Mired in Miers

[topaz]

As the Harriet Miers nomination marches on I am becomingly increasingly convinced of a grotesque irony: the Republican wing of the Senate is putting up the hue and cry against someone who is probably exactly the person they most want to have on the Supreme Court.

Who is Harriet Miers?  While almost none of us know, the inner circle of the Bush administration certainly does.  Bush, Rove and crew know who Harriet Miers is and what sort of judge she will make; you can put that in the bank.  James Dobson's ominous remark this week, about how he is very satisfied with Harriet Miers but he's not allowed to discuss why, puts the lock on it.  The people who have nominated her know exactly who she is and how she will rule.  If she's good enough for James Dobson, she's good enough to send shivers down my spine.

Moreover, while Bush himself may lack good judgement, he has unquestionably surrounded himself with smart and politically capable operatives.  Everything about this nomination says that Bush's team has learned from 41's "mistake" with David Souter, and that they have taken care to choose someone who will not disappoint the base as Souter did.

And in response, the GOP revolts — because Bush's nominee is not another Scalia or Thomas, someone with a documented track record of eating fire and belching dissents.  I wonder just who Tom DeLay was expecting Bush to nominate.  Who did he imagine might survive the confirmation process at this point?  Was he hoping that, after almost twenty years, Robert Bork would finally have his moment in the sun?

Miers is Bush's perfect stealth candidate.  She is exactly the person who his base wants on the court, and the only kind of person who could survive a confirmation hearing at this point.  Yet there is a chance that the GOP will scuttle this nomination because, in effect, she is too confirmable for them.  If the Republicans succeed in killing this nomination, NARAL should send Tom DeLay a thank-you card.

Comments

[psongster.livejournal.com]

Agreed, alas.

I just finished reading a book review in the Economist in which they talked about how "Americans'" political rhetoric is so vitriolic, went through a whole series of examples of right-wingers trashing liberals, and then commented that Democrats, oddly, haven't published anything like that this year.

My blood is simmering. "Americans" are vitriolic and divisive. But all the examples are from the right. And Democrats are odd for not doing the same.

No wonder the right-wingers think Miers is unacceptable. She doesn't have a history of spewing hatred at other Americans.

And then the right-wingers wrap themselves in the flag and patriotism, and suggest that the only way to be sufficiently patriotic is to preach hatred of Americans -- and then condemn environmentalists and peace activists and such for "hating America."
Maybe it's just late-night grumpiness, but I'm feeling pretty pessimistic about where this country is headed ...

[qwrrty.livejournal.com]

I think, unfortunately, that the answer to the Economist's puzzle is simpler and a bit more venal. In a term where the GOP controls the White House, the House of Representatives and the Senate, the Republicans can afford to be more brazen in their contempt for liberalism. They believe they have been given a "mandate" — how politicians love that word! — to roll back the political work of the last forty years or so, and they're not afraid to say as much. Democrats are thin enough on political capital that they can't afford to sling any of that mud openly. I don't doubt that if the shoe were on the other foot, the left wing of the Senate and the House would be bold enough to talk more trash about the right.

I don't think that Republican dismay at the Miers nomination has so much to do about political discourse. I think that, drunk on the electoral victories of 2004, they were seriously expecting Bush to nominate someone who had a clear judicial record of opposing women's choice, and they have not yet figured out that the probability of such a candidate surviving the nomination process at this point is somewhere around chancy to slim.

I am sort of hoping that they fail to sober up, continue to eat their young and wind up giving us another Souter after all, but those are long odds indeed.

[lhn.livejournal.com]

I don't think it was a Republican who suggested that comparing Bush to 60's Birmingham police chief "Bull" Connor was unfair to Connor. (http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20051010&s=notebook101005twp) Or who Godwinated the debate over the Senate's filibuster rules (http://www.wtrf.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=1237#Hitler) earlier this year. Or who raised the tone of discussion by stating "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for". (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/276020p-236422c.html) I'm not terribly convinced that there's been any moratorium on open mudslinging from the Democratic side of the aisle this year. (And I assume we're limiting this to active political figures on both sides, since if not we can just look at an assortment of blogs-- or the works of Michael Moore, Al Franken, etc.-- and call it a day.)

[beowabbit]

I don't doubt that if the shoe were on the other foot, the left wing of the Senate and the House would be bold enough to talk more trash about the right.

I’d like to think so, but as Bertrand Russell once said, “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.” And among the principles of liberalism are pluralism and tolerance of diverse opinions, so we’re at a bit of a systematic disadvantage. (To be fair, we also have some systematic advantages. But heavy rhetorical artillery is not our strong suit.)

[arfur]

*plink*

(that's the sound of you being added to my quote file. :-)

[crouchback.livejournal.com]

Does "judicial record of opposing women's choice" mean "judicial record of opposing abortion?"

If so, why not just say "abortion" instead of "women's choice?"

The reason why there is a conservative rebellion (a weak one, which will probably not get far) against Miers is because Bush's base is fed up with Bush throwing them rhetorical bones and they want some actual action from him. Miers' record (or lack thereof) on abortion is one thing angering conservatives, but it's not the only thing: a summation can be found here (http://www.professorbainbridge.com/2005/10/why_the_miers_f.html).

I note that abortion is still legal, and Bush's actions against abortion have been marginal and directed against social groups with no real clout to speak of-suggesting to me, at least, that he regards abortion as a useful issue to rally the base, but not something he really wants to tackle. (I regard the amendment banning flag burning and the tussle over the pledge (written, originally, by a socialist, not compeleld until 1942, and without the phrase "under God" until the 1950s) as similar issues that are used to rally the base but which will never be actually be enacted, because if they were enacted, why, what would there be left to rally the base with? The amendment against gay marriage, so prominent during the 2004 campaign and such a dead letter now, may be a similar thing.)

