No Record, No Problem: You’re Perfect for the Supreme Court
| By ToddHill - Oct 3rd, 2005 at 8:17 am EDT |
| Also listed in: Campus Progress Blog |
In yet another bold move out of left field President Bush has selected Harriet Miers as his choice to fill the vacant seat of retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Conner. Even more striking is the fact that yet again he has chosen an individual with absolutely no judicial record for which anyone can judge her views on. Sticking with the same strategy that he used in choosing Chief Justice John Roberts, the selection of Miers is one that will once again likely puzzle progressives altogether in exactly how to approach the confirmation hearings that are to come in the near future.
What is very scary about this situation is the choice of yet another individual with no judicial record for us to gauge some sort of realistic understanding of where Harriet Miers stands on the issues. To place her and Justice Roberts together, two individuals with no real record to stand on, leaves a very bleak outlook for the constitution. It is not so surprising that the president would select someone from his inner circle, which is even more frightening to think about as well. It takes a whole heck of a lot for an individual to earn the trust of the Bush "inner circle," so you can hypothesize from that how exactly Mrs. Miers would vote on some of the most critical cases the high court will be seeing here in the near future. That does not bold well for social progressives at all.
There should be no doubt in anyone's mind that Miers is farther to the Right then Justice O'Conner was, and therefore the high court will be tipped dramatically to the conservative right if she survives confirmation. This fellow Texan has a rough road ahead of her, but I predict that because there is not much of a record to work with that she will likely survive confirmation and become the 2nd woman on the Supreme Court of the United States. I don't know about you, but I have shivers running down my spine this very early morning. Just another manic Monday I suppose!
What is very scary about this situation is the choice of yet another individual with no judicial record for us to gauge some sort of realistic understanding of where Harriet Miers stands on the issues. To place her and Justice Roberts together, two individuals with no real record to stand on, leaves a very bleak outlook for the constitution. It is not so surprising that the president would select someone from his inner circle, which is even more frightening to think about as well. It takes a whole heck of a lot for an individual to earn the trust of the Bush "inner circle," so you can hypothesize from that how exactly Mrs. Miers would vote on some of the most critical cases the high court will be seeing here in the near future. That does not bold well for social progressives at all.
There should be no doubt in anyone's mind that Miers is farther to the Right then Justice O'Conner was, and therefore the high court will be tipped dramatically to the conservative right if she survives confirmation. This fellow Texan has a rough road ahead of her, but I predict that because there is not much of a record to work with that she will likely survive confirmation and become the 2nd woman on the Supreme Court of the United States. I don't know about you, but I have shivers running down my spine this very early morning. Just another manic Monday I suppose!
!
Comments are closed for this post.
No Judicial experience. That's happened before, and fairly frequently.
But, as the MSNBC commentator just pointed out, we know less about Harriet Miers than about ANY nominee in modern history.
Either they put up or shut up. Either every bit of requested information is granted, or this nomination must be blocked. When a President has shown a devotion to cronyism in his appointments and promoted unqualified nominees to high office, it's the duty of the Senate to take a stand and demand, for the good of the Republic, that the ideology and judicial philosophy of a nominee be disclosed.
No White House stonewalling. No obfuscation. No bullshit "I can't comment on an issue that might come before the Court" claims. Either the Administration makes on HELL of a case for putting an attorney with zero judicial experience and high personal loyalty to the President on the bench (especially one whose own opinions on the Constitution and the powers of government are completely unknown), or we filibuster.
Gang of 14: There has never been, in modern history, a nominee for the Court about whom less was know. THAT'S CALLED "EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCE"! You have a duty to the public to ensure quality nominees take these appointments, not political cronies, and--sorry to have to say it--you've been laying down on the job for the past few years. Either step up and do your job or resign from the Senate and let someone with the cajones to stand up for good government take your seat.
Link
Cass Sunstein cautions us to be puzzled (Link, so I guess that's what I'll be, while at the same time somewhat optimistic that the right seems to think she's a really big problem.
-Asheesh
Think that might go a long way to reassuring a conservative base prior to 2006 and 2008?
Of course, we have no idea how Miers would rule, but then, that's brunt of the problem.
This is a completely demoralizing appointment for them. We want to milk this into a 2006 victory.
There's a chance she'll be a Souter of sorts. She's certainly not someone of strong legal-intellectual caliber, as Roberts was.
But really, if she were rejected: Is there anyone that is more strategically advantageous to us than her?
A white house crony that completely demoralizes the conservative base... Alberto Gonzales in high heels.
Who, to boot, might end up swayed toward the moderate side of the court.
This is gold for us. Bush made a huge misstep. We should take maximum advantage of that, and giving him the chance to offer up a new nominee if we successfully block this one would be allowing him to correct that misstep.
I think Harry Reid's on the ball with this one.
I'm not saying I can't be swayed to this line of thinking, but at this time, I'm thinking of the integrity and longevity of the court itself. It's not worth the risk to me at the moment.
There's politics, and then there's government. I don't want to work with/for a party that sacrifices the latter for the former.
Think about the underlying assumption of your statement "Who, to boot, might end up swayed toward the moderate side of the court." I think you're ignoring the really big "might".
We know nothing about how the woman who thinks Dubya is the bee's knees is going to rule on the bench.
There's a Planned Parenthood case before the court this term. She only has to rule the "Right" way on that one for the conservatives to be mollified about Dobson not getting the nod, and then we've gained no real political advantage in 2006 or 2008. These guys give W the benefit of the doubt all the time, so they'll have no trouble admitting that "Our President sure appointed a good conservative woman to that court!"
Give me evidence that she's a moderate, and I won't worry as much. But having absolutely no legislative or judicial record to look at, I'm justifiably concerned with the flippancy of accepting her nomination as a fait accompli.
Something is really fishy about this nominee, this whole thing is real fishy. Keep in mind, Republicans tow the line one way or another. They will support this woman if the President asks them too, they always do.
I feel like I am being intentionally walked. Something Bush must have picked up when he owned the Rangers. Don't give them anything to hit, and they sort of have to take the minor victory. It is what you do when you are afraid of the hitter, and know you can set up a better situation later.
We have a choice, and it stinks. On one hand, we can swing at this crap and try get control, but most likely we'll look a little foolish. Or, we can give him the freebie, and hope to nail him on a something later.
It is more important this time around to make her answer the hard questions. I say we take the chance and hold this one off.