There has always been a fine line in the President’s personality between confidence and arrogance. I’ve pointed this out on more than one occasion, especially when it has come to the way the Administration has conducted some aspects the war as well as the President’s penchant for keeping advisor’s who have either proven themselves inept (Michael Brown) or outlived their usefulness (Rumsfeld).
To me, the most attractive aspect of the President’s personality has always been a confidence in his own judgment and innate abilities. It has allowed him to make tough decisions both domestically and in the foreign policy arena that I admire him for and continue to support. It places him on a level far above the craven Clinton and even his wishy-washy father whose backbone of jelly doomed conservatives to having to put up with two terms of a serial liar and pompous ass as well as possibly saddle us with his addle brained wife as President.
But the President’s choice of Harriet Miers to replace Sandra Day O’Connor as a Justice of the United States Supreme Court just strikes me as out and out hubris.
Miers is someone with no experience as a judge, which will anger some legal experts whose good opinion the President will need to get her confirmed. The choice has angered many conservatives because she has no track record on abortion or other conservative issues near and dear to the right’s heart. It will anger main stream Republicans because until recently, the woman has apparently been a supporter of Democrats. And it opens up a line of attack by the President’s enemies who are already charging “cronyism” in the selection.
In short, if the President wanted to piss off the most number of people in the shortest period of time, he should be congratulated.
But of course, that was not the President’s intent. Instead, it appears the President has rejected the advice of Republicans, Democrats, conservatives, liberals, pundits, and professionals and chosen a non-entity to fill the important position of Supreme Court Justice.
It is now an open question as to whether or not the President has become so cut off from real world exigencies that he is unable to gauge the reaction of both his opponents and supporters. This is not unusual in second term Presidents as both Reagan and Clinton showed at times that they had lost the sure political touch of their first terms. It comes from the inevitable staff shake-ups that occur in any administration. It could also signal that the President, a man who did not take criticism well in the best of times, has completely closed himself off to opposing viewpoints. And while I would hesitate to say that the President’s advisers have turned into a bunch of gonad-less “yes men,” it stands to reason that you’re not much use if the boss never listens to you. And by the way, those the boss doesn’t listen to tend to disappear from the circle of power and cease having any influence.
Perhaps there is something else at work here that we are unaware of but I think not. The President apparently decided that his judgment in the matter was so superior to others that it wasn’t necessary for him to listen to anyone else. If there is a better definition of arrogance, I’m listening.
The nomination announcement is less than 3 hours old and already Miers is in trouble. Perhaps the President can crack the whip and pull 51 Senate votes out of a hat but I’m doubting it. It’s also too late to pull back – unless something of a disqualifying nature can be found. Given how carefully the President’s team vetted her for her position of White House Counsel, that’s not likely.
Does this prove the President is a lame duck? Not hardly. Even though the left will spin the potential defeat of Miers as an indication of the President’s diminished ability to lead, the defeat of an unqualified, unwanted candidate for the Supreme Court would not be an indication of anything except the Senate showing good judgment in not having this nominee rammed down their throats.
Maybe we’ll get lucky and Miers will see the storm of controversy surrounding her nomination and gracefully withdraw. Anyone remember Alan Ginsburg? (10/3: Actually, as Erisamann points out in the comments, it’s Douglas Ginsburg not Alan, the Beat poet and author of one of my favorites, the epic poem “Howl.”)
UPDATE
I’m glad I wrote the above post without reading a single thing from any other source because I probably would have been even more negative in my assessment.
About the only positive note is being sung by the unflappable Hugh Hewitt who gives the selection a “B+.”
Elsewhere, not so good.
Captain Ed is “mystified.”
The Powerline crew is “disappointed.”
Lori Byrd wishes she was younger but is willing to trust the President.
Michelle Malkin is “underwhelmed” and does her usual spectacular job of rounding up reax.
Wizbang is not thrilled and links to Red State who has the skinny on Miers rather interesting camapaign contribution history.
Junkyard Blog makes many of the same political points I do.
Could the Prez run to the East Room and yell “Gotchya” at the press and then announce someone else? Not if he wants to be taken seriously.
12:25 pm
Round 2 O’Connor’s Replacement.
It is official. Bush has picked Harriet Miers. The official announcement will be at 8:05, will keep you informed. She is the president’s top councel. She was previously Bush’s Deputy Chief of Staff.
