That's the spin amongst the conservative blogosphere this AM about the Miers nomination to replace retiring associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
And the lack of immediate response from PFAW and the other left-wing groups is disturbing. But Jonathan Turley is against, so perhaps the pick wasnt so bad after all.
I still think I would have preferred Samuel Alito of the third Circuit, Michael Luttig of the fourth Circuit, Michael McConnell of the tenth Circuit or Janice Rogers Brown of the D.C. Circuit.
Do I take some solace in Hugh Hewitt's thoughts? Perhaps.
QUOTE(Hugh Hewitt)
Harriet Miers isn't a Justice Souter pick, so don't be silly. It is a solid, B+ pick. The first President Bush didn't know David Souter, but trusted Chief of Staff [John] Sununu and Senator [Warren] Rudman. The first President Bush got burned badly because he trusted the enthusiams of others.
The second President Bush knows Harriet Miers, and knows her well. The White House Counsel is an unknown to most SCOTUS observors, but not to the president, who has seen her at work for great lengths of years and in very different situations, including as an advisor in wartime. Leonard Leo is very happy with the choice, which ought to be enough for most conservatives.
As I wrote last night, Judges Luttig and McConnell are the most qualified nominees out there, but I think from the start that the president must have decided that this seat would be given to a woman, and it is very hard to argue that she is not the most qualified woman to be on the SCOTUS for the simple reason that she has been in the White House for many years.
http://hughhewitt.com/archives/2005/10/02-...dex.php#a000302The second President Bush knows Harriet Miers, and knows her well. The White House Counsel is an unknown to most SCOTUS observors, but not to the president, who has seen her at work for great lengths of years and in very different situations, including as an advisor in wartime. Leonard Leo is very happy with the choice, which ought to be enough for most conservatives.
As I wrote last night, Judges Luttig and McConnell are the most qualified nominees out there, but I think from the start that the president must have decided that this seat would be given to a woman, and it is very hard to argue that she is not the most qualified woman to be on the SCOTUS for the simple reason that she has been in the White House for many years.
Though one must say, there are few voices that positive amongst the conservative punditry.
Hewitt closes:
QUOTE(Hewitt)
If there is another opening, we will get the Attorney General, and for the first time in I don't know how long, there will be a block of Article II enthusiasts within the preserve of Article III. If we get two more, a Justice Luttig or McConnell will rise.
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.
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.
His bottom line: it comes down to FAITH. Faith that Bush has done what he said he would do. Hewitt had a very good point to lead his post -- GWB has known Miers for ten years. GHWB did not know Souter but took him on recommendations from others.
Beldar is out there cautionsly optimistic as well:
QUOTE(Beldar)
Harriet Miers may be virtually unknown to you. But she isn't to Dubya — and that's the main point of her nomination.
With even a half-hour's worth of hindsight, I declare myself unsurprised that the President chose Ms. Miers. It's absolutely consistent with his appointment style for other positions going back to his days as governor of Texas: George W. Bush has consistently preferred those who are well known to him, of proven qualities and proven loyalty, over perhaps bolder or more popular choices with flashier résumés.
http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2005/10...iers_nomin.htmlWith even a half-hour's worth of hindsight, I declare myself unsurprised that the President chose Ms. Miers. It's absolutely consistent with his appointment style for other positions going back to his days as governor of Texas: George W. Bush has consistently preferred those who are well known to him, of proven qualities and proven loyalty, over perhaps bolder or more popular choices with flashier résumés.
Beldar also hits on the consequences to Bush if he picks unwisely:
QUOTE(Beldar)
But that is emphatically not the case from the perspective of George W. Bush. And the Constitution does, after all, give him the nomination power — not "the White House," not "the Republican Party," nor "conservatives generally," nor even "us'n who put him back into office." And he knows, and he's always known, that the blame for an appointee who turned out to become "another Souter" would likewise be placed on him. It's a responsibility and an opportunity whose benefits and risks he sought, but that he obviously takes very seriously indeed, because from Dubya's perspective, Harriet Miers was the one prospective female nominee about whom he personally felt that he could be most certain in predicting what sort of Justice she will become.
Beldar makes a strong close on the "trust Bush" argument:
QUOTE(Beldar)
We're likely to see another stretch of bitching and moaning from the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee over how essential it is for the Administration to waive attorney-client, work product, and executive privileges and fork over every document that says at its top "To: George W. Bush, From: Harriet E. Miers." Expect the White House to hang very tough on this.
