This article originally appears in The American Thinker
The withdrawal of Harriet Miers to be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States was due in no small part to a tiny, but very influential group of conservative writers and thinkers who viewed the nomination of the President’s personal lawyer as a betrayal of both conservative principles and the President’s own election year promise to nominate strict constructionists to the high court. And now that these advocates have succeeded, the question must be asked of them: What have you gained?
The President has been humiliated and weakened. Democrats have been strengthened and emboldened. The conservative movement is in disarray. And the chances of actually confirming one of their favorites – either Judge Janis Rogers Brown or Priscilla Owens – are about as likely as my pet cat Snowball being capable of reciting the Gettysburg Address.
In fact, I am hard pressed to think of anything the opponents of Miers have gained either for themselves or the conservative movement. Putting on a brave front and declaring that the withdrawal of Miers is a victory for conservative principles is wishful thinking. A fat lot of good those principles will do you when the fallout from this Presidential humiliation depresses turnout in next year’s election and hands the Senate to the Democrats. Of course there are other factors at play when it comes to elections but for good or ill, the base of evangelical Christians who have been the President’s strongest supporters – and the most difficult voters to get to the polls in the first place – were the biggest and most enthusiastic supporters of the nomination. They may decide that their interests lie elsewhere on election day.
I can understand the comeback from Miers’ opponents that the President himself is to blame for nominating her in the first place. There is much truth in that statement as I devoutly wish the President could have seen his way clear in nominating a Brown, an Owens, or a Luttig. Any of those worthies would have been a fine choice for conservatives. Such a selection would have been praised and eagerly supported by the very same folks who opposed the Miers nomination.
But politics is the art of the possible. I daresay that prior to the Miers nomination, it would have been a bruising, uphill battle to get 50 votes for one of those nominees in the Senate. And, since it is extremely likely that the Democrats would desperately oppose the nomination of any conservative of that stripe given that their base would be insistent on countering any move that had the slightest chance of putting a Justice on the Supreme Court who would tip the balance against Roe v Wade, the only option available to the Republicans in the Senate would be the use of the so-called “nuclear option” to break a left-wing filibuster.
Would Majority Leader Frist have the 51 votes necessary to break the log jam? If he couldn’t get the caucus to vote for it last May prior to the deal on lower court nominations made by the so-called “Gang of 14,” how could they possibly believe that Frist would have the votes now? The President is weaker. Republicans are weaker. And we’re that much closer to the 2006 mid terms. Every poll taken on the use of the nuclear option has shown a clear majority of Americans opposed to it. And it is not at all clear that Republican moderates like Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Lincoln Chaffee, and others wouldn’t oppose both the nomination of a Pro-Life candidate and the use of the nuclear option to end any filibuster.
Now the withdrawal of Miers has made the nomination of any strong conservative extremely problematic. Democrats smell blood in the water and, given the President’s weakened position,would feel no compunction about a filibuster, daring Republicans to break it. There is little doubt that the left-wing base of the Democratic party would hold their Senator’s feet to the fire in order to prevent at all costs the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice who would vote to overturn Roe. It is the Ur issue for almost all the interest groups who spend so much in “independent” ads on behalf of Democrats.
And yet, the Miers opponents have not seemed to grasp the fact that by opposing her nomination and now causing her withdrawal, it has cut the legs from underneath the President and the party at a crucial time. Is there much doubt as to the timing of Mier’s withdrawal what with the Special Prosecutor’s indictments coming today? The President, as all Presidents must do, has cut his losses by accepting (or asking for) the withdrawal in order to clear the decks to face what is going to clearly be the crisis of his Presidency. These indictments will dominate the news for weeks. And if what I’ve heard coming from Administration surrogates over the past few days about how the charges will not be serious, that the crime of outing a covert CIA agent has been proven wrong, then the White House is seriously underestimating the impact these indictments will have on voters.
