Thursday, October 06, 2005
Final Thoughts on Miers (for now)
This will probably be the last substantive post until the confirmation hearings (assuming she makes it that far).
We’ve discussed the elitism issue to death. Simply put, it is not elitist to desire that a candidate have rock solid legal credentials. Roberts was easily confirmed not only because he had no obvious “ogre” moment, but also because it was clear that he was a gifted legal thinker. Someone like Michael McConnell or Michael Luttig, though perhaps more obviously conservative, had equally impressive credentials. It would have been very difficult for liberals to vociferously oppose either of these nominations. So why go for the “B+” option for a position that requires an “A.”
Again, this is not a manner of mining for the right vote. A member of the Court is expected to forcefully articulate the reasons for their vote. They should be able to express a clear judicial philosophy. I don’t care if Harriet Miers is pro-life, and I don’t even care if she is a likely vote against Roe. In fact if she were to base her opposition to Roe solely or principally from a moral standpoint rather than a legal one, then she’s even more unfit for the bench.
Bush and Miers supporters insist that we should “wait and see.” This is an inappropriate stance for such an important decision. There was no reason to have to “wait and see” when so many clearly qualified candidates are waiting in the wings. Furthermore, what exactly do they think will be revealed at the confirmation hearings? These are tedious affairs that tend not to demonstrate much about the candidate’s opinions. She cannot speak to issues that will come before the Court, so the only thing we might theoretically glean from the hearings would be some measure of insight into her reasoning abilities. But I am afraid even on this score we will not learn as much as we could.
Unfortunately, for conservatives who oppose Miers there really is nothing much we can do. Some have claimed that they are completely done with the Republican party. But we cannot blame the entire party because of Bush’s betrayal. For example, I will soon be a Maryland resident, meaning that next year I will be eligible to vote in the state elections. Should I withhold my vote for an honorable and principled conservative like Michael Steele because of Bush’s appointment of Harriet Miers? Should conservatives completely abandon the party that is our ideological home? What are the alternatives? The third parties are all terrible. I have not the slightest interest in wearing tin foil hats, for surely that might as well be the attire for these kook conventions. I do not smoke pot, so the Libertarians are out. And as for the Democratic party . . . let’s get serious.
Conservatives can send a message by refusing to contribute to the party, though in a sense we get to the issue of punishing the entire party. Much depends on the actions of Republican Senators in the coming month. Trent Lott of all people has paved the way, and I can only hope that distinguished gentlemen like Sam Brownback, Tom Coburn, and Rick Santorum will follow. But if the GOP Senators cave, then it will be time to put the checkbook away.
Finally, I should make clear something. I have always had my doubts about President Bush. I voted for him in both 2000 and 2004 – though not in the primaries. If I had a time machine I would still have cast my vote for him because the options were even worse. But I did not vote for Bush with the expectations of getting a Supreme Court Justice “who was better than the guy Kerry would have picked.” Well, no shit he was going to pick someone better, but that’s not good enough for the Supreme Court. That’s not good enough for a lifetime appointment to an institution that has too much power in America.
I also acknowledge that there are three years left in this administration, and there is much that he can do to reform this country. And I will not pull an Andrew Sullivan and retroactively oppose those actions which I have previously supported. I continue to back the administration’s war policies, and as this speech shows, he has a clear vision. He has even scaled pack on some the ridiculous political correctness that has hampered the war efforts. I also believe that the President is a good man at heart, and I am not as cynical as others about his motivation in appointing Miers.
But it is painfully obvious that George W. Bush is no conservative, at least in the traditional sense. This was fairly clear even before this past month, but the gap between conservative principles and Bush’s ideology is wider than I could have imagined. In 2008 we can not make the mistake again of nominating someone who deems it necessary to add the modifier “compassionate” before conservative. Someone who thinks the term conservative need be so modified clearly cannot be the leader of a movement.
We’ve discussed the elitism issue to death. Simply put, it is not elitist to desire that a candidate have rock solid legal credentials. Roberts was easily confirmed not only because he had no obvious “ogre” moment, but also because it was clear that he was a gifted legal thinker. Someone like Michael McConnell or Michael Luttig, though perhaps more obviously conservative, had equally impressive credentials. It would have been very difficult for liberals to vociferously oppose either of these nominations. So why go for the “B+” option for a position that requires an “A.”
Again, this is not a manner of mining for the right vote. A member of the Court is expected to forcefully articulate the reasons for their vote. They should be able to express a clear judicial philosophy. I don’t care if Harriet Miers is pro-life, and I don’t even care if she is a likely vote against Roe. In fact if she were to base her opposition to Roe solely or principally from a moral standpoint rather than a legal one, then she’s even more unfit for the bench.
Bush and Miers supporters insist that we should “wait and see.” This is an inappropriate stance for such an important decision. There was no reason to have to “wait and see” when so many clearly qualified candidates are waiting in the wings. Furthermore, what exactly do they think will be revealed at the confirmation hearings? These are tedious affairs that tend not to demonstrate much about the candidate’s opinions. She cannot speak to issues that will come before the Court, so the only thing we might theoretically glean from the hearings would be some measure of insight into her reasoning abilities. But I am afraid even on this score we will not learn as much as we could.
Unfortunately, for conservatives who oppose Miers there really is nothing much we can do. Some have claimed that they are completely done with the Republican party. But we cannot blame the entire party because of Bush’s betrayal. For example, I will soon be a Maryland resident, meaning that next year I will be eligible to vote in the state elections. Should I withhold my vote for an honorable and principled conservative like Michael Steele because of Bush’s appointment of Harriet Miers? Should conservatives completely abandon the party that is our ideological home? What are the alternatives? The third parties are all terrible. I have not the slightest interest in wearing tin foil hats, for surely that might as well be the attire for these kook conventions. I do not smoke pot, so the Libertarians are out. And as for the Democratic party . . . let’s get serious.
Conservatives can send a message by refusing to contribute to the party, though in a sense we get to the issue of punishing the entire party. Much depends on the actions of Republican Senators in the coming month. Trent Lott of all people has paved the way, and I can only hope that distinguished gentlemen like Sam Brownback, Tom Coburn, and Rick Santorum will follow. But if the GOP Senators cave, then it will be time to put the checkbook away.
Finally, I should make clear something. I have always had my doubts about President Bush. I voted for him in both 2000 and 2004 – though not in the primaries. If I had a time machine I would still have cast my vote for him because the options were even worse. But I did not vote for Bush with the expectations of getting a Supreme Court Justice “who was better than the guy Kerry would have picked.” Well, no shit he was going to pick someone better, but that’s not good enough for the Supreme Court. That’s not good enough for a lifetime appointment to an institution that has too much power in America.
I also acknowledge that there are three years left in this administration, and there is much that he can do to reform this country. And I will not pull an Andrew Sullivan and retroactively oppose those actions which I have previously supported. I continue to back the administration’s war policies, and as this speech shows, he has a clear vision. He has even scaled pack on some the ridiculous political correctness that has hampered the war efforts. I also believe that the President is a good man at heart, and I am not as cynical as others about his motivation in appointing Miers.
But it is painfully obvious that George W. Bush is no conservative, at least in the traditional sense. This was fairly clear even before this past month, but the gap between conservative principles and Bush’s ideology is wider than I could have imagined. In 2008 we can not make the mistake again of nominating someone who deems it necessary to add the modifier “compassionate” before conservative. Someone who thinks the term conservative need be so modified clearly cannot be the leader of a movement.
# posted by Paul Zummo : 5:46 PM