Miers, a Texas native, studied at So…
12:34 pm
Conservatives who are so upset about Meirs’ appointment seem to forget that even though there are 55 Republicans, not all of them are conservative. Bush probably realized that Luttig, Owens, Brown or any conservative with a paper trail would probably lose a number of Republicans. I can easily point to at least five: Spector, Collins, Snowe, Chaffee, and McCain. All it takes is one more (perhaps Voinovich or Warner) and the nomination is dead if Democrats hold fast, especially on a fillibuster. Why sacrifice a good candidate just to make a point? If Bush believes she’s the right candidate given the current difficult conditions in the Senate, that’s good enough for me. Effective politics is the art of the possible, not tilting at windmills.
David Cutbirth
Reidsville, Georgia
12:38 pm
David:
Good point. The problem is that there were other, more qualified candidates who would have been able to garner support across the aisle as well. Miers may be a cipher but she’s also a total zero. And I don’t think it will help her with those Republicans you mentioned and certainly not with Democrats who are already crying “cronyism” at the choice.
1:26 pm
Roberts was Bush’s Chief Justice choice long before O’Connor’s surprise retirement. Since Miers was instrumental in that selection, don’t you think she possibly made it clear that she considered Roberts philosophy proper?
1:30 pm
Fritz:
Whether she’s conservative enough doesn’t concern me as much as the fact that she’s a total non-entity with nothing to recommend her to the highest court in the land.
The Supreme Court should not be a training ground – it is the ultimate position for a lawyer. A candidate should come with all the experience and judgment necessary and not have to “gow into” the job.
That’s what I think Miers will have to do.
1:42 pm
Rick,
Since when did the Constitution require Justices must be judges? Rehnquist wasn’t a judge. If Estrada had been nominated, would you be making the same arguments? Had he been so, Conservatives would be cheering. She simply is an unknown, Cheney isn’t worried. Her vote will probably be a second of Roberts. Conservatives didn’t rally around Roberts until after the hearings, this may be the same situation.
2:25 pm
Harriet Miers nominated for Supreme Court (UPDATED ALL DAY)
If there’s one thing we know about President Bush it’s that he places a very high value on trust and personal loyalty up to and beyond a fault. Today Mr. Bush nominated White House counsel Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court of the United…
2:30 pm
[...] s, Project Nothing!, Law Dork, Opinions You Should Have, democracy guy, Begging to Differ, Right Wing Nut House, Billmon, MaxSpeak, The Hotline’s Blogometer, The [...]
3:33 pm
Michelle Maklin hits the Julie Myers nail
Michelle Malkin says it best
What Julie Myers is to the Department of Homeland Security, Harriet Miers is to the Supreme Court. It’s not just that Miers has zero judicial experience. It’s that she’s so transparently a crony/”diversity” pick while…
6:41 pm
Why the hullabaloo because the president nominated one of his trusted counselors because we don’t have enough background on her. He’s apparently known her for more than 20 years and trusts her instincts. If we’re going to question someone’s validity because he or she once supported liberal causes, then we might as well be ready to lose a lot of support (including me, by the way). I thought the idea was to bring converts along. Do we really believe GW surrounds himself with closet liberals just waiting to unmask themselves as soon as they get the lifetime appointment? Believe what you like but I have more faith in the man.
7:20 pm
Rick: I’ve always enjoyed coming here for a good read. I simply can’t go with you on this one. After watching Brown testify last week, it was clear to me that the screw-up local and state governments couldn’t find their asses with both hands! Rumsfeld is a great man, hard worker and loyal. He is doing a thankless job of reforming our military with all DOD appointees from crimal-clinton working against him. He also benefits from a far-looking effort, something that we don’t see. That’s our fault, not his.
I do agree with your second paragraph, line five starting with “craven” to the end of same paragraph.
I don’t believe that this is the same case here. Have faith in our president, don’t attribute to him motives and attitudes that we can only guess at. The Man has a plan in all things, stay the course. And of course, COURAGE. Got to forgive me that one!
7:40 pm
I think you mean Douglas Ginsburg.
8:12 pm
Hi Depleted Uranium (never theought I’d be saying “hi” to someone with that “name,” but…!!),
I like your argument, but I think many Bush supporters see the Miers nomination as yet another piece of material which has been added to the Bush presidency’s snowball-gradually-turning-into-a-glacier which is gaining speed, barrelling down the mountain toward the “let’s get along with the Democrats” bunch huddled below in the ski lodge.
One thing about liberals. They may bend (Clinton, dragged kicking and screaming, to the welfare reform signing table)but rarely do the break to the wishes of the right. Yet, all too often, those of us on the right seem unable to muster the guts and courage to “do the right thing” on issues, even when we know to do so IS the right thing. Why? Because we are afraid the libs will call us names and not “like” us.
President Bush and the GOP won a hefty victory almost a year ago. I thought, after playing around with the Dems for four years, that Bush, given his sizeable win over Kerry, would pull off the gloves in his second term and be the conservative we on the right had hoped for all along. How’s THAT working out for him and us?!!