Conservative skeptics, I remind you that even though you haven't seen this stuff, Dubya has, so let your comfort level be in inverse proportion to the sounds of frustration and gnashing of teeth from the liberals. Sen. Brownback, your demand for guarantees as to how this nominee will vote on your key issues is like a fan in the stands insisting that the quarterback's play calling in the huddle be broadcast all over the stadium; whether you approve of the call or not, your team's odds go into the toilet when there's a microphone in the huddle.
Conservative skeptics, I remind you that even though you haven't seen this stuff, Dubya has, so let your comfort level be in inverse proportion to the sounds of frustration and gnashing of teeth from the liberals. Sen. Brownback, your demand for guarantees as to how this nominee will vote on your key issues is like a fan in the stands insisting that the quarterback's play calling in the huddle be broadcast all over the stadium; whether you approve of the call or not, your team's odds go into the toilet when there's a microphone in the huddle.
Meanwhile, another positive voice out there tonight is Patrick Ruffini, who ran the Bush/Cheney 04 website/blog:
QUOTE(Patrick Ruffini)
At the risk of drawing the undying enmity of The Herd, I'm going to state categorically that conservatism is sitting pretty at this hour. That's because Harry Reid has just been hosed – and he doesn't even know it.
The navel gazers are nabobing about another Souter. That's silly. The Court will almost certainly move to the right as a result of the nomination and confirmation of Harriet Miers. And here's why.
It's true. Little is known about the views of Harriet Miers. But what is known, through official and unofficial channels, paints a picture of a conservative Texas lawyer with rock-solid beliefs on life, strong religious convictions, and a modesty that should allay fears of a renegade Justice determined to remake society through the courts. John Roberts was the silver-tongued, inside-the-Beltway pick for the Court; Miers is the plain spoken red stater.
http://www.patrickruffini.com/archives/200...iet_miers_c.phpThe navel gazers are nabobing about another Souter. That's silly. The Court will almost certainly move to the right as a result of the nomination and confirmation of Harriet Miers. And here's why.
It's true. Little is known about the views of Harriet Miers. But what is known, through official and unofficial channels, paints a picture of a conservative Texas lawyer with rock-solid beliefs on life, strong religious convictions, and a modesty that should allay fears of a renegade Justice determined to remake society through the courts. John Roberts was the silver-tongued, inside-the-Beltway pick for the Court; Miers is the plain spoken red stater.
His post goes on, also drawing from others in the blogosphere that view the nomination positively. Conversely, Michelle Malkin leads a similar post on her blog on the other (pessimistic) side of things, titled "Utterly Underwhelmed", where she pulls together some of the most notable negative thoughts out there.
And not to be undone, Redstate as a group has done a formal non-endorsement.
QUOTE(Redstate editorial)
There is profound disappointment today on the right. Harriet Miers was rumored as the next pick for the Supreme Court, but many people laughed off the suggestion. Some of those who were laughing are now crying. Still others are abandoning hope. Said one correspondent, "This Presidency is adrift." From what we have seen lately, we tend to agree.
For all we know, and we know very little, Harriet Miers is the second coming of Antonin Scalia. But, we do not know. What we know is encouraging to the extent that she might be right on life issues. She did actively oppose the American Bar Association's position. Assuming that Miers is a conservative jurist, we still cannot, at this time, accept or endorse this nomination
For all we know, and we know very little, Harriet Miers is the second coming of Antonin Scalia. But, we do not know. What we know is encouraging to the extent that she might be right on life issues. She did actively oppose the American Bar Association's position. Assuming that Miers is a conservative jurist, we still cannot, at this time, accept or endorse this nomination
My take:
After the day's review, of bloggers both pro and con, I have to lean a bit to the side of the "trust Bush" crowd, even if Miers would not have been my first choice. Reagan's old phrase was "Trust but Verify" in dealing with the USSR. Those against are right to bring that up, but Bush has had a clear track record in his previous judicial appointments, from Roberts to the appellate circuit judgeships to the federal district level. If there has been one area of consistency, that is it.
A gut in me says there will be at least one more vacancy left during this term, likely a liberal being replaced by a onservative, as opposed to conservative for conservative.
My advice for those on the right -- walking away will only serve to repeat 1992. Bush has the Dems on the ropes... now is not the time to leave the fight.
No comments:
Post a Comment