Personally, I think the Miers nomination is all about cronyism and Bush's confusion of personal loyalty to him with loyalty to the Constitution, and a sign of how arrogant Bush is (also factors in why Bush's base is angry at him). When George Will comes out and says that Bush has proven to be a poor guardian of the Constitution (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/04/AR2005100400954.html), part of his base is really, really unhappy.

(I'll make an observation that it says quite a lot about the Democrats that they didn't take the issue Will is upset about and make it a campaign point.)

[sconstant.livejournal.com]

If so, why not just say "abortion" instead of "women's choice?"

Because it polls better. You know this.

Anyway, women's choice encompasses other choices that people want to restrict - the choice to use emergency contraception, the choice to use birth control, the choice to be artificially inseminated even if you're not married (e.g., the bill introduced and hastily withdrawn by State Senator Patricia Miller in Indiana), the choice to have the same access to insurance coverage for artificial insemination if you're 41 that you'd have if you were 39 (new regulations in CT). This is a broad umbrella and covers a lot of different issues, but they're linked to some extent, and so to some extent one might reasonably infer what a potential judge's decisions might be on one of these matters (esp. those at the start of my list) by looking at her decisions on another of them (abortion).

[crouchback.livejournal.com]

Yes, I did know that, but I was waiting for someone who is pro-abortion to admit it.

Kind of like I want someone "pro-life" to admit that they're anti-abortion.

Both are, I guess, "framing." It's hard to be against "choice," "life" or "women."

You might infer a judge's ideas on other "women's choice," but you might be wrong. In Mier's case, I think she's shown a tremendous amount of logical inconsistency, so it's hard to tell what she'll do once on the bench.

Frankly, I wouldn't want her on the bench even if she was consistent and we had a clue what her rulings on the subject are likely to be, given that the primary criteria for her nomination seems to be Bush's expectation that she'll continue to be a faithful lackey.

[sconstant.livejournal.com]

I'm hardly the first person to admit it. And since you've switched contexts: I'm not pro-abortion, I'm pro-choice. This is not a polling or "framing" thing, it's got actual meaning.

I don't see how Mier has shown a tremendous amount of anything. Which is precisely why she's the nominee.

[desdenova.livejournal.com]

Okay, I am going to take a controversial stance here, and say that "pro-choice" is not equivalent to "pro-abortion," any more than opposing the "war on drugs" means one thinks everybody should run out and get high, or opposing gun control laws means one thinks everybody should go around shooting people.

I shouldn't have to explain this to a self-professed libertarian.

[desdenova.livejournal.com]

Also, for the record, I agree with you that Miers' nomination is all about cronyism, and that Bush is not particularly interested in advancing the cause of the Religious Right, except insofar as it also serves to advance him.

[harimad.livejournal.com]

Pro-choice does NOT equal pro-abortion.

Believing one should be able to decide for oneself what to do does not mean believing the person in question must have an abortion. I also believe in legalizing (and heavily taxing) drugs; this does not mean I think everyone should be taking drugs.

Every abortion is a failure. It could be a failure of technology (birth control fails), a failure of law (rape), a failure to meet a trust (date rape drugs), a failure of luck (genetic problems with the critter), a failure of society (to provide a good adoption system). There are times when the failure of abortion is the best of a series of lousy options.

Support the right. Reduce the need.

[crouchback.livejournal.com]

They believe they have been given a "mandate" — how politicians love that word! — to roll back the political work of the last forty years or so, and they're not afraid to say as much.

.

Bush is against the War on Drugs, the expansion of the federal government's tentacles into nearly every part of daily life, the steady erosion of the rights of the accused in courts, and massive government spending?

Or is it just parts of the political work of the last forty years or so he's against? (In contrast to his base (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041110-123424-5467r.htm), he's very much in favor of amnesty for illegal immigrants and continued mass migration into the country, leading paleoconservatives to wonder if he's trying to elect a new people (http://www.socialistunitynetwork.co.uk/Myths/brecht.htm) to ensure that permanent Republican majority Karl Rove likes to talk about.)

I personally think Bush isn't for or against anything except the continued political power of himself and his clan.

[crouchback.livejournal.com]

For what it's worth, I think Bush has made some kind of promise to Dobson to get his endorsement. Dobson is a fool to trust Bush (who can believe Bush nowadays when he says "trust me?" Even the National Review isn't willing to do that!)

If Bush really wanted to nominate someone to plase the base, he would have nominated Janice Rogers Brown, and been able to play the diversity card while he was at it.

He didn't. He want to a faithful retainer, a longtime lackey, and gave her the tap.

Bush expects the base to cover for him, not the other way around.

Remember, to Bush, loyalty counts. And that means loyalty to him. If the base turns on him, it will be proof that they are disloyal.

[opadit.livejournal.com]

My guess is that they're afraid she'll "turn O'Connor," and that the risk of her doing so is all the higher than Souter's because she's a fee-male woman.

[sconstant.livejournal.com]

I would think that the risk of her doing so is higher now because she's experiencing the love of her fellow conservatives.

Well, a girl can dream, can't she?

[jacflash.livejournal.com]

I'm so glad I stay out of these discussions nowadays. :-)

(They're ALL poopyheads! Left, right, center, down, and up! Nyah nyah!)

Since you mentioned Robert Bork

[crouchback.livejournal.com]

He's describing Miers' nomination as a disaster (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9623345/).

Re: Since you mentioned Robert Bork

[qwrrty.livejournal.com]

I'm shocked! Robert Bork and Gary Bauer agree on a political issue? How often has that happened?!