He’s out-Clintoned Clinton on federal spending (helped along by the Republican leadership in the House and Senate), has looked the other way as illegals flood our country (while repeatedly telling the country of the importance of fighting terrorism, blah, blah, blah)and now he nominates a seemingly underqualified woman who not too long ago supported Democrats to be a Supreme Court justice.
Huh??
I think both the ‘06 and ‘08 elections will be big Democrat victories. Why? Bush has worked his job so that there really is no difference between Republicans and Democrats anymore when it comes to throwing dollars into the fire. Same with the very important, serious illegal immigrant debate. Dems don’t want to change anything there; neither, apparently, do Bush or the Repubs. Spending and immigration issues are a wash between the two parties, what’s the tie-breaker?
The war in Iraq. Dems over the next two election cycles, particularly before ‘08, will echo Kerry’s ‘04 pronouncements of finding a “smarter, wiser, more mature” way of handling (ie. cutting and running)the Iraq situation. By next year and 2008, if the war has not simmered down and there appears to be no light at the end of that tunnel, watch for Democrat candidates running for the presidency on down to tell us all how they will get us out of Iraq…pronto.
President Bush, approaching his five-year anniversary in the Oval Office, has done more to elect Democrats in the next few years than Howard Dean or Hillary Clinton or Harry Reid could ever have imagined.
And that is a terrible shame.
9:43 pm
Look, I’m not happy about this nominee. Given Bush’s track record, I’m not sure his judgement can be trusted. After all this is the guy who has referred to Russian president Vladimir Putin as an “ally in the War on Terror” and a “friend” or something to this effect. Putin has neither been an ally nor has he been a friend. This and many other things raise doubts that about Bush’s ability to judge the character of those he interacts with. Having said this it seems unlikely that any of the Conservative judges, such as Luttig, Owens, Brown, or any of the other judges with staunchly Conservative track records who are freqently spoken of in Conservative circles could have survived a fillibuster. In other words, any judge who has a “paper trail” indicating that he or she is a Conervative is likely to face a fillibuster and the so called “gang of 14” are unlikely to invervene to override the fillibuster. This may explain the stealth nominee. Bush has worked with this woman and he may think he can trust her. This is what I think it ultimately comes down to. Can we trust the judgement of GW Bush to be truthful or to be a good judge of character? I certainly don’t trust him. Acutally anyone wishing to fillibuster this nominee would have a very easy time doing so for the following reasons: 1.) She has no judicial experience. 2.) She is uncomfortably close to the administration. She may not be a “crony” but it certainly appears she is. In any event, I hope and pray this all works out for true Conservatives.
6:35 am
We elect the President. He appoints whomever he wants to the Supreme Court. It’s in the Constitution, Doo-Doo heads.
If you want to appoint Supreme Court Justices, run for President.
7:12 am
Rick, I understand getting pissed, but I’m all for giving this some more time and thought. I’m largely with B. Poster on this one: perplexed yet understanding. I think Depleted Uranium nailed it as well:
“Believe what you like but I have more faith in the man.”
This is really all about faith, isn’t it? I admit, at first I was shocked, and listening to Laura Ingraham yesterday got me to holding my head in my hands, rocking back and forth. But then after hearing Ken Mehlman and Dick Cheeney talk about Miers, and even hearing Newt Gingrich express his cautious optimism, the cleverness of this nomination became more clear to me. You call Bush’s choice arrogant, but I call it strategic.
Just ask yourself:
1) Do you REALLY think that Bush, after all these years of trying to get fair up or down votes on his CONSERVATIVE, ORIGINALIST nominees to the federal bench, would really go LEFT with one of possibly the only two chances he’ll have at the BIG prize, the SCOTUS?
2) If you were Bush, would you really want to go to battle over a Rogers Brown or and Alito with the Senate GOP as your army? (a point that Limbaugh was making yesterday) B. Poster’s point above is well taken. We’re looking for a victory here, not a fight that a perceptibly weakened president has a very good chance of losing thanks to an unreliable Republican Senate. If you want to get pissed at anyone, then dammit get pissed at the freaking RINOs!
You seem to feel this selection is very nearly an impeachable offense. I am cautiously optimistic, and more and more folks like me are speaking up in the right-minded b’sphere. While there are plenty of reasons to NOT have faith in Bush (e.g., cutting federal spending, border security), I do have considerable faith in him on this one. Best reason: He lived through his father’s Souter mistake, probably is horrified more by it than is Bush 41.
Last thing: the Left is just LOVING the fact that the Right is shredding itself over this nomination. Wouldn’t it be loverly if instead we pulled ourselves together behind the president and simply BELIEVED that we will have the last laugh on this one?
