to the Supreme Court would "dissipate" over the next 48 hours and everyone would soon realize the Miers confirmation was inevitable. "The impression is that people will be unhappy, but they won't actively oppose the nomination," says one attendee of a meeting. "They don't mind the anger, what makes them nervous is active opposition. Besides, they figure that the business lobby is going to do most of the heavy lifting just like they did on Roberts."
It may not work out that way. Already there are rumblings that a number of groups that quickly fell in line behind Roberts are preparing press releases that take much more of a hedge on Miers.
Already, too, there is increasing anger after Miers appeared so quickly with Sen. Harry Reid, who touted her qualifications, and Sen. Chuck Schumer cited conservative agitation as evidence that Miers must be a good pick.
Counter View
Posted by on 10.3.05 @ 1:53PM
Marvin Olasky here gets an interesting take on the Miers nomination, but read through the five posts from Olasky's interview with the state supreme court judge, and then read the brief remarks from the pastor of Miers' church. One gets the sense that they were reading off the same hymnal provided by the White House Communications office. Not a good sign when close friends need talking points to get through a friendly interview.
All due respect ...
Posted by on 10.3.05 @ 1:40PM
...to Hugh Hewitt, Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society and others, but the "Trust President Bush" line is getting old pretty fast. In discussions with folks on the Hill this morning, when asked about the "trust Bush" line for nominations such as Harriet Miers, the reply was almost always something along the lines of : "Trust which President Bush? The one who nominated Roberts or the one who signed the Transportation bill?
While the Bush White House was scrambling this morning to shore up support -- Federalist Society has endorsed, as has Jay Sekulow -- there was a growing sense of frustration among conservatives.
"We were lied to," says one Senate aide whose boss serves on the Judiciary Committee. "White House staff sat in my boss's office and told him that 'He'd be more than happy with the nominee.' That is not the case."
As well, there is now grumbling of Bush team insiders that the White House is doing some resume burnishing once again. Perhaps in an attempt to bring longtime Bush loyalists on board, the White House is touting Miers's role in the Bush v. Gore case. But lawyers involved in that case have no recollection of Miers playing a particularly important role.
Weighty Conservatism
Posted by on 10.3.05 @ 1:13PM
Lost in the hurricane over Harriet has been this confirmation, courtesy of Howard Kurtz, of extensive liberal media bias within the confines of his paper, the Washington Post:
On Thursday, [Post] Book World Editor Marie Arana, noting that she had been "a Young Republican at 15, a marching SDSer at 20, and roundly disgusted by the blue-team, red-team political dialogue by the time I turned 30," criticized an article on what was called a "stealth evangelism" festival by saying: "The elephant in the newsroom is our narrowness. Too often, we wear liberalism on our sleeve and are intolerant of other lifestyles and opinions....We're not very subtle about it at this paper: If you work here, you must be one of us. You must be liberal, progressive, a Democrat. I've been in communal gatherings in The Post, watching election returns, and have been flabbergasted to see my colleagues cheer unabashedly for the Democrats."
Ms. Arana's remarks came in one of the internal e-mails in which Post employees have been commenting on the state of their paper. Her boss, executive editor Len Downie, found her comments make clear the paper has "a diverse staff when it comes to ideological backgrounds." So a single conservative balances out scores of liberals? That's a heady thought. Coming next: How many liberals does it take to change a conservative light bulb?
Conservative Comments
Posted by on 10.3.05 @ 12:54PM
In case you haven't been reading our Comment sections, here is a quick overview of reaction from readers around the country on AmSpecBlog today:
Vic: "The President is playing for a tie."
JP: "Watch how the Democratic Senators treatment of her evolves; they may see a kindred spirit."
Ken: "Probably the best we can hope for is mediocrity. Please plant no more Bushes on the White House grounds -- ever."
Mark P: "This is the last straw for me."
Jennifer: "W promised us a Scalia or a Thomas."
G. Deveney: "There are many Conservative women Judges deserving of this position…I personally will no longer trust the GOP."
Cathy: "...what next, is he going to appoint Jimmy Carter to dole out the billions in FEMA funds which will bankrupt this country?"
John: "He has left all of the red states red faced...."
And that's just a lunchtime sampling.
Miers and Religion
Posted by on 10.3.05 @ 12:54PM
According to Marvin Olasky, Miers had a Catholic upbringing, falling away into an evangelical Christian church in Dallas. Did that appeal to Bush? Apparently she has been to a few "pro-life dinners," according to one of Olasky's sources.