Fairly or unfairly, Republicans are in no position to talk about perjury being an inconsequential criminal act. No matter the whys and wherefores of the charges, the American people would see any such effort by Republicans to paint the transgressions of Libby, Rove and the rest as a case where “everybody does it” or worse, “it’s not that serious of an offense” as rank hypocrisy given the Clinton troubles.
The President may have lanced a boil on his Administration by killing the Miers nomination but at what cost? Given that the nomination of a strong conservative is not in the offing, who are we likely to get?
It would have to be someone who has already been vetted for the high court since the White House plans on announcing another choice as early as this weekend. And like it or not, the demands of “diversity” on the court by both the press and the Democrats resonates with a majority of Americans. Plus, it is apparent that the President would love to nominate the first Hispanic Justice. If not a woman, then how about Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez?
These same conservatives who opposed Miers have largely made it clear that Gonzalez would be unacceptable. The Attorney General supports affirmative action and is identified as a moderate on some social issues. Sound familiar? If you thought you heard the same things about Harriet Miers you are correct. Gonzalez would be grilled mercilessly by Democrats on the Judiciary Committee over the so-called “Torture Memos” where, in the first days of the War on Terror the Administration was groping for a policy on detainees and the memos offered options and opinions on what was legal and what should be done. But in the end, like Justice Roberts, Gonzalez may be able to garner enough Democratic votes to kill any possibility of a filibuster.
This is what the President needs at this moment; a slam dunk, fairly easy win. Conservatives have stepped up the rhetoric over the last 24 hours and seem eager for a fight. But did it ever occur to them that maybe the President isn’t quiet as enamored of the idea of going to war with the Democrats in the Senate? Perhaps the President is interested in getting some of his dormant legislative agenda enacted for this term? Any long, drawn out fight in the Senate over a Supreme Court nominee would derail the efforts to reform social security, enact tax reform, or any number of other issues near and dear to the President’s heart.
The clock is ticking on the Presidency of George Bush. I’m sure he is painfully aware of that fact. The derailment of the Miers nomination has speeded up that clock which is now ticking toward a day when the President’s power to affect that national agenda is severely limited by his lame duck status.
While the President’s troubles are not all of their doing, the opponents of the Miers nomination have been most unhelpful. And the fact that they have gained little but ideological satisfaction from their actions makes me question whether or not they truly realize the damage they have done to the Presidency of a man they still profess to support and admire.
9:02 am
Your being way too melodramatic about this. The dems were seeing victory in her actual confirmation as well as her current withdrawal. They considered it win-win either way. Bush and the conservative base are much tougher then you give them credit for; he makes a decent choice from here all that past recrimination will be bird cage liner. Had he steamrolled and ignored his base in this is then you would have seen damage as his most dedicated supporters sat out 2006 because they didn’t like being used.
10:20 am
Throughout all of this, Harriet Miers has behaved with dignity and grace, just like our President. I too think it was a mistake for the hardcore Conservatives (as I call them) to form the lynch mob. I wonder if ANY nominee will satisfy all of them and whether they will declare war again.
I am not quite ready to make a judgment on the damage that was done. I need to process all that has happened in the last 6 weeks and am also waiting to see who is really indicted today and for what reasons.
Thank you for your reasoned approach on this blog. I may not always agree with you, but I know that you have always given your posts much thought and analysis.
10:32 am
I hope everybody will be happy with the results of their pogrom against Miers. This is more than a disaster for the Republican party and conservatives, it’s a major setback for world peace.
A destroyed or weakened Bush gives terrorists worldwide hope that a Democrat congress and president is in our immediate future and they’ll keep up the killing until they get what they want, an administration that resumes the politics of appeasement and cowering behind the UN.
11:40 am
If you believe the message given to the President was: “our way or the highway!” you are correct. He received our votes from Day One with promises of a conservative appointments. Had anyone at the White House been listening, he would not have made this mistake and nominated a crony.
