Monday, October 03, 2005

Caution Prevails As Bush Picks Miers For SCOTUS

Click on the title for a quote rundown at NPR, about President Bush's pick to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court.

Listen.

The sound you may be hearing is the sound of scurrying to find information on Harriet Miers. Until today, she was well under the radar and quite far from being a household name. But now that she is the nominee for the high court of the land, her name, her image, and her past words (and deeds) will soon be in the limelight and under the microscope.

If you see all of your throw rugs out of place in your house in the next couple of weeks, you will know that the left has been looking for dirt on Ms. Miers. Without extensive experience in a high profile position, that may be a difficult task to accomplish. Just as the left had to grasp at straws at the Roberts nomination, look for the same frustration after an extensive dirt digging campaign that may very well turn up, very little.

Now, we all have expected this from the left. They have spent the days after the Roberts confirmation threatening more stringent scrutiny on the next nomination, and now, this is their chance to deliver the goods. And they most certainly will not disappoint.

But what about the right?

Many (like Bill Kristol) are disappointed, demoralized, and depressed. They wanted Bush to thumb his nose at the left and appoint a hardcore conservative that was bound to guarantee, renewed threats of filibusters and nuclear options. Both sides are posturing for the flurry of information that is about to dominate the news, about this lady. Both sides are poised and ready to use all methods and tactics, both fair and unfair, to cast a shadow of doubt on her.

It's sad, but true.

So, just who is this woman that has both extremes worried?
Here is a biography.

But beyond that, there will be a whole host of new allegations, accusations, and no doubt misinformations surfacing in the MSM, real soon. Some of it may be accurate, but some may not. But, we the people, will once again be forced to sort through it all and make some sense of it, based on what information is fed to us.

We know that she has never been a judge. That fact alone, has raised a few eyebrows in the first few hours after the announcement. Does it matter? Not necessarily, but it is unusual in that she will be on the highest court in the nation without having benefit of being on a bench, at some point in her career. What ultimately matters is, does she know the law? I would say that the President wouldn't have her as White House Counsel, if she didn't. After all, the job of WHC is to cover the adminstration with competent and sound legal advice.

We know that she was once a Democrat and even contributed to Al Gore's first failed presidential campaign, in 1988. I won't hold that against her. I was once young and idealistic, and I even voted for Carter in my first Presidential election (and boy, was I ever sorry for that after serving in the Army, during his administration). But, to the left, it won't matter that she supported Wooden Al. They will view her as a turncoat for leaving the party, even though it was the party that left her. To the right, she won't be trusted because she was once, "one of them".

But through all of this, one thing is evident in the two choices the President has made. He is picking nominees that have not had lengthy careers, as jurists. This is a good thing, in that, they are not so firmly entrenched in a mindset of judicial arrogance that often leads to an increased or overinflated sense of self-importance; and that in turn leads them to believe that they can legislate from the bench.

Time will tell. I will reserve my judgements until I learn more about her. And believe me there will be more info coming soon, both true and untrue. So, stay tuned. PYY will be following this story as it develops.

8 comments:

Always On Watch said...

the left has been looking for dirt on Ms. Miers. Without extensive experience in a high profile position, that may be a difficult task to accomplish.

Did you hear what Schumer said? Something about how Miers may be a moderate. Of course, Schumer also said that the Senate needs to ferret out her views.

The Constitution doesn't stipulate that appointees to SCOTUS need prior experience on the bench. Most appointees have had such experience, of course.

LA Sunset said...

I heard Schumer. He suffers from an over-inflated sense of self-importance.

LA Sunset said...

Gindy,

I understand your concerns, but we never know just what anyone appointed will do, until we know.

Kennedy and Souter have been quite disappointing and they were both appointed by a GOP President. The difference here is, this is one GWB's inner circle and one would have to surmise that he knows her very well.

G_in_AL said...

the hard right wanted a chance to flex their muscle at the left, and the left just wants something to bitch about....

other than that, I think Bush wimped out and tried to pick someone in the middle... and in doing so, picked someone that is really, my opinion, not qualified.

LA Sunset said...

With Karl Rove, it's hard to know what the real underlying strategy is here, G. The quintessential Machiavellian is a master at this kind of thing. ;)

Gene said...

When you write, "...does she know the law? I would say that the President wouldn't have her as White House Counsel, if she didn't", I think you given the precise reason why Miers won't be confirmed. There are quite a few Republican senators who want to run for President, and they don't want to be reminded come election time that, pace Michael Brown, they approved the President putting one of his sycophants on the Supreme Court.

Because the only reason Harriet Miers was chosen is that the President knows her. Not that she's one of the brilliant legal minds in the country, nor that she's had a stellar career. Bush said she's the best candidate for the job, which is patently ludicrous. Bush says, "Trust me". After Katrina, not even the rabble at the National Review Online can justify that as reasonable.

It isn't the left scurring to get info on Miers--it's the right, especially the far right. They need info to show their supporters that this woman--who gave money to Al Gore, and who answered a questionaire saying that she supported gay marriage--is one of them. But they can't flat-out ask her "will you overturn Roe v. Wade?" because, remember, no litmus tests allowed.

Bush was no help--he got up in front of the press and channelled Bill Clinton so spookily I half-expected him to bite his lower lip as he said, "I have no recollection" when asked if he and Miers had ever discussed abortion. That's either a bald-faced lie or an act of incredible stupidity, and, unfortunately, you can never tell which with this Administration.

Miers may well be a capable attorney. But no one thinks she got the nomination because she's brilliant. She got the nod because she's a slavish Bush loyalist, to the point where she was once quoted as saying the President is the most brilliant man she's ever met. That alone should disqualify her from the bench. But she simply doesn't have the qualifications to be on the Supreme Court. Her lack of judicial experience could be offset if she had proven herself a brilliant litigator or scholar. She hasn't. She's had a nice career, but much of it has been spent at the beck and call of the President. It seems incredibly naive to think that she would be an independent voice if elevated to the Supreme Court, which is another big reason to give her the thumbs down.

There's no need for anyone to dig up dirt on Miers. Her extremely close ties to the Bush Administration muddies her so much that she is nearly unconfirmable. I think the Democrats would be wise to sit back and let the Republicans kill her nomination themselves.

LA Sunset said...

Gene, you make some good points, but I am not sure I agree with you 100% on everything.

But I honestly am tired from a long day and have a long one again tomorrow. As a result I will work up a reply to some (or more) of your comments, as soon as I am able.

Check back this weekend and thanks for visiting.

LA Sunset said...

Gene,

The more I think about all of this and hear the criticisms, the more amazed I get.

I do not know beyond a certainty whether she has the ability to perform this job, or not. What I do know is, that is precisely what the committee hearings are for. If she does not dazzle (like Roberts did, IMO), she will not make it out of committee.

I am skeptical, but willing to give a listen. The committee should be of an open mind and let her answer the questions, so that they can carefully evaluate them. Senators like Kennedy and Biden (who love to hear themselves speak), should ask the questions and then shut up.

I am wondering if this is the sacrificial lamb nomination. Put up someone that you know will not be confirmed, in the hopes that you can play on public opinion and do some arm twisting, later. The pressure will then be on the Senate to confirm the next nominee with less scrutiny.

Politics is full of strategy, much like when you play poker. You can't always control the hand you are dealt, but you can play the hand, given to you with a certain strategy. And although I am no poker expert, I know one strategy is "the bluff".