October 04, 2005

Bush Backed Down from a Fight

Harriet might turn out to be a fine, conservative jurist. That's not my problem with her nomination. There was no reason for a stealth candidate to be selected not when there were plenty of winning candidates available. Will Malven writes,

Taking all of the above in, and giving it the proper weight, my reaction is to say she may turn out all right, but why on Earth would President Bush wish to take the chance? The President, when running for office, promised us a justice in the mold of Thomas or Scalia. Both Thomas and Scalia were known quantities when they were nominated, and were successful in their bid to be justices. This is just a case of the President trying to avoid a tough confirmation battle. In an attempt to avoid confrontation, he has capitulated to the anti-Bush forces. This is a losing strategy. It always has been a losing strategy. The enemies of freedom never treat a move of appeasement with respect; they always see it as the first step in further capitulation. They see it as an invitation to further attack. This is also a surrender to the recent trend by the Left to “Bork” any nominee who had a demonstratively originalist record.

Ticking off the political base is not smart politics, especially since conservatives were eager for a fight. A Bork/Scalia/Thomas nominee would have given the Left convulsions. They would have let loose their dirt-digging hounds and stated shouting from their virtual rooftops. Fine. Make the Democrats try a fillibuster. If the nominee were highly qualified, intelligent, well-spoken, and scandal-free the public would have accepted him. The "Gang of 14" would crumble and the Dems would lose. Now, we have an angry group of conservatives who wonder when Republicans will start acting like they're in power.

Randy Barnett, an acceptable nominee for me, writes about Alexander Hamilton thought the Constitution allows the Senate to prevent cronyism in the judicial branch.

Politically it may be best for Miers to be rejected. Then Bush can pick a more serious candidate. There's plenty of time between now and the 2006 Congressional elections to fix the damage he's caused.

"Cronyism"

UPDATE: Douglas Kmiec defends the Miers nomination by briefly quoting Hamilton. Obviously he ignored Federalist 76.

Stephen Bainbridge takes Hugh Hewitt to task for putting so much faith in President Bush. Hey, I support the man, but the guy isn't infallible. Hewitt writes, "Either you are an originalist or you aren't. If you are, you can't be arguing that Miers 'isn't qualified.'" Hewitt has no idea if Miers is an originalist or not. Not James Dobson nor Douglas Kmiec have offered evidence to what her judicial philosophy is. That's the problem with her nomination. The Right put up with John Roberts because he had Federalist Society, Reagan credentials, and is so damn smart. (For me, the jury's still out on him.) With Miers we only know she is a church-going, loyal Bushie with breasts. That's not much in comparison to other potential nominees.