October 17, 2005
There Goes The Dem-Love
John Fund in today's WSJ OpinionJournal:
Two days after President Bush announced Harriet Miers's Supreme Court nomination, James Dobson of Focus on the Family raised some eyebrows by declaring on his radio program: "When you know some of the things that I know--that I probably shouldn't know--you will understand why I have said, with fear and trepidation, that I believe Harriet Miers will be a good justice."Mr. Dobson quelled the controversy by saying that Karl Rove, the White House's deputy chief of staff, had not given him assurances about how a Justice Miers would vote. "I would have loved to have known how Harriet Miers views Roe v. Wade," Mr. Dobson said last week. "But even if Karl had known the answer to that--and I'm certain that he didn't because the president himself said he didn't know--Karl would not have told me that. That's the most incendiary information that's out there, and it was never part of our discussion."
It might, however, have been part of another discussion. On Oct. 3, the day the Miers nomination was announced, Mr. Dobson and other religious conservatives held a conference call to discuss the nomination. One of the people on the call took extensive notes, which I have obtained. According to the notes, two of Ms. Miers's close friends--both sitting judges--said during the call that she would vote to overturn Roe.
I'd still like to see Harriet Miers get a chance to get up in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee before I make my decision on whether I'd support her or not, but at this point...
Let's just say things don't look too good.
Update: Brian at TBSC discusses the relaunch of Miers and explores a bit of SCOTUS nominee history. I think the "ship of state" above pretty much sums up the extent I think relaunching the nomination will now accomplish. They've played this badly since the beginning.
I'd still like to see Harriet Miers get a chance to get up in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee before I make my decision on whether I'd support her or not, but at this point...
The problem I have with this is twofold. The first is that we really don't learn anything from the hearings, at least not since Bork. Second, once the hearings start, it will be impossible for Bush to save face anymore. His only 'outs' are her confirmation, or her withdrawing her own nomination.
The third part of my twofold problem (heh) is that this is a good chance for true conservatives to let Bush know that he can't do whatever he wants and expect us to blindly follow. Bush has to realize that we know he's not following through on what the conservatives want. To recover our trust, he may have to do one or more of the following:
-Cut spending
-Close the borders (and afterwards, secure them)
-Delay/destroy the prescription drug debt creator
-Nominate a conservative known to have judicial restraint.
Wouldn't that be good news? All in all, it would be best for Ms. Miers to withdraw.
Posted by: Kevin at October 17, 2005 09:14 PMPowerline has its modest proposal that I wish Harriet would follow: Go into the hearings and boldly declare Roe was improperly decided because the Constitution is silent on the subject and this is best an issue left to the states to sort out. Then she should go on and say while she is pro-life personally, she doesn't know how she would rule if an abortion case came up--she would have to look carefully at the facts and precedents and consider stare decisis before she made a decison.
The Dems would go nuts. The Conservatives would be reassured. If the Dems filabuster, invoke the nuclear option (I bet Lindsay Graham would be on board, you only need one more Republican from the Gang of 14). McCain may even be willing to recant to make up with the base. Even if they lose the battle, Miers comes out a champ. The President looks good to his base then can bring forward a Luttig, McConnell, Garza, Jones, etc.
I can't see another good option--but the beauty of this is it is actually a pretty good option.
Posted by: Ginko Bilboa at October 17, 2005 10:09 PMAnd now, we know that Miers believes "Griswold v. Connecticut" was "rightly decided." I don't buy Arlen Specter's artful retraction. He's usually very precise when it comes to Constitutional law, and for him to have such an incorrect read of a discussion with a nominee about such a seminal case? No way.
So, Bush named a Pro-Choicer. So much for being true to the Conservative base. Like father, like son. It's Souter Part II.
That's what you get when you go with cronies.
Posted by: Sally Jones at October 18, 2005 10:04 AM