JusticeMiers.com
Posted by on 10.3.05 @ 11:59AM
Well, that was quick. Progress for America has already rolled out its website in support of Harriet Miers for Supreme Court justice. The first quote in her support? President Bush describing her as "a pit bull in size 6 shoes." Can we confirm that shoe size please?
Federalist Society Call
Posted by on 10.3.05 @ 11:49AM
It was not a pleasant experience on the Federalist Society call this morning. Word is now out that Harriet Miers was a registered Democrat for many years, albeit, according to former Republican National Committee Chairman, a conservative Democrat.
A number of folks were disappointed that the Federalist Society and several other conservative groups have already endorsed the Miers nomination. We don't expect that to hold.
From conversations up on Capitol Hill and elsewhere, the cronyism line appears to be building the biggest momentum right now. That and her utter lack of qualifications compared to other names that were under consideration.
In speaking with one of our White House sources, the word spreading through those halls right now is that President Bush and Miers never discussed particular issues that might come before the court.
'No Constitutionalist Credentials'
Posted by on 10.3.05 @ 11:29AM
Bill Kristol has a snap judgment: "I'm disappointed, depressed, and demoralized." But for a pick-me-up while you're there, check out WS's redesigned site.
First Impressions
Posted by on 10.3.05 @ 11:12AM
I love it how we're all instant experts on the president's nominee. But first things first: how did Harriet Miers come across in her statement? One immediate thing to like: her Dallas, Texas accent. It'll be enough to drive the liberals crazy, a constant reminder she's not one of them. Plus she struck all the right notes:
"...I have always had a great respect and admiration for the genius that inspired our Constitution and our system of government."
"It is the responsibility of every generation to be true to the founders' vision of the proper role of the courts in our society."
Working with members of Congress as White House counsel "has given me an eager -- even greater appreciation for the role of the legislative branch in our constitutional system."
This doesn't sound like a woman who will legislate from the bench.
One other thing: Bush will be fried for his cronyism. But it's his prerogative to nominate whomever he decides on. He's the president. Cheney headed Bush's vice-presidential search and ended up the veep himself. Miers played a similar roll in vetting Bush candidates to the federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court, and now ends up a top choice herself. What was good in the case of Cheney can't be in Miers's case?
Miers, Woman of Mystery
Posted by on 10.3.05 @ 11:09AM
If the president wanted to choose a stealthy candidate for the Supreme Court, he could hardly have done better. Harriet Miers -- former law firm managing partner, former president of the Texas Bar Association, now White House counsel -- has no record of judicial decisions from which her judicial approaches can be discerned. The president undoubtedly thinks he knows her mind, and he surely does. But only in one limited sense, and that may have nothing to do with the manner she performs her duties on the Supreme Court.
Miers has apparently never served in a job that required her to perform independently. She has, as we know so far, not done the independent intellectual exercise expected of every Supreme Court justice. To be someone's lawyer, a hired gun, is to provide, as Miers has, advice and representation that supports the client's goals. In court or out, the lawyer must do his best to advocate the position the client desires. That means researching the law and precedent and applying them to the facts as will benefit the client's position. A judge, especially a Supreme Court justice, is supposed to have no agenda and apply the Constitution only by its own words and precedent, and to do the same to state and federal law. It is only in judicial roles that someone can themselves be judged when nominated to the highest court.
Miers may well be another Scalia, as the president promised his nominees would be. But it's just as likely -- perhaps even more so -- that she will be a Souter or a Stevens. A justice who, once relieved of the responsibilities of representing clients, finds a new ideology to match a new persona. There is no absolute criterion to disqualify Miers on the basis of her lack of judicial experience. But we have to recognize that the risk she poses is exponentially higher than a Brown, a Luttig or even an Estrada.
The president may have chosen Miers to douse some of the liberal firestorm that would have engulfed many other nominations. He probably hasn't diminished the liberal fire by much, and to the extent he has it is by setting some of the right aflame. One of my sainted law partners used to tell me, "A judge never has a bad day." And I would always answer, "Yes, but they make bad days for the rest of us." For conservatives, Miers is a high-risk choice. She may bring commensurate rewards, but I'm not betting much on it.
Miers and Melvin Belli
Posted by on 10.3.05 @ 10:37AM
Dianne Feinstein should be happy to know that Miers worked a summer for plantiffs attorney Melvin Belli in San Francisco, according to a Legal Times story from 2004.
The Picker Gets Picked
Posted by on 10.3.05 @ 9:58AM
Among her touted qualifications:
POTUS: "Harriet has built a reputation for fairness and integrity. When I came to office as the governor of Texas, the Lottery Commission needed a leader of unquestioned integrity."
