Miers Watch
The more I learn about her, the more I like her.
Patrick Ruffini has a nice summary paragraph:
[T]here seems to be nothing watered down about Ms. Miers’ association with Valley View Christian, down to her embrace of a splinter group that’s forming a new church to maintain its traditional forms of worship. (No hidden blueblood tendencies here.) In terms of pure bio, Miers seems to be more in tune with the rank-and-file conservatives than a legal elitist with a Cambridge or New Haven address who’s never written a contract.
And the more I hear the whining, the more I realize it’s simply herd mentality thinking from fellow conservatives.
Now, regarding George Will and his attack, Bench Memos has this excellent retort (pace Mark Levin who is ever exasperated by anonymous Miers supporters):
Miers lives in the real world. She knows what the practical impact of a Kelo decision will be and that the laws of Nigeria and the European Union aren’t terribly relevant to U.S. constitutional analysis. And as important, the people that she hangs out with don’t give a hoot what Linda Greenhouse and the New York Times think. That’s not evidence of a quota pick — it’s solid progress.
I love George Will’s work, and he’s a great conservative, but he’s way off-base with today’s column.
I’m sympathetic to the “Take the fight to ‘em!” argument, but it’s good to see PowerLine moving on.
PAUL adds: Michelle is persuasive in arguing that, Bush’s assurances notwithstanding, the nominee is a disappointment. But we’re “moving on” to the question of whether she should nonetheless be confirmed. I have no opinion on that yet. However, I don’t think George Will’s standard is the one that should apply. The Senate, to my knowledge, has never required that Supreme Court nominees have a background in constitutional litigation or adjudication. And being a crony of the president has never been grounds for disqualification. We shouldn’t presume that, because Bush likes Miers, she is qualified. But the presumption shouldn’t run the other way either.
JOHN adds: I think Will is way off-base on this one. I don’t think Miers was one of the best nominees Bush had available, but no one asked my opinion (or Will’s). The bottom line is, the President gets to appoint Supreme Court justices. Miers is easily–very easily, in my opinion–within the range of qualified nominees that it would be improper for the Senate to reject. I think her qualifications are better, for example, than Ruth Ginsburg’s were. I think it would be very foolish for Republicans to start campaigning for Senators to refuse Miers confirmation, on the theory that we would then get someone better. If Bush gets another nomination, we probably will get someone about whom I am more enthusiastic, but in the meantime, Miers is the President’s nominee and she ought to be confirmed.
In my mind, Beldar is single-handedly crushing the Miers opposition Luddites — just keep scrollin’.
I’ve gotten unsolicited emails from a former professor of hers; a fellow editor on the Southwestern Law Journal; a former colleague in a high leadership position of the State Bar of Texas; several lawyers who’ve had cases with and against her; and three different lawyers (including a judge) who’ve practiced with her and/or who describe her as a role model, pioneer, and a personal inspiration. Percentage thanking me for publishing factual and detailed information about Ms. Miers’ record: 100 percent. Percentage expressing any doubts about her fitness for the Court based on personal knowledge and dealings with her: Zero.
Color me silly, but I sense a trend.
And, I just love Beldar’s putting the hammer to the elitists.
If you believe the world should be run by philosopher-kings, by experts, by PhDs and law professors (mere J.D. degrees don’t qualify, it seems, and don’t make me laugh by suggesting that a mere voter’s opinion might count); if you believe that the rest of us are just too damn dumb to be trusted with pointy objects, puddles of water deeper than 1/2 inch, or judicial nominees — well then, this makes perfect sense.
However, if that’s your view, then you ought to re-write the Constitution. Because it very specifically vests the appointment power in the President, whether he’s a lawyer or a butcher or a baker or a candlestick maker. (A mere Harvard MBA, again, is presumptively incapable of managing to tie his shoes or pick a judge, never mind that Roberts fellow or any of Dubya’s other nominations.) What’s important, according to the constitutional scheme devised by the Founders, is that “We the People” pick a President, who then picks the Justices, who are then confirmed or not via the advice and consent of the Senate. But let’s just do away with all that nonsense. How can the United States Senate compare to a faculty senate? How can the President of the United States think that sixty-two million votes in the last election give him a right to make this decision?
Grumpy folk need to be careful what they wish for, and frankly, I’m really surprised conservatives (of all people) were thinking the nominee had to come from the federal judiciary. Sure, neither of my favorites were chosen, but they were my favorites, not my prerequisites to support W further (now, his illegal immigration inaction will drive me to despair).
I think Miers will be a great Justice. Yep, I really do. I think she will be no nonsense and will not suffer “penumbras.”
And, I’m really looking forward to her hearing before the Judiciary Committee. I think she’ll spank some stupid Senators (no Ann Coulter, Miers will not make Biden look good — Miers will make Biden look like the fool he is). She won’t spank ‘em in any flashy, Look at My Teeth Biden Fashion, but in a very matter of fact way.
Bring On The Hearings!
Now!
UPDATE:
This is very interesting.
UPDATE II:
The Anchoress tells us all to Grow Up.
Good advice.
I too think conservatives are looking rather silly right about now. Childishly silly. You know, temper tantrum silly.
Time to Be Still, Grow Up and Chill.
And Don Singleton is in the What She Said! Chillin’ camp also.
UPDATE III:
And, some reasoned, thoughtful discussion is found at the new University of Chicago Law School’s The Faculty Blog:
President Bush has said that he favors judges who will not “legislate from the bench” (hereinafter LFTB), and both Chief Justice Roberts and Harriet Miers have been praised as people who will refuse to LFTB. But is this a useful category? What does it mean? Consider the following possibilities:
Yes, go read it — you’ll enjoy and learn. I know I did.
And, refreshingly, it caused me to think about legal issues, not the noisy political (and more obnoxiously personal) issues.
UPDATE IV:
I note a positive trend of thought at ProLifeBlogs also.
Oh How I Love Jesus is ready to rumble righteously:
I can’t wait to see the Miers vs. the Left version of The Screwtape Letters…
I too think The Left will try to apply a religious test once they learn more and more about Miers.
They will freak out, but will be boxed in.
W’s bench strength is awesome, and he will punish the Senate politically if they do not confirm Miers — with another evangelical such as Michael McConnell.
As somebody name Kerry said, Bring It On.
UPDATE V:
Professor Bainbridge still ain’t Chillin’.