Decision ‘08

One Man’s Take On Harriet Miers, Or Is What’s Good for the Goose Good for the Gander?

I’ve kept my own opinion on Harriet Miers pretty close to the vest so far, and here’s the reason: I don’t have one yet. Here’s a little secret: of all the hardcore partisans on the left and right pontificating loudly right now, 98% of them don’t, either. How can we, the majority of us, anyway, have formed such a completely certain opinion as to the worth of Harriet Miers in less than a single day? How many facts can you tell me about Harriet Miers? Real, concrete facts? 10? I doubt it…and I doubt any of them have to do with her fitness to serve on the Supreme Court.

Now, some of the people who oppose her, and some who support her, are quite knowledgable on the issue, for example, Erick-Woods Erickson at Red State and Confessions of a Political Junkie against, and Leonard Leo for. Many, many others of us, friends and enemies alike, are quite frankly blowing smoke out of our backsides to pretend we have any clue as to the worth of this nominee.

Is Harriet Miers the slam-dunk nominee John Roberts was? Who would be? Is she a complete disaster? Why? On what basis do you make that determination?

Don’t get me wrong, we all have opinions, and we’re all entitled to them, and I suspect that if I polled my regulars they would be split just about right down the middle (whereas probably 90% would have favored Roberts). Why must we rush to a snap decision, though? What’s wrong with hearing what the lady has to say under questioning?

Many of us, myself included, were disgusted with the twisted logic used by the 22 hacks who opposed John Roberts on partisan grounds, all the while claiming to be standing on principle. Do we not think the same standard applies to us? Or is only a judge who has gone on the record saying “I support overturning Roe v. Wade” good enough? If that’s the case, then we can’t be surprised if a Democrat opposes a judge purely from the opposite viewpoint.

Do I support Harriet Miers? I do…until she gives me a reason not to. If you do oppose her, what reason has she given you? It’s not a rhetorical question…I’m open to persuasion. I’m just not in any hurry to make up my mind…

22 Responses to “One Man’s Take On Harriet Miers, Or Is What’s Good for the Goose Good for the Gander?”

1 fatman Says:
October 3rd, 2005 at 9:12 pm
She has no prior experience as a judge at any level. Yes, I know that Rehnquist didn’t either; neither did Earl Warren. And it took Rehnquist several years to become much more than a living lump on the Court. Miers doesn’t have that kind of time.

She has, to my knowledge, no reputation as a legal scholar. And the law firms she’s worked at have been described as undistinguished, at least by right-of-center bloggers.

Stephens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer are going to have her for lunch as they continue to feast on Kennedy for dinner.
2 Mark Says:
October 3rd, 2005 at 9:52 pm
fatman, granted she’s an unknown quantity…and I’m not saying I’m thrilled with the pick…but I am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt for now…at least until I find out more. I will take your excellent points under consideration, though…
3 mark, the lesser Says:
October 3rd, 2005 at 10:02 pm
Have patience. This is only the opening act. Very much like Philo Bedo(sp?) in Any Which Way You Can. A big fight is called off and a lot of disappointment abound, until the fight goes on…Hopefully we won’t have Bush in a pick-up saying, “Right turn Harriet…”

I have the utmost confidence in Ralph Neas, Biden, Schumer, Reid, Boxer to ‘imply’ her religion is offensive. At that point her credentials with the religous right are assured. Like drunk girls at Sturgis, responding to choruses of “Show us your t*ts” the dems will wander off from civility and supply instant gratification to their adoring mob(of 4% of the electorate.) Not a Miers fan now? Give it time. The democrats will not be able to hold back…if she holds her own against them in the Hearings, she deservs the spot. and as a hypothetical, did Bush get any input from Roberts?
I sincerely doubt he came to this choice on his own.
4 Mark Says:
October 3rd, 2005 at 10:05 pm
mark, the lesser, yours is the most amusing take of the day…and I needed a laugh, after too much sparring (I made the mistake of wandering too deep into the Florida 2000 swamp today)…
5 mark, the lesser Says:
October 3rd, 2005 at 10:17 pm
Since the Swamp is still in your recent memory, maybe you can answer a debate between a dem friend and I. I contend that the military ballots without post dates were never counted. He can’t provide me the article, but did point me to the Joe Liebermaqn quote that the undated ballots should count. My thinking goes, Bush would have had an almost 2000 vote victory, if the military wasn’t disenfranchised. Were they ever included?

Talk about voter intent…if I’m wrong, I’ll take the correction. I’ve looked for the outcome on the Web, but it is almost hidden from me…
6 Mark Says:
October 3rd, 2005 at 10:29 pm
Like everything else about Florida in 2000, mark, it’s insanely complicated. The ballots WERE counted in some counties, and probably weren’t in others…for a more than you ever wanted to know look at this issue, see here…
7 fatman Says:
October 3rd, 2005 at 10:39 pm
I think you misunderstand me, Mark (the greater?). I’d be very much surprised if Miers turned out to be anything other than an originalist, or at least a conservative. My thinking is that the shortcomings I pointed out call into question her qualifications for the position. To use another analogy, I strongly suspect that Stephens et.al. will wrap her around their collective finger. And it won’t be the index finger, either.
8 Mark Says:
October 3rd, 2005 at 10:55 pm
fatman, just call me Mark, the even lesser (Mark, the least?). Well, I won’t argue that point with you…I DON’T think she was the most qualified pick…that’s not enough for me to oppose her, but it is enough to keep me from jumping for joy…
9 Beth Says:
October 3rd, 2005 at 11:17 pm
Here’s a little secret: of all the hardcore partisans on the left and right pontificating loudly right now, 98% of them don’t, either.

