It is becoming clear that the criticism of Harriet Miers is strong enough from both the right and the center that Democrats can oppose her nomination without paying much of a political price.
We learned in the Roberts nomination that some Democratic Senators were willing to find reasons to go back on their earlier assurances that they would support a "mainstream conservative," but not an extremist. When Bush nominated a mainstream conservative, John Roberts, fully half of Senate Democrats opposed his confirmation.
Now George Bush has nominated a weak choice for the Supreme Court, one without a strong judicial philosophy that might help her resist the pressures to "grow in office" in ways that would please the NY Times and the Washington Post.
Will Democratic Senators vote for Miers in the belief that, while she may start out as a conservative, she may eventually make the same move to the left that Justices Souter, Blackmun, and Stevens made? And, even if she doesn't, Miers may at least make the sort of move to the center that Justices O'Connor and Kennedy have made. (The fervor with which Bush asserted that Miers would not change her views after long service on the Court makes me wonder whether she promised him that she wouldn't change. But can anyone be expected to keep such a promise years from now?)
Or will Democratic Senators decide to try to stop the Miers nomination if they can? Although I think that Senate Democrats could survive the political fallout from a filibuster, in my opinion Supreme Court nominees deserve an up-or-down vote. It may take a few weeks for the politics to sort itself out, but getting some Republican defectors may be entirely possible. My best guess is that almost all Democratic Senators will at least begin by tentatively opposing Miers.
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
Roberts said he had no judicial philosophy. So why weren't you up in arms over him? I agree his resume is stronger, but why so much emphasis on a "strong judicial philosophy" now? Maybe if my fellow conservatives were a little more vocal when Bush offered up blank slate number one, then we wouldn't be looking at blank slate number two right now.
Better late than never, however.
Given the GOPs less than stellar performance, this is very possible.
I love watching all the conservatives who argued that the president is entitled to some deference from the Senate during the Roberts confirmation suddenly reverse that view....
On the other hand, they have plenty to gain by defeating her if she really is conservative. A defeat further weakens Bush. A defeat keeps O'Connor around for most of this term, when cases will be heard on assisted suicide, abortion and campaign finance, among other causes dear to their hearts. Conceivably it also strengthens Democrat's chances in November 2006, but not if Bush gets a backup nominee through before the start of the next term.
But how can they know if she is really moderate or conservative? She has never written anything, and unlike Souter she has no judicial record to fall back upon. Her only record is protected by attorney-client and executive privilege, which Bush won't waive. She has stated moderate views on gays, women's rights and the ABA, voted Democratic and given money to Gore, but is also claimed to have had a political and religious conversion, to have the same judicial philosophy as Bush and to be very pro-life, if not actively so.
This is really just a roll of the dice -- for both sides, but more for Democrats than Republicans, since Bush nominated her and presumably is the one who knows her best.
Is John Roberts a "mainstream conservative"? This is subjective, so some who voted against him may not be going back on a pledge to confirm such.
Did every Democrat give such assurances? Not to my knowledge, so the fact that 22 voted against him is not necessarily indicative of acting in bad faith, unless you can cite otherwise.
Although you qualify this staement"almost", it's widely known that Harry Ried not only supports her, he recomended her. The statement from Nancy Pelosi was "I see no reason to oppose her at this time".
From passing inspection, it would appear that while Ms. Miers does not have a judicial philosophy, she is quite a staunch pro-lifer (certainly more so than Roberts), which as I understand, is typically the defining issue.
Democrats can use the cronyism charge not only for this nomination, but against other Bush policies. Democrats can point out how Bush's solution to a crisis always seems to include dumping taxpayer money on Halliburton (Cheney crony). Health care reform involved dumping federal money on Big Pharma. Social Security reform involves dumping big money on Wall Street fees. Etc., etc., etc.
The troubles of Bill Frist and Tom Delay reinforce the cronyism charges. If Democrats play their cards right, this nomination can throw a monkey wrench into Bush's entire agenda.
I think there is almost no chance of a Democrat-led filibuster, but many Democrats may vote against her...
The best possible scenario is for Senators (once making sure she isn't a Scalia in sheep's clothing) is to make statements such as
"I think it unfortunate that Bush once again went to an underqualified crony to pick an important appointment whose decisions will affect the country as a whole. It is a sign of the GOP's corruption and Bush's failed decisionmaking. That said, I cannot see any particular reason why she fails the minimum qualifications, however unecouraging for the office, and is not an extermist. Thus, I vote to confirm the nominee."
1. Do not filibuster
2. Encourage Republican infighting (mostly just by not interfering)
3. Criticize Miers in ways that connect to a coherent set of criticisms of Bush and Republicans (cronyism, etc.) without coming down too harshly on Miers herself
4. Let Senators vote their conscience (assuming that she'll get enough Republican votes to be confirmed)
If there is a possibility of Miers losing an up or down vote, then strategy becomes more tricky. Do they want the victory of defeating a Bush nominee? Or do they want to settle for the not-too-objectionable Miers in order to avoid the next nominee? This is a difficult choice, but it's a good choice to have.
This is what I've been really wrestling with myself, and I do think I'd rather have Kozinski than Miers.
Well, there are two competing theories here, aren't there. There are two reasons why the Democrats might want to "support" her publically. Either because they believe that she is, in fact, a Souter and realize that she's the best thing they're going to get, and don't want their base to get too up in arms about stopping her. Or because they believe that she is, in fact, a...Uh...Conservative judge, and think that by embracing her, they can administer the kiss of death.
There's far too much uncertainty involved in a situation like this to vote on such a basis. Moreover, none of the three Justices mentioned were even known for the sort of blind partisan loyalty that is clearly the reason Miers was selected. Blackmun was known, for a short time, for his extreme closeness to the positions of Chief Justice Burger (such that they were known as the "Minnesota Twins" on the Court), but that's not really the same thing.
I hope the Dems are smarter than that. They have yet to learn that they are not playing by the same rules as the Republicans. Conservatives will not decline support for Miers just because the Dems back her up. They do not buy into reverse psychology: a win, however watered down it may be, is still a win in their eyes.
Odds are the conservative loyalists will warm up to Miers (or at least choke back on their outrage) and accept her nomination.
Yeah, and conservatives would welcome that nomination? Get real.