He is now half way home and we await his Court nomination. If he now follows his campaign promises, we will be back at his side.
1:50 pm
I usually agree with you, but on this I think you are wrong. Ditching Miers puts the focus back on things that are important. If there’s a lesson to be learned from the Miers fiasco, it’s that Bush needs to be a better communicator—in all areas. Daniel Henninger in todays WSJ makes this point very eloquently. Bush’s focus—and ours—needs to be on the war against Islamism, and on getting the job done in Iraq. Bush needs to make that mission clear—clearer—every single day. The last thing he needs to be doing is defending a “stealth” nomination of a woman who was not certifiably qualified for the high court.
2:07 pm
So, Rick, your message to people, like myself, who felt that Miers’ nomination was a slap in the face on three separate grounds (cronyism, lack of qualifications, and lack of a coherent, conservative JUDICIAL philosophy – as amply demonstrated by her ridiculously poorly written-and-reasoned writings and speeches as head of the Texas Bar) is that we should have simply accepted Bush’s screw up in silence??? And, in opposing, on principle, a BAD nomination, WE’RE at fault, not Bush for making a horrendous nomination in the first place?????
What color is the sky on your planet?
2:27 pm
I am a lifelong Republican, when I heard Laura Ingraham ranting that “no woman has personal choice,
I suddenly saw conservatives in a new light. In my opinion they made a terrible mistake:
A) Harriet Miers never got a chance to open her mouth in hearings.
B) Does not being a loadmouth disquailify ?
C) Can a person change opinions/viewpoints in 12 years, if so how will you tell, if you don’t ask ?
D) Does ‘Miering’ someone resemble the Dems, politically correct, don’t we as Republicans hear all without pre judging, versus Dems ?
E) If I were George Bush, I would say, here’s your conservative candidate, get he/she onto the court, since you can remove Harriet, let’s see you do the opposite (in pitched battle) ! This will show all, including the conservatives, what power they have(Bush gives them the power over himself, what if he decides not to !)
F) Are these conservatives (as a matter of mass rather than beliefs) really where the Republican party needs to go ?
Sorry, I never was a good typist.
Jim
4:39 pm
I think the real reason those pseudo-moralist conservatives were up in arms over Miers is that she thought that Bush was some sort of freaking genius. Now I’ll admit that you need to deceive yourself about a lot of things to be a modern conservative, but that was one step too far for poor Harriet. So those people she thought were her friends set upon her and gleefully hacked her to death on the White House lawn. Such is the state of conservatism today!
6:55 pm
I am constantly amazed by folks like FastNed, Bill Bennett, Ann Coulter, on and on , ad nauseum, who wish to inform my ignorant out-of-the-beltway Midwest Red State Ass that I should bow down to their representation on my behalf with the “true” conservatives. With friends like you, I sure don’t need those Democrat enemies! I’m happy your smugnissess have interevened on my behalf, lest I go and let someone have her day in “court” as it were. So from now on, you as the arbiters of what is right (pun intended) and what is wrong with Conservatives, just tell me what to think, and I’ll go along. Gosh, it seems that’s why I didn’t remain a Democrat. Anyway, FastNed, we’re right here for you, buddy. You lead on and we’ll be right there. After all, all good Conservatives think alike. Right?
7:46 pm
Mr. Moran, Depleted Uranium, and others: did you really think Miers was a good nominee? As Bugs Bunny would say, “Honest and for true?” Particularly after the revelation of her 1993 speech in the Washington Post?
I could care less if Bush is weakened at this point. His authority is waning, anyway—he will be a lame duck soon and completely gone in 3 years. Conversely, we’d be stuck with Miers for decades. Bush can hardly do worse than mominate this blank slate of a stealth candidate who looks more and more liberal with each revelation of her past decisions and speeches.
Moreover, it is quite bold of you to categorize Miers opponents as Eastern elitists. From my born-and-bred chair here in the Midwest, I believe you go to war with a warrior. Ms. Miers is not a proven warrior, period.