Isn’t THAT the truth! This is one of those times I wish I could reach through my monitor and slap the shite out of some of these “experts,” half of whom can’t even spell her damn name right, much less present any real argument other than what they’re parroting from Drudge and a few “Big Blogs.” Absolutely no intellectual curiosity at all. It’s freaking embarrassing watching some of the cannibalism going on.
10 Colin Says:
October 3rd, 2005 at 11:50 pm
I hold no animosity towards Ms. Miers, but the calculus behind this pick, if it was not motivated by fear, mystifies me. Here’s a good question Mark; can I still be chillin’ if at the same time I am a bit worried and skeptical?
11 Jim Voigt Says:
October 4th, 2005 at 6:36 am
Anytime someone I trust does something that I think I should not trust, it turns out in the end that they knew something I didn’t, and the trust was well placed after all. I think he knows something we don’t know, and it will all be flushed out at the hearings. I think we will be impressed.

Further, this is a strategic move. Pick someone you trust, someone you do no think will turn and run to the left like many others have, and nominate her. She is a SERIOUS Christian, a Fundamentalist.

The strategy comes in where the ONLY basis for disagreement with her is her religious background. He is forcing the Dems to show their true colors here. They either have to approve with a unanimous vote, or show themselves to be the anti-religious hacks we know them to be.

Now, what segment of society is perhaps the most devoutly Christian? That’s right: African Americans. There will be a lot of Democrats losing a lot of black votes if this candidate is not approved simply because she is a Christian.
12 Mark Says:
October 4th, 2005 at 6:51 am
Colin…the only rules for chillin’ are that there are no rules - chill on…
13 Danny Carlton: codenamed "Jack Lewis" Says:
October 4th, 2005 at 7:35 am
Bush nominates his third grade civics teacher to Supreme Court

Okay, she’s not his third grade civics teacher, but the silliness of the headline illustrates the silliness so many people…
14 peter Says:
October 4th, 2005 at 8:53 am
I agree with Mark: I think it would be helpful to know something about her before passing judgment. However, I must say that I am bewildered at how Bush has been acting in the past month or so. First he appointed Roberts, which was a surprise to my (partisan) eyes because he is the first Bush appointee I find to be superbly qualified: head and shoulders above everybody else. Then he took the unprecedented step of taking (partial) responsibility and blame for the Katrina mess. Now, at a moment when any odds-maker would predict a candidate who was either red meat for his base, or a compromise candidate, he chose someone who nobody seems to be happy with. This is the first instance I can recall when Bush did something which seems diametrically opposed to the wishes of his base.

What will he do next? Veto a spending bill?
15 AcademicElephant Says:
October 4th, 2005 at 8:58 am
Mark the Lesser points in an interesting direction. Now, the expectations for Miers are so low that if she presents herself in a thoughtful, intelligent, serious and conservative manner (which I hope and expect but do not know that she will), she’s going to look like a million bucks.

Hmmmm, the old low-expectations game. Who does that? What was that Fred was saying on the other post about “throw it until they hit it?”
16 Mark Says:
October 4th, 2005 at 9:00 am
AE, good points…but peter - let’s not get hasty - that would be the 4th sign of the apocalypse…
17 peter Says:
October 4th, 2005 at 9:05 am
good point…
18 utron Says:
October 4th, 2005 at 11:10 am
I’ve said before that the Senate should confirm any President’s nominees unless the nominee doesn’t qualify for obvious, non-ideological reasons, so I’ll back Miers. Nevertheless, I still think this was a lousy choice, and I’ll continue to think so even if she turns out to be a terrific justice (as I hope she does). Jonah Goldberg, I think, raised an interesting question: If President Rodham Clinton were to nominate her personal counsel for a seat on SCOTUS, with similar qualifications, would Republicans think that was a legitimate candidate?

I agree with Peter that Bush’s behavior has been a little hard to explain lately, although I’d probably pick different issues. But let’s not get ridiculous; the notion of Bush vetoing a spending bill is just one more example of Peter’s Democratic delusionism.
19 peter Says:
October 4th, 2005 at 1:12 pm
Regrettably utron is right — imagining Bush to veto a spending bill is delusional — as a Democrat, I would prefer tax-and-spend to borrow-and-spend any day –
20 The Strata-Sphere Says:
October 6th, 2005 at 10:23 am
Carnival of The Chillin’ #4

The Mark Coffey of Decision ‘08 and founder of The Coalition of the Chillin’ and Patrick Ruffini, founder of The Coalition of The Chillin’: SCOTUS Division have joined forces on the Harriet Miers nomination.
This occured right aft…
21 The Strata-Sphere » Blog Archive » Carnival of The Chillin’ #4 Says:
October 6th, 2005 at 3:01 pm
[…] Mark Coffey submitted One Man’s Take On Harriet Miers, Or Is What’s Good for the Goose Good for the Gander? […]
22 Decision ‘08 » Blog Archive » Who Else is Chillin’? The WaPo, That’s Who Says:
October 8th, 2005 at 9:33 am
[…] Add the Washington Post editorial board to the ranks of the Chillin’ (and be sure and check out AJ’s Carnival while you’re at it): TO HEAR THE reaction from some conservatives to President Bush’s nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, you would think the president had named an avowed liberal. While admitting there are legitimate concerns about the qualifications of Miers, the Post condemns the attitude of conservatives who want a firm assurance on Roe v. Wade as the litmus test that it is: …it is no more Ms. Miers’s job to promise Mr. Brownback her vote to overturn Roe than it was Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s job to promise Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) his vote to sustain it. Not even the president’s allies are entitled to certainty. Indeed, I argued in an earlier post that if we adopt the attitude that only a nominee who backs a certain political position is worthy of nomination, we’ve got no moral leg to stand on when the Democrats do the same. […]