7:23 am
Thanks to all for your comments – even those in opposition.
I’m doing a post to flesh this idea out but my point is this:
The Bush Presidency is at a crossroads – one of those clear historic moments where the President and everything he is supposed to stand for either marches forward or, like a Carter or Clinton, or even a Bush 41, other more powerful forces take hold and jerk the country in another direction.
Successful Presidents like Reagan and Ike knew the moment instinctively. Ike’s Interstate Highway bill of 1956 changed America forever. Reagan’s tax bill of 1986 indexed tax rates – a wildly radical idea but one of the most important changes to the tax code ever.
Because of the war, the hurricanes, gas prices, and other negatives, George Bush’s moment is now. And he could have (and IMHO) should have thrown down the gauntlet on this nomination. As it is, by doing what is “possible” Bush has conceded the playing field to the Democrats.
If I can clear my head for a few hours, I’ll post on this today. If not, gimme a shot of whiskey, a good wench, and call me in the morning.
9:30 am
MIERS & THE MORNING AFTER
***scroll for updates…Bush Rose Garden press conference scheduled for 1030am EDT…*** Well, it’s a new day. Upon sober reflection, President Bush’s nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court appears…even worse than it did 24 hours ago. Con…
9:48 am
Who is Harriet Miers?
This is my obligatory Harriet Miers post. I’m having trouble generating enough interest to write about the Supreme Court nominations. I honestly couldn’t care less that George Bush picked yet another crony for an important job, a lifetime …
1:23 pm
Do you trust the president?
...some on the right say “no.”
1:15 am
I have no doubt that Miers is a solid conservative. That’s not the point. Here’s what I wrote on my blog, “Runalong”:
Harry Reid is a genius!
He read the writing on the wall and figured out what all the conservatives already knew and most Democrats were in denial about: namely, whoever Bush nominated to the Supreme Court was going to pass the Senate. And it (probably she) was going to be a conservative. Reid could have done all the counter-productive speechifying politicians do at times like this, but he got smart. He decided, “if we have to have a conservative, let’s make sure it is the weakest possible conservative.”
He didn’t want the prospect of white male Democrat Judiciary Committee members “grilling” Janice Rogers Brown on race, or Mitch McConnell on separation of church and state. Well aware of the principle of stare decisis he didn’t want a Luttig or even an Owens writing opinions and dissents that would be studied by law students for generations. He didn’t want Jones interrogating ACLU lawyers before considering a case.
He wanted someone who wouldn’t be likely to influence other judges like Kennedy, who wouldn’t be terribly impressive in confirmation hearings, who wouldn’t write brilliant opinions and dissents that would stir up budding legal minds for years to come. He wanted someone with less heft, less persuasiveness, less lasting impact. He decided Miers was his best bet.
So he began talking up the importance of judges who don’t have bench experience. He let Bush know that Miers was acceptable. He figured Bush would avoid a fight if possible and he knew Bush liked to promote people he knew well.
And it worked. Bush fell for it. Reid put Miers on the court. This is the one moment everyone will always remember him for. Sheer political brilliance. He had a lousy hand, Bush had a strong hand. Reid bluffed, Bush blinked, and the rest is history.
mark swanson
9:28 pm
Mark
I think the Democrats had the better hand here. Harry Reid knew that all of the potential nominees talked up in Conservative circles would not pass a fillibuster. Bush knows this too. If we are going to have justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, they will have to be stealth nominees, such as John Roberts and Harriet Miers. The solution to this problem is to elect more Conservatives to office. If we do this, Conservatives with a track record as such can get confirmed to the SCOTUS. Btw, George W. Bush is no conservative. Had Conservatives been diligent, perhaps we could have prevented him from getting the nomination in 2000.
I think whether or not we support the nomination of Harriet Miers hinges on whether or not we trust the president. Personally I have my doubts.
11:33 pm
The Anti-Miers Snowball
This might be hard for some to believe. Conservative bloggers and commentators are up in arms about the Miers’ nomination. Of course, since Conservatives are generally principled folks, and not blind cheerleaders, it shouldn’t be.
Here…
5:22 am
kmrfqjaemq
rqhdixzq qcmdiogrbo ytocxmcqyo
3:05 am
Swingers sex
Then He slapped my ass and ordered me under the desk. It was then that I knew that this time it was going to push even my whorish limits on performing as His sex slave.
9:40 pm
porn
lugkilffkoi mpvqlxjk uxcccaouk
8:01 pm
russian woman dating
ubwwybcgs iefpwygdjg ifiwwvqk
10:51 am
sex cam lesbian
sex cam lesbian sex cam lesbian sex cam lesbian sex cam lesbian sex cam lesbian vxqqucoaqbi