And while I have great deference to President Bush, and faith that he will fulfill his promise to appoint originalists in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, I am not sold on Miers. But likewise, I can't say I oppose her as much as I harbor some disappointment in those who could have been...
Miers' responses to the questionnaire from the Judiciary Committee were released yesterday. NRO has them posted in PDF format. There is nothing in the answers that screams "VOTE HER DOWN NOW". The answers don't completely alleviate the concerns I might have, or my prior disappointment for those not picked for this slot.
This quip over on Redstate today might say it best:
QUOTE(Erick@Redstate)
The President believes that Miers will satisfy the conservative base. “He hasn’t sold out and all the rhetoric that he is not a conservative is bull[ ],” I’m told. Miers, says he, if she can get on the Court, would side with the right on the parental consent issue. That’s the only major abortion case on the horizon right now except possibly partial birth abortion and, again, she’d more likely than not side with the right.
More importantly, Miers will be a better business conservative than O’Connor, I’m told. She has a business background and enough practical experience to not only persuade academics on the Court, but also to write reasonable, easy to understand opinions.
I’m told that the White House has the votes. “There’ll be some in the party who oppose her, but they’ll never vote against her on the floor,” says he. “It’s a long time till 2008, for them to oppose Bush now.” He says that the senators most likely to oppose her (and he thinks Brownback, Kyl, and Coburn are three of them) will make a lot of noise, but will in the end let her through.
http://www.redstate.org/story/2005/10/19/83615/279More importantly, Miers will be a better business conservative than O’Connor, I’m told. She has a business background and enough practical experience to not only persuade academics on the Court, but also to write reasonable, easy to understand opinions.
I’m told that the White House has the votes. “There’ll be some in the party who oppose her, but they’ll never vote against her on the floor,” says he. “It’s a long time till 2008, for them to oppose Bush now.” He says that the senators most likely to oppose her (and he thinks Brownback, Kyl, and Coburn are three of them) will make a lot of noise, but will in the end let her through.
Perhaps Bush knows something we don't, in that there is another vacancy on the near horizon, say next June at the end of OT 2005. He knows that if Miers votes against the right that he will pay a huge price for it. One has to think this is in the calculation. And one has to think that if Miers knew she could not side with the right, she, based on her friendship with Bush, should not have accepted. The early speculation for the next vacancy would be 85 year old John Paul Stevens, which, if replaced with a Bork, Luttig, Alito, McConnell, Jones, etc., would really be a meaningful shift.
Miers, at best, seems just slightly to the right of O'Connor, but not quite all the way over. Granted, similar was thought on Clarence Thomas prior to his nomination. And Souter was thought to be rock solid. It's this crap-shoot nature in court picks that has the right in a frenzy over the stealth trend.
No comments:
Post a Comment