October 05, 2005

Concerns about Miers

Kevin McCullough gets the prime reasons many conservatives are unhappy with Harriet Miers' nomination:

1. They honestly feel like better people were passed over.

2. They don't feel like they know enough about Miers.

I'm sorry Kevin, but Miers being an evangelical Christian has little bearing on whether I think she should be a Supreme Court justice. I'd prefer a Satan-worshiping strict constructionist over an evangelical who believes in a "living constitution. I want a justice who will uphold and defend the constitution. Church going has little bearing on one's judicial philosphy. What I've gotten from the President and defenders like Hugh Hewitt is "trust him and his track record." Bush's track record with lower court nominees is good and is a positive for Miers. That leads me to Kevin's second point. Harriet Miers may be the most intelligent constitutional mind in America. Neither her supporters or opponents don't have any evidence either way. About what we know is the President trusts her. That's not good enough. Thankfully, the Senate will investigate, delve into her legal past, and ask pointed questions to divine her judicial philosophy. (At the same time the Democrats will grandstand and look like jerks.) The lack of a judgeship should not disqualify someone from being on the court. Neither should a lack of an academic job. (I'm not being a snob who's mad Miers didn't go to an elite school. Such accusations by Miers defenders are just run-of-the-mill ad hominem attacks. They're not pro-Miers rhetoric.) But in lieu of either we need to know if Miers has deeply considered the proper role of government and the courts. Thus the desire of a significant, serious paper trail. Running a Texas law firm doesn't replace that though it would provide the court with vital real-world experience.

President Bush didn't want a political fight. I'm not sure why. There's been no indication that Bush has governed by poll. After John Roberts' confirmation the man had momentum. Why pick someone from the second string?

I'm still a disappointed agnostic. I can't oppose a nominee I know next to nothing about. No George Will here. Yet, I can't go the Hugh Hewitt/knee-jerk route and back her. This dialogue between Hewitt and Stephen Bainbridge disturbs me:

HH: But given that...we all know that. But given that she's been nominated, what is the upside of throwing all these bricks? Do you want her to be defeated?

SB: The upside of throwing all these bricks is to let Bush know the base is getting a little tired of acts that Bush has done, that seem to me to be contemptuous of the base in some ways.

HH: Look, but Stephen, the base...

SB: And I think that we've got to start holding Bush's feet to the fire.

HH: Number one, that's a guarantee of losing ground in 2006. The base is splitting if it's effective criticism. Number two, on this position, and on the most important issue of the war, he has not moved an inch. Some people think he spends too much money. So what? It's less than four percent of GDP. But I really am amazed, and bewildered, by the eagerness with which conservative malcontents are assaulting the president on this. I think it is...I mean, I am just befuddled.

SB: And I think it's healthy.

HH: Healthy? Healthy to lose the majority in the Senate in 2006?

SB: I think it's healthy, because we don't have any other way of holding him accountable. He'll never be up for another election.

Dissent (in my case I wouldn't really call it that) doesn't mean we're abandoning the Republicans. It means many conservatives want their leaders to advance conservatism. What's good for conservatism is good for American. We're unsure if Miers advances that cause. I eagerly await the work of webloggers, reporters, and Senate investigators.

"The Case Against Harriet Miers: The Baseball Analogy"