The Lottery Commission?
The Spin Begins ...
Posted by on 10.3.05 @ 9:49AM
It appears the same team that steered the Roberts nomination will be handling the Miers nomination. We're on a conference call with folks who are pushing the Miers nomination talking points. Without breaking confidences, it is clear the White House is expecting major pushback from conservatives on this selection.
The Right on Miers
Posted by on 10.3.05 @ 9:34AM
The reaction on the right to the nomination of Harriet Miers appears cold at best, as the Prowler has already reported from White House sources. The RedState guys are none too happy: "It appears, for what it is worth, that George W. Bush was the ultimate stealth nominee." And what of the DNC and Al Gore donations? Without any sort of record of her legal thinking, this info gives conservatives very little to go on. And the Freepers? They're apoplectic.
Conservative Filibuster?
Posted by on 10.3.05 @ 9:08AM
Just spoke with a staffer for a conservative member of the Judiciary Committee whose boss is extremely unhappy about the nomination of Harriet Miers.
"We heard her name. We made it clear that she was unacceptable as a nominee on the basis of qualifications and her views, which we simply don't know anything about," says the staffer. "We worked with her on policy issues, though, before she was elevated to White House counsel and let's just say we were underwhelmed."
There is now talk of among some conservatives about a filibuster of the Miers nomination. Never mind the Al Gore donations or the money that was floated to the DNC when Miers was a managing partner in a law firm, those can be explained away as "good for the business of the firm."
Unfortunately, given the level of support Miers appears to be generating among Democrats, such a move appears impossible, though admirable.
According to several White House sources, few inside the building took the possibility of a Miers nomination seriously. Now that it's a reality, they are stunned. "We passed up Gonzales for this?" was one conservative staffer's reaction. "I don't know much about Gonzales, but I think I know enough that he's more of a conservative than Harriet is."
Conservatives staffers inside the White House were pushing a number of names early last week, but said they felt frustrated by lack of traction on any of them. "It became clear on Wednesday that he had a nominee in place and he was just waiting on timing," says another White House staffer.
According to this staffer the fact that it was Miers was one reason the President chose not to put the name out last Friday as some had hoped. "Between Frist's problems and DeLay's problems, we were concerned that the Miers nomination would have so many conservatives pissed at us that it would just be awful. I can't tell you how unhappy some of us insider here are right now. We go from the high of John Roberts to this."
Miers Reaction
Posted by on 10.3.05 @ 8:39AM
No emails from left-wing interest groups are flooding the inbox denouncing Miers as a grave threat to women's rights. And the New York Times reports... that there's nothing to report.
"A Pioneer in The Field of Law"
Posted by on 10.3.05 @ 8:19AM
Bush on Harriet Miers: "A justice must be a person of accomplishment and fair legal judgment... must strictly apply the laws of the Constitution of the United States, not legislate from the bench."
It's Official -- And Unofficial
Posted by on 10.3.05 @ 7:33AM
President Bush will announce his Supreme Court nominee at 8 a.m. -- and the Post's Court blog reports Harriet Miers speculation.
UPDATE: The AP's pretty confident: "Bush Chooses Miers for Supreme Court."
Jumping on Patty's Wagon
Posted by on 10.3.05 @ 2:24AM
I saw somewhere on Townhall.com that Michigan Democrats Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow were "the only senators from the same state belonging to the same party" who split their votes in the Roberts confirmation last week. Actually, that's not so. Washington state's scintillating Democratic duo, Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, did the same thing, Murray like Levin voting to confirm, Cantwell like Stabenow to oppose.
Unlike Red state Democrats who voted to confirm because they're running for re-election next year, Blue staters Stabenow and Cantwell, who are also up for re-election in 2006, voted to oppose. Does that tell us anything, other than that they're obnoxious?
Though maybe not as obnoxious as Maryland's Paul Sarbanes, who is retiring this term and voted against Roberts apparently just for spite. He gave no explanation that I'm aware of.
In view of her Year of the Woman origins, Patty Murray's yes vote was clearly a surprise. If Washington state editorial reactions are any indications, she's received no flack. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer praised both Washington senators and said "each of them was right," which is another way of saying whatever a liberal senator decides is fine so long as she's a liberal. The Columbian of Vancouver, Washington, went even further, hailing both Murray and Cantwell as "conscientious," and said "both voted correctly, albeit differently." The Columbian's editorialists also kept their eye on the big picture, noting there were some who "might have felt uncomfortable that [Roberts] would become the fourth Catholic (most ever) on the court." What strange prejudices lurk in the hearts of provincial liberal man.
Nonessential Driving
Posted by on 10.3.05 @ 1:37AM
Yesterday's Nascar crash day extravaganza at the sublimely named Talladega Superspeedway in Alabama provided more thrills, wrecks, and flips per rpm than any Hollywood disaster flick could ever match.
It also reminded me of a classic letter I saw the other day in the New York Times regarding how the nation might cope with the hurricane and Bush-caused gasoline crunch. A fun-loving Kyle M. Medley of New York City wrote in:
A suggestion to President Bush on how to limit gasoline consumption: no more Nascar circuit, which is a complete waste of gasoline on the race cars themselves and on the large motor homes that the fans drive to follow the circuit.Nascar is the quintessential example of nonessential driving.
In his weekly column today Jed Babbin writes about how media like the New York Times drive the Democratic Party's agenda. A letter like Mr. Medley's, in turn, offers a kind of preview of the Times' coming cutting-edge arguments. As everyone knows, the Times is now charging Internet users big bucks to access such nonessential columnists like Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman. If there were intelligent design at that paper, its publisher would instead by charging for access to its Letters page. That's where real liberal thinking is hatched.
Sunday, October 2, 2005
Order in the Court?
Posted by on 10.2.05 @ 6:19PM
The White House was breathing a sigh of relief on Sunday afternoon: no major dustups on the Sunday morning talk shows, no huge headlines breaking through to carry over into the early part of the week, seeming clarity on the Frist investment story, etc.
That clears the way for a Supreme Court announcement should the President decide to move quickly and pick up a week's worth of possibly good news. Too many names in play right now to make predictions, but one source we speak to fairly regularly made clear the President is not locking himself into young, or minority, or woman picks. That may mean Michael Luttig is more in play than we had been led to believe. It means a woman older than 50 might be in play (good news for a certain judge with ties to Ohio).
The greatest argument for the President to go with a strict constructionist is the political legacy he can create for the Republican Party down the road. A strong conservative majority on the court frees up the GOP to hold the political lights of Giuliani to less rigorous social litmus tests, and to focus on winning elections with the best man or woman available. That would be a good thing, particularly in 2008, when the political dynamics will be wildly different from where they are now.
Will They or Won't They?
Posted by on 10.2.05 @ 6:07PM
Tonight's last-minute emergency talks among the EUnuchs, deciding whether the negotiations to admit Turkey can commence tomorrow, are apparently deadlocked. Austria wants to block Turkish membership, and has offered a "privileged partnership" in its place. Turkish PM Erdogan has pursued membershp as relentlessly as several predecessors, and has already rejected the Austrian proposal. Erdogan said that if Turkey weren't allowed to begin talks on full membership -- even though that means acceptance of about 85,000 pages of EU law -- Turkey would walk away. He said that the EU would then merely be a "Christian club."
It's not at all clear that Turkey would benefit from membership, except to export its unemployed to France and other EU members. (France's "Polish plumber" problem times ten.) But if Turkey is rejected, or even delayed again, the most moderate, Westernized and democratic nation in the Muslim world will be further alienated not only from the EU but from us, and given a big incentive to drift closer to Russia or Middle Eastern allies. The Turks are not Arabs; they have no cultural inclination to divorce themselves from NATO and join with the Arabs.
For decades, Turkey was the cornerstone of NATO, blocking Soviet expansion though the Caucasus and into Iran. The Erdogan government, far more closely linked to Islamists, but not itself Islamist, will find it harder to maintain its moderation. And when we consider that fact, we must remember that Turkey's northeastern border is "Kurdistan," and its determination to prevent an independent Kurdistan is one of the things that can hold Iraq together, or not.
The EU will act, as it always does, on the basis of its own economic interests and without regard to how it will affect the war on terror. If it rejects or delays full membership for Turkey, we should step in quickly and decisively. Will Turkey slide away from democracy and into a theocratic state radical Islamic state? As unlikely as it seems now, if Turkey is continuously pushed away from the West, its professional military (still the most powerful political force) will not be able to resist Islamization forever. Some are calling for an Islamic economic alliance, with an obvious eye on Turkey's problem with the EU. Instead of standing by while this might happen, why can't we offer a Turkish version of NAFTA to help Turkish moderates keep their nation democratic? We can compete with the EU, and succeed where they fail. It's Palmerston time again. We have no permanent friends or permanent enemies, only permanent interests. Turkey has been a valuable ally. It is our interest to keep it so.
- The Man From La Fortaleza
- Who's Really Conservative?
- Common Prayer, Uncommon Beauty
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