Prediction: Bush will nominate a strict constructionist and we will successfully fight the ideological battle during confirmation.
Former Democrats can sit back and learn. Right?
8:13 pm
We must forgive the opponents of Harriet Miers for they not know not what they do.
8:44 pm
Well, maybe so ScottAln, you may be right, I may be crazy (sorry,I stole that). What I do know is that the Democrats and the MSM have been licking their chops for weeks over the possibilty that Ms. Miers would bow to pressure from “Mainstream” Conservatives and darned if the prophecy didn’t come true. So now we’re a party in disarray, we’ve “lost our focus”, and the Red Meat Democrats are back again. I just don’t think this was the fight, the battle, or the war, but we disagree. Just be wary of what we face with the “Nuclear” Nominee. I’m not sure the political capital is worth it. Obviously, we disagree. You can hope more agree with you than with me.
12:52 am
What have we gained?! How about keeping a potentially damaging candidate off of the court?!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/25/AR2005102502038.html
I can’t believe you haven’t addressed this thus far.
8:54 pm
Bush Between A Rock And A Hard Place In Replacing O’Connor
President Bush is mulling a short list of prospective Supreme Court nominees this weekend at the Camp David presidential retreat.
Liberals fear Bush will nominate someone to please the GOP’s right flank, which opposed the failed nomination of H…
10:38 pm
By the way. Scott. Is it going to be the party line that when a Republican President is in his fifth year, he’s a lame duck and we’re moving on to three years from now, thanks alot for your service but we have bigger fishes to fry here? Hell, let’s just impeach the SOB now and get on with it…something’s lame but I don’t think it’s the duck.
2:21 am
Flagwaver and ScottAln have it right. Miers was a joke, a deer in the headlights—like the man who selected her. From what many of the Senators said who interviewed her, her answers, WHEN AUDIBLE, didn’t make a whole lot of sense to where even liberal Arlen Specter said her answers (in the first questionnaire) were unacceptable. She was/is a lightweight, like the man who nominated her. Her judicial experience and political positions held were next to nil. Tonight, ironically, SHE will be helping a man who shouldn’t need one iota of help to select her replacement!! While I can tell who the freepers are in this blog and who the true conservatives are, I don’t deny the freepers/RINOs/liberal GOPers their “sense of loss”. They are correct; Bush HAS been weakened, but then, Americans (as we saw with the philandering and woman-abusing Bill Clinton) were and are very forgiving. Replacing Miers with Luttig, Alito, Owens or Rogers Brown would I’m sure bring back some of the Base. After all, it was his promise to select strict constructionists that got Bush relected. Many conservatives voted for him holding their noses ONLY because of that promise. What none of you mention in this blog are Bush’s other problems than the Miers disaster and the aides’ legal troubles—illegal immigration. While nominating a Luttig would definitely help Bush IN THE SHORT RUN, he has failed so miserably at the Southern Border that many conservatives (like me) left the party years ago knowing he was going to do next to nothing to anger his big business friends. However, The Minutemen and others who want the President to fulfill his oath of office and stop the Invasion from Mexico have forced the issue into the public eye. Anger towards the neo-cons, RINOs and Libertarian consevatives on illegal immigration is stronger than any other issue, except perhaps the swing vote on SCOTUS. It is clear to this conservative that Bush needs to clean house and bring in some real conservatives. Reagan did it in 88-89 and so have other presidents. But if Bush fails to recognize that the Base—including many Independent conservatives like me who once voted for him—he will find that the hubbub over Miers from the Right was awalk in the park compared to what is coming if he continues to push amnesty for illegal aliens on the country. I do not, by the way, disagree with my disenters here that A weakened Bush is good for Demos and band for the GOP. The GOP has controlled all three houses of power in the country for some time now, and has had at one time event SCOTUS making conservative-minded decisions. The party out of power is bound to make some inraods in a mid-term election—you should expect that. I didn’t vote for Bush this last go-round; I have no dog in the hunt if he fails and becomes a 3-year lame duck. I want the COUNTRY to succeed, and I believe it can do so with or without Bush leading the way. He is simply oout of touch with Americans. He’s a president who is clearly in big business’ pocket. However, I hear that he is quietly nominating conservative District Court judges to try to fix what Clinton had broken with so many liberal appointments in his last 4 years. Even if the GOP loses the House or the Senate, which is unlikely, we MUST get the COURTS away from the Left—for that is where the Left has destroyed so much in our country. In closing, let me say that Bush therefore has a chance to win MANY of us over if he proceeds in two areas he was remiss in during his first 4 years—sealing our Southern Border with the National Guard or Army and nominating a brilliant conservative like Alito or Luttig or Owens or Rogers Brown aling with continuing to nominate the lower Disctrict Court conservaitve judges. If he wants his legacy sealed in the hearts of conservatives, the people who barely got him elected in both elections, he needs to take charge, abandon his amnesty-for-illegal-aliens plan and do what he was sworn in to do—protect and defend the United States of America from invasion and all enemies. It wouldn’t hurt his chances of regaining our support if he also went after the ACLU, slapping them in every state with RICO.
7:09 pm
levotb,
I guess name calling is where we’re at. My guess is I was a registered, mouth breathing Republican many years before you had the opportunity. No matter. I don’t mind discourse, but to assume those who disagree with your point of view are “Freepers” and Neocons, is condescending and presumptive. I agreed with more of your post than you might think. The problem is,I think there are problems equally as pressing as who the next member of the SCOTUS will be. None of the people you name would make a bad Justice. Problem is that is where our focus will be until Christmas or longer. We’ll go through the filibuster, the Nuclear Option and in the end, probably lose another nominee, all in the name of marking our territory. I want a competent Justice. I can see your point that Ms. Miers was not making a compelling case to become the next Justice. However, I think you want much more than competence and clear thinking on the bench. You want legislation from the bench and that sounds like you don’t mind playing the Liberal game. I want Judges. The Congress is about all the legislation I can take on a day to day basis. Please don’t tell me what a “good” Conervative/Republican/Thinkingman you are because the future is so much more important than the present. As for you, Scott et al, I disagree with your line of thinking. However, to pull off what you want now, in 2006 and especially 2008, you’re going to need the help of those in the party who feel the way I do. Was Bush elected by a slim margin because of who he was or because that’s as many votes as the party could muster? Is your message going to generate the votes needed in future elections, or are you just going to feel better knowing you fought the good fight? Hack all of us “Freepers” off and carry on. Never thought John McCain would look good to me.
11:59 pm
Depleted Uranium is an apt name (and I mean this in a good way) to apply to our situation. Uranium is dangerous, radioactive stuff but if we deplete it a bit we lose lots of radioactivity but keep some solid penetrating power. So, too, with losing Miers. We will not irradiate ourselves as we attack, instead we now launch a hardened Alito round. This will draw out the Dems to state in public that they believe parental notification for abortion (and other positions held by the majority of Americans) are disqualifiers for SCOTUS. If they choose to go “Nuclear” (daring us to use the Constitutional Option to change Senate Filibuster rules for advise & consent) they themselves will be irradiated. As has been observed by others, Dems are successful as long as they use catch phrases like “Women’s Rights” and “Right to Choose” instead of specifics like “we oppose parental notification” and “we like partial birth abortion as an option.” I, too, want a real judge and not someone who legislates from the bench. I have no idea how Roberts or Alito would vote if Roe came up today. But if they are strict constructionists there is no way they could back the penumbra on which Roe is based. Legislatures and executives pass laws, judges should interpret them accurately and in good faith. Let us hope that even the most extreme of judges can see that the trend to legislate from the bench has undermined the “rule of law” itself, and in order to restore respect for law that the judges themselves must respect the